Personalities in the Gaming Industry and Politics

[nothing to see here]

slight irony

It's great to see a topic ABOUT politics not denigrate into a closed down flamewar.

As somebody who works in a central political executive office in a (somewhat) sensitive capacity...I always felt the 'no politics' rule left me excluded on those threads talkin about" what do you do for a living" and such and such. Not that I'd spill the beans on who I work for anyway, but you get what I mean.

If game designers etc, posed their politics as largely positive representations of what they believe in -- it's quite tolerable. Blue Rose, for example, is one of the most strongly politically flavoured games I've seen, yet it goes great lengths to emphasize the positives of the political order it favours...while it has it's digs, it's politics are largely constructive.

A lot of what we're talking about however, is politics of a different kind.

I can't help but notice a reccuring theme among several posters expressing a certain "millitant cynicism" about politics in general.

There seems to be a bit of a crossover between gamers and conspiracy theorists (who, despite their outlandish views, actually embody the culture of millitant cynicism).

Of course "millitant cynicism" (they're all crooks, it's all about money, etc) is itself a political viewpoint...just not as readily self-identified as more traditional affiliations.

And watch out, millitant cynics are one of the most easily manipulated demographics in western societies. They are people just waiting for somebody new to hate. People like me get paid decent coin to ensure the people they hate are the right ones.

It's better to believe IN something than rail AGAINST something. However building a case for a cause you believe in is not nearly as cathartic as a good blog-based rant.

 

[Henry]

On the other hand, shouldn't artists feel free to express their political views in the appropriate venues without doing so completely anonymously? If Erik has a blog where he discusses games, politics, and anything else that happens to be on his mind, wouldn't censoring that be untrue to himself?

I'm not really posting this because I have an agenda. I'm curious what people really think about this.

Here's my take on the situation.

An individual, be they artist, writer, plumber, or financier, has every right to express himself on whatever topics he chooses in their own venues. They should also expect that some will react negatively to their points of view, and refuse to buy their products. They might even try to organize a boycott of some sort (we've all seen it happen). It may not be completely rational, but it's human nature, and perfectly lawful human nature at that, especially where something as passionate as religion or politics are concerned. It comes under expecting consequences for what we do, good or bad.

Some of my favorite authors and designers, I don't agree with their points of view. But unless it's something I'm violently opposed to (let's say they hate Oozes and think that Oozes should be banned from D&D) then it's not likely to stop me from evaluating the work they do, because I believe that the work or art that a person does can often take on a life of its own separate from the creator, unlike what George Lucas espouses that "without the artist, the art is nothing." If that were true, all art would languish after the death or inattention of its creator, and we all know that's not borne out by the truth. So one could be diametrically opposed to me in beliefs, but it won't change the fact that one does some damned fine work in one's field.

 

[Umbran]

Celebrity has a price

To use an appropriately in-genre phrase: With great power comes great responsibility.

Celebrities have as much right as anyone else to speak on whatever topics they wish. But, their celebrity means that (within however small a niche) their words carry more weight. So, celebrities have the responsibility to exercize their rights with care.

It seems to me that mixing together posts about their field of celebrity and politics is using the right haphazardly. It would take little effort to set up one blog for professional posts, and another for personal posts, or to filter or cut-tag. If the celebrity cannot apply that much forethought, they deserve what they get.

And if they mix politics with professional information intentionally, with forethought, that constitutes an attempt to use their celebrity as leverage in the political arena. In effect, they choose to make themselves political figures, heir to all the responsibilities of that ilk.

 

[EricNoah]

I agree that there might be "consequences" for speaking one's mind, or mixing RPG and political musings in a blog or other public forum. I assume that's what you mean by "they deserve what they get." So be it. But I wouldn't ask someone to compartmentalize themselves or their writing to make things more comfortable for the reader. If the reader doesn't like it, it's the reader's problem, not the writer's. In my opinion.

 

[Berandor]

To use an appropriately in-genre phrase: With great power comes great responsibility.

Celebrities have as much right as anyone else to speak on whatever topics they wish. But, their celebrity means that (within however small a niche) their words carry more weight. So, celebrities have the responsibility to exercize their rights with care.

It seems to me that mixing together posts about their field of celebrity and politics is using the right haphazardly. It would take little effort to set up one blog for professional posts, and another for personal posts, or to filter or cut-tag. If the celebrity cannot apply that much forethought, they deserve what they get.

And if they mix politics with professional information intentionally, with forethought, that constitutes an attempt to use their celebrity as leverage in the political arena. In effect, they choose to make themselves political figures, heir to all the responsibilities of that ilk.

I'd say that as soon as you attain a certain level of publicity, then you should try to back your opinions up instead of just spouting some party line. (or, as you advocate, use a different venue for your opinions)

A positive example for me is Bono from U2. I may not agree with him everytime (that's beside the point), but I'm sure he's very well versed in his topics. His opinions carry weight because he reserched them. However, I often feel that popular artists simply enjoy using their popularity as a vehicle for their opinion just because they can, and without thinking.

That's actually irresponsible - I think it's always irresponsible to talk about things you don't know much about, but if you have a built-in audience, it's doubly so.
ETA: But, to me, no gaming persona has achieved a level of popularity that would make this a real problem. I'm talking more about movie or music stars.

 

[S'mon]

I think everyone should be free to say what they think on their own website....

 

[S'mon]

Something else I think is that it's unusual how in the USA politics is now classed with religion as a matter of faith, something that's not up for debate. I don't think that's true in most countries, but whether it is or not, it shouldn't be - politics should be about debate and discussion on the perceived merits. I think it's sad that debate is no longer possible - and not just on ENW.

 

[DaveMage]

Something else I think is that it's unusual how in the USA politics is now classed with religion as a matter of faith, something that's not up for debate.

You're spot on.

Hence this article in the Seattle Times:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002319736_religion07.html

 

[heirodule]

So, one day, I decide to advertise my own webpage on the strictly family-friendly site, mentioning that I like to post somewhat random thoughts on my page - with the intimation that a lot of them will be scrapbooking related.

One of the first bits I've posted on my page is a conspiracy theory about how the government is secretly run by [non-family friendly types].

Shouldn't I have had the decency to let the family friendly website which I'm polling for traffic know that I might not actually be family friendly on my own?

No, because you have given such notice by stating that they will be random thoughts. (Or in Erik's case, a blog, which I would assume could be on any topic.)

I think people are looking to be offended.

 

[Henry]

I think it's sad that debate is no longer possible - and not just on ENW.

I believe that, in general, it will be again one day, and that it goes in cycles. Maybe that's just the optimist in me talking.