# Personalities in the Gaming Industry and Politics



## Darrin Drader (Jun 7, 2005)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> I do care about politics and I hope that Erik continues with his blog in all its apparently offensive glory.
> 
> From some of the posts here , it seems plain to me that you either object to any politics mixed in with gaming info or don't like the links Erik happened to post.




OK, the above came from the Erik Mona blog thread.

Now, I'm going to attempt to talk about politics without talking about politics. Actually what I'm interested in is whether or not people who write games, or are in the eyes of a given community, should associate themselves with politics.

Now, I'm going to come right out and say this because it is pertinent to the conversation. I am pretty left leaning. I suspect Erik's a little more to the left than I am, but that's irrelevant. I've been known to get my hands dirty at *cough* another forum *cough*, and wade into the political discussions. Like me and Erik, Sean K. Reynolds has been known to post political material on his website and his remarks can be pretty inflamatory.

I know that airing your political views here in these forums is not acceptable, and after seeing how things go on that other forum from time to time, I now see clearly why Morrus and Eric before him kept it off the boards. I support that decision on these boards. Frankly, there are people who are the coolest people to talk to until you start discussing those topics, and then things get all hostile.

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.


----------



## Napftor (Jun 7, 2005)

Unless it's part of the game material written, I don't want it anywhere on my gaming site (like this one).  I'm sure there's plenty of politically-oriented forums where people can go to express their opinions.  If you, as a writer, want to asociate yourself with politics, fine; but don't do it here as it has _no_ relevance to what you're writing.  A writer's background and interests are of minor concern when judging what it is he/she has penned.

Is this the type of answer you're after, Darrin?


----------



## Psionicist (Jun 7, 2005)

If you want this thread to live I think you should remove parapgraph 3 ("Now, I'm going to come...") and 4 ("I know that airing...") because, well, reasons. 

Anyhow, I dont give a dice about the authors political or whatever preferences as long as the books are good and don't contain propaganda.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 7, 2005)

Writers and artist should feel free to post their political views if they want.  Its when the political views starting messing with my gaming books that I have problems; it doesn't matter if I agree with it or not.  So, Political blog entries are just fine.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jun 7, 2005)

I think that if he is well within his rights to express his views (political or otherwise). I choose not to read his political views, but they do not offend me nor do they diminish my estimation of him. I disagree with his politics, but that doesnt make a bit of difference to my enjoyment of the hobby. On the flip side of the coin, it would be nice to have forewarning of political content when posting the link here. I know EM didnt omit this purposefully and later even apologized (uneccesarily, IMO) for not having mentioned it. Bottom line: as long as they are doing it on their own bandwidth (or bandwidth legally allocated them) and time, they are welcome to express their opinions on whatever they like, as far as I am concerned. I don't have to read it if I dont want to and neither does anyone else. Sometimes I think people are a little too easily provoked. Hell, some of the lefties were provoked into actually defending it staunchly and agressively in a similar vein to those on the right who seemed offended. Both reactions are knee-jerk in my opinion and ultimately, silly. I came to game, now where is my D20?


----------



## Planesdragon (Jun 7, 2005)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> Actually what I'm interested in is whether or not people who write games, or are in the eyes of a given community, should associate themselves with politics.




Yes, definitly.  Reasonable, bright, and intelligent people more than likely have something meaningful to contribute to politics, and in certain viewpoints these smart folks have a duty to their country to get involved in running it.

Politics aren't important on an apolictical business site, or an international site, but an author or an artist should be under no restriction whatsoever in expressing their political views on their own personal webspace or in their own personal communications.  (That likely goes for anyone, but creative folk were what the thread was started with).


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 7, 2005)

Post whatever you feel like at your own site. If people are offended that you're expressing your personal views on your personal site, well, it's a big wide Internet out there, and they can just pick another URL.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 7, 2005)

I think the issue is not necessarily the political views themselves.

The issue the manner in which they were presented.

Let's take a hypothetical.

I'm a rather important name in the Scrapbooking Industry.  Basically, anyone who's "in the know" about scrapbooking will recognize my name and be able to name one or two things I've done for the industry lately.

There's this family-friendly (and strictly enforced, at that!) Scrapbooking website that I frequent.  It's one of the better known repositories of Scrapbooking knowledge, and is frequented not only by myself, but numerous other Scrapbooking luminaries.    I've also got a bit of a reputation as being someone the family friendly mods don't really need to worry about.


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?

Is it required by law that I make such a notice?  Absolutely not.  However, one would assume that I would have the common courtesy to make that notice.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 7, 2005)

OK, that is a valid point about how you should let people know that there might be political material on the site. My forums, (which I'm going to keep plugging until I start getting some traffic), do contain political material (fair warning in case you were thinking about visiting).

But that's not quite what I'm asking. I'm simply asking whether you think that writers in this industry should be talking politics. It sounds to me like the answer is yes, as long as it is in the appropriate place.

I would very much like to hear if there are any dissenting opinions.


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 7, 2005)

My worry is that when game designers talk about their work and represent them and their work on the same place as they vent on politics, it makes me worry about speaking out on my own political beliefs if I would ever want a chance to get something published in that industry if I held opinions counter to those folks.

Now to use names of defunct political organizations and nameless people as examples:

It would be like a writer who was a known member of the Whig party trying to apply for a writing job with a company where everyone else was a card carrying Wobbly who attended rallies for that group and wrote stuff for them on the side. While it wouldn't necessarily carry over to their actual work, I'd be honestly worried of a dim reception of my application if I voiced opinions contrary to theirs and wanted to work for that same company. I'd worry that among the more influencial people of that industry it might be something of a Wobbly good old boys club and God forbid you have an opinion otherwise... that is a worry to some people.


And for a different angle completely:

For the designers/authors who are putting up their own political opinions on their own pages, it might be worthy to consider that some people might not agree with you and might not give your apolitical work a decent chance. For instance, some folks have refused to read anything by China Mieville because he's somewhere to the left of Trotsky and to an extent it carries over to some of his fiction. As a libertarian I disagree with many of his political opinions but it doesn't stop me from enjoying his fiction which I picked up on a recommendation from a friend. But not all people with different political opinions than you will be able to divorce a writers poltical differences with them from that author's apolitical work, and sales might suffer.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 7, 2005)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> My worry is that when game designers talk about their work and represent them and their work on the same place as they vent on politics, it makes me worry about speaking out on my own political beliefs if I would ever want a chance to get something published in that industry if I held opinions counter to those folks.




That's probably a valid point. What I can say is that WotC doesn't do this. Sean K. Reynolds, me, and Erik Mona are some known people in one camp. There are a few designers and developers at WotC who are in the opposing camp. All concerened had conversations about this during times of political stress and everybody involved got to keep their jobs.

Now to use names of defunct political organizations and nameless people as examples:

There is a person who, in real life, is very much on the opposite side of the fence from me politically. We've debated before. If I had the opportunity, I would be thrilled to work with that person on a project. Heck, I'd be happy to buy him a drink at Gen Con. But I guess you can only take that with a grain of salt since that's purely anecdotal.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 7, 2005)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> For the designers/authors who are putting up their own political opinions on their own pages, it might be worthy to consider that some people might not agree with you and might not give your apolitical work a decent chance. For instance, some folks have refused to read anything by China Mieville because he's somewhere to the left of Trotsky and to an extent it carries over to some of his fiction. As a libertarian I disagree with many of his political opinions but it doesn't stop me from enjoying his fiction which I picked up on a recommendation from a friend. But not all people with different political opinions than you will be able to divorce a writers poltical differences with them from that author's apolitical work, and sales might suffer.




That's true. There are people who cannot divorce Writer X's political beliefs (which he's only stated on his own personal blog) from his apolitical RPG writing (which he's talked about everywhere else).

You know what? You can have those people. I don't want 'em.

Anyone who's been to my own blog knows that I have some pretty strong political beliefs, and I'm not shy about airing them--in _that particular venue_. I'm glad politics are not allowed here, and I don't get involved in political debates on other forums that _do_ allow them.

And if someone cannot separate _Hamunaptra_ or _Strange Lands_ or _The Iconic Bestiary_ from what I've posted in my own personal journal, I frankly have no use for them. Even as customers.

I refuse to let the fact that I have a public voice (albeit a minor one, in a niche industry) keep from saying whatever I want to in my "normal" voice.


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 7, 2005)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> That's probably a valid point. What I can say is that WotC doesn't do this. Sean K. Reynolds, me, and Erik Mona are some known people in one camp. There are a few designers and developers at WotC who are in the opposing camp. All concerened had conversations about this during times of political stress and everybody involved got to keep their jobs.




You guys are a bit visible on that suffice to say and I've never seen anything otherwise from the opposing camp, so to speak. *shrug* It doesn't bother me much as long as you all write cool stuff and personal political opinion doesn't leak into gaming stuff. And I'm not aware of anytime it ever has.

Heck, among my own gaming group, last election it was an even split 50/50 on who voted for who, and it never became an issue for us. Though there was one player who got to say 'Bush is not my president!' because, well, he was Canadian 



> There is a person who, in real life, is very much on the opposite side of the fence from me politically. We've debated before. If I had the opportunity, I would be thrilled to work with that person on a project. Heck, I'd be happy to buy him a drink at Gen Con. But I guess you can only take that with a grain of salt since that's purely anecdotal.




Gotcha, and I'm the same way considering that my favorite game designer is probably on the utter opposite side of the political fence from me, and I'd sell my players' kidneys to work with them on something. *chuckle*


----------



## Vigwyn the Unruly (Jun 7, 2005)

The US is very polarized right now, and nerves are raw. Making your political viewpoints public in a business-related forum is likely to cost you some business--right or wrong, it's just part of life. People have very strong reactions to these things.

However, I don't think many people would hold your views against you if expressed in a non-business forum. That way, they can get all of your gaming goodness and avoid the things that make them feel bad.

My advice: keep it on your own site, and keep it well separated from the gaming stuff. People shouldn't see it on the front page--they should have to click to get there, and they should be warned what they're in for.


----------



## Angel of Adventure (Jun 7, 2005)

Politics and gaming have oh-so much in common that it will have to wait until a seperate thread.  IMHO, its a free country and to get upset that someone, such as an author of D&D or other gaming materials, has an opinion contrary to your own (or just good common sense) is no good for anyone.  Be free, think what you want, and let's all try to find a way to get along.

That being said, even though an 'artist' has can have political views, they should let their work speak for itself and respect the fact that people of all persuasions may enjoy what they've produced.  

As per politics in actual gaming materials, . . . I'd like it if they made for better gaming and hate them if they were not fun to use.


----------



## trancejeremy (Jun 7, 2005)

IMHO, I think artists (and celebs) should realize that no one really cares about their opinions on politics. 

That's harsh, but it's pretty much the truth.  If I wanted insightful political commentary, it wouldn't be from a supermodel or a lead singer of a band or the editor of a RPG magazine.


----------



## Imperialus (Jun 7, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> Anyhow, I dont give a dice about the authors political or whatever preferences as long as the books are good and don't contain propaganda.




In soviet Russia the dice roll you! (some sig I saw) http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1406


----------



## James Heard (Jun 7, 2005)

Just because people of all persuasions _may _enjoy something a person might create in no way makes them responsible for creating something that they all do though. Ultimately an artist's primary responsibility is to themselves. Some creative types might be fine with attempting to please everyone, but others absolutely rely on upseting some people in order to please others and themselves. There's no absolute here except your own principles as a creative person, as it should be (unless you've been hired to produce a specific product - then you've specifically signed away some portion of your ability to voice your own opinion for the good of your paycheck).


----------



## James Heard (Jun 7, 2005)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> IMHO, I think artists (and celebs) should realize that no one really cares about their opinions on politics.



And in response I think that anyone who doesn't care should realize they're under no obligation to read, watch, or in any way pay attention to them. Nor should a sincere and brilliant display of apathy toward someone's opinions invalidate it, or cause them to in some way feel obligated to stop expressing them. People don't have opinions because other people care, they have them because _they_ care. Changing someone else's opinion on something is just gravy and ego.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jun 7, 2005)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> IMHO, I think artists (and celebs) should realize that no one really cares about their opinions on politics.
> 
> That's harsh, but it's pretty much the truth.  If I wanted insightful political commentary, it wouldn't be from a supermodel or a lead singer of a band or the editor of a RPG magazine.



Are you implying that because someone enjoys some celebrity status he or she should _stop_ expressing his or her opinion?

Otherwise, I really don't get your point.  _I_ don't really care what _your_ opinion on politics is (nor that of the vast majority of the people in the world), but I wouldn't go out of my way to tell all of you that.

(BTW, the premise behind your first sentence is clearly and provably untrue.  Look at what has happened to some celebrities in the last few years who have spoken up about their politics.  Obviously, quite a few people care quite a bit.)


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jun 7, 2005)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> IMHO, I think artists (and celebs) should realize that no one really cares about their opinions on politics.
> 
> That's harsh, but it's pretty much the truth.  If I wanted insightful political commentary, it wouldn't be from a supermodel or a lead singer of a band or the editor of a RPG magazine.




There happen to be a lot of insightful blogs written by those with a lot fewer writing credentials than Erik Mona.

It's a BLOG.

It's not intended to be anything other than a BLOG.

There are a lot of them out there. It's quite the scene these days.  There are plenty of people  - some with credentials - many without who have developed quite a following through their ability to write and use links to illustrate a point.

I really think this come down to the topic simply not interesting you (or in the case of some, people not agreeing with the point of view).

Click "back" or forward or some other url.  It goes away from your screen.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jun 7, 2005)

Vigwyn the Unruly said:
			
		

> The country is very polarized right now, and nerves are raw.




Without putting too fine a point on it - I assume by "The Country" you mean "The USA".

It's the Internet. Seeing as the topic is game designers and political beliefs and the result of clashing perspectives arising from BLOGGED political issues (whatsoever they may be)... it would be helpful to recognize that there are a lot more people out there writing - and reading said Blogs than just Americans.


----------



## Vigwyn the Unruly (Jun 7, 2005)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> Without putting too fine a point on it - I assume by "The Country" you mean "The USA".




Yes, you're right, sorry if there was any confusion. I'll change it straight away.


----------



## Del (Jun 7, 2005)

I don't mind political forums but it's the owner/admins ball, they can take it away from you if they want.

Granted political discourse as a trained and educated spook is awesome fun. "Look at the confused little gun collecting pot smoking republicans ... just don't go too near the cage!"


----------



## twofalls (Jun 7, 2005)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> 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.




"Artists" as a group have a long celebrated tradition of involvement with politics, Ronald Regan and Arnold Schwarzenegger being gross examples. It seems to me that the question itself is much larger than just the gaming industry. Politicians have always sought after well known personalities to ally their campaigns with for good reason, it draws attention and taps into a mania that seems prevalent (at least in our western) culture, idolism. I'd like to think that when it's all boiled down, folks who carry with them a dollop of fame or even just notoriety will recognize that they have a slightly higher than average responsibility to represent themselves as clearly as possible, mindful that they influence the thoughts (and votes) of those who are their fans.  

To what extent this is true in the gaming industry I quite frankly just don't know. I find myself without any concerns at all about the political leanings of any of the authors who's products sit upon my shelves. Like others have stated here, I game to have fun, if I want political dialouge its easy enough to find. 

Now with regard to Eric censoring himself, that wouldn't be clear concise communication. So if he is going to air his personal political agenda to the public, with or without intent to influence others, I feel Eric has that higher responsibility to be clear and conscious of his message. 

Heck, not everyone is going to agree with ANY idea, we all know that. If we held back our own feelings and ideas about the world around us, how could we ever effect positive change in the world?


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 7, 2005)

1) Gamers, as a culture, like to find things to bitch about.   The political leanings of designers is just another category, like "pretentious games", "my preferred style of play is clearly superior to yours", "pop culture sux/geek culture rox", etc. etc. ad nauseum.   Someone once said that geeks, generally, like hobbies where they can demonstrate superiority in some fashion (coding, obscure knowledge, byzantine rules structures, etc.), because it allows them to compensate for years of being made to feel socially inferior.   It's a hang-up, like any other.    

2) The "artists/celebs should keep their political opinions to themselves" crowd only seem to mind when those opinions don't match their own.   Frex: tar, feather and crucify the Dixie Chicks for being critical of Bush, but Toby Keith is some kinda redneck hero for saying that the US will "put a boot up yer ass."    Whatever.   I'm sorry--but as a celebrity, you've got a lot of people's attention.  Why not say something that matters to you, rather than BS about your latest project?  Makes sense to me.

3) I'm with Ari 100%.   Halfwits who can't separate the art from the artist are welcome to their opinion....but I'm not going to lose any sleep over offending their delicate sensibilities and losing them as customers.


----------



## Monte At Home (Jun 7, 2005)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> My worry is that when game designers talk about their work and represent them and their work on the same place as they vent on politics, it makes me worry about speaking out on my own political beliefs if I would ever want a chance to get something published in that industry if I held opinions counter to those folks.




A fine, but misplaced worry. That is to say, in the 18 years I've been in the industry I can't think of one case where this was even remotely an issue. Every company I've worked at has had creatives of wildly different and fervently held political views, and it's never mattered one whit. I don't think, for example, that Sean (who's been pretty vocal on the topic) has ever wanted for work because of it.

I say "misplaced," because ironically it's not political talk that gets people work (or ensures that they get none), but gaming talk. Either talk about games themselves or companies or people in the industry. I know lots of people who haven't gotten to work with people or companies they wanted to work with because of things they've said to others or written about in magazines or the internet. And really, I'm not talking about legitimate reviews here or anything like that, I'm talking about criticizing people (or sometimes companies) directly, revealing confidential information, and that sort of thing. Does that mean that people don't have the right to say what they want to say? Of course not. Personally, I have respect for people who tell it like it is (although I have far more respect for people who have the wisdom to keep their mouth shut when the time is right). But it is naive to think that what you say publicly can't come back to bite you if you're not careful, depending on the situation. The game industry is small, and word gets back to parties concerned very quickly.




> For the designers/authors who are putting up their own political opinions on their own pages, it might be worthy to consider that some people might not agree with you and might not give your apolitical work a decent chance.




I agree wholeheartedly. There are musicians, writers, actors, for etc, who do or say things that I don't care for, but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate their work. Every interview I've seen with Russel Crowe, for example, has made him look like a jerk, but I still like Gladiator and really like Master and Commander.


----------



## John Morrow (Jun 7, 2005)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> Now, I'm going to attempt to talk about politics without talking about politics. Actually what I'm interested in is whether or not people who write games, or are in the eyes of a given community, should associate themselves with politics.




For the most part, my primary concern is whether their politics influence their work to the point where it becomes simplistic political propaganda or (as Bill Moyers called conservative talk radio and many conservatives call the show "The West Wing") political pornography.  There is an interesting editorial in Monday's Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal titled "When Drama Becomes Propaganda: Why is so much political art so awful?".  It can be found here:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006781

The end of the article reads:

_"All art, political or not, must make everything more beautiful in order to fulfill its most essential function, that of seizing and holding the viewer's attention. Any political artist who aspires to be more than a cheerleader for the converted must first learn this lesson, and learn it well. A boring work of art cannot convince anyone of anything, not even that we should believe what it tells us about the world in which we live. And nothing is more boring--or less believable--than a story with only one side."_

I'd argue that the same is true of role-playing settings and adventures.  Role-playing settings and adventures are much the same way.  Role-playing settings need conflict (one of S. John Ross' five elements of a commercially successful RPG setting) and a setting that consists of one Correct political perspective and a straw man to be knocked down isn't going to have much real conflict.

In many ways, I hold J. Michael Straczynski up as an almost perfect example of how an artist can be political but not let it ruin their work.  Straczynski is fairly left-leaning and an atheist (and makes no secret of it) but when he writes right-wing characters (e.g., Mr. Garibaldi) or religious characters (e.g., the Minbari), a right-wing or religious person can look at those characters and see someone that they identify with, not a straw man designed to be knocked over by the writer.  In fact, Straczynski was quite stunned to hear that George W. Bush's advisor Karl Rove came into a meeting that Bruce Boxleitner was attending with wife Melissa Gilbert (as president of the Screen Actors Guild) to tell Bruce Boxleitner that he was a big fan of Babylon 5 and so was the President.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 7, 2005)

John Morrow said:
			
		

> In many ways, I hold J. Michael Straczynski up as an almost perfect example of how an artist can be political but not let it ruin their work. Straczynski is fairly left-leaning and an atheist (and makes no secret of it) but when he writes right-wing characters (e.g., Mr. Garibaldi) or religious characters (e.g., the Minbari), a right-wing or religious person can look at those characters and see someone that they identify with, not a straw man designed to be knocked over by the writer. In fact, Straczynski was quite stunned to hear that George W. Bush's advisor Karl Rove came into a meeting that Bruce Boxleitner was attending with wife Melissa Gilbert (as president of the Screen Actors Guild) to tell Bruce Boxleitner that he was a big fan of Babylon 5 and so was the President.




I'm going to have to agree with you on that, though I am shocked the president is a big Babylon 5 fan.


----------



## Del (Jun 7, 2005)

Monte At Home said:
			
		

> I agree wholeheartedly. There are musicians, writers, actors, for etc, who do or say things that I don't care for, but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate their work. Every interview I've seen with Russel Crowe, for example, has made him look like a jerk, but I still like Gladiator and really like Master and Commander.




He also has a deadly overhand wit' the cell phone. Which leads back to our point: when is angery artistry too much? Generally speaking he crossed that line.


----------



## boredgremlin (Jun 7, 2005)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> OK, the above came from the Erik Mona blog thread.
> 
> Now, I'm going to attempt to talk about politics without talking about politics. Actually what I'm interested in is whether or not people who write games, or are in the eyes of a given community, should associate themselves with politics.
> 
> ...




  Okay as a conservative republican. About as for off of you left leaning folks as possible... i agree. If its your own blog site you should be able  to say whatever you want. For instance my name is Tim. If i had a website (www.timsopinion.com type of thing) and i said that penguins are the evil spawn of satan, canadians are midgets are planning to overthrow america and only the spork can save us. Well its my website and thats my right. The same as anyone else. No one has to go to your website, no one has to read your blog. No one has to approve of what you say or do. 

  Thats the great thing about online, a thing even better then what TV has. If you dont like what someone has to say then you dont have to hear it. Beyond even websites, on forums, like this one and the WOTC forum. There is an ignore option, you dont to even see anything someone has offended you had to say. You dont even have to leave the website to ignore someone you find offensive. 

  In closing, political correctness sucks, quit being such a , suck it up, deal with it, accept that not everyone is gonna agree with you, and be an adult.

Edit:  slight mimicking of a profanity filter.  --Dinkeldog


----------



## John Morrow (Jun 7, 2005)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> I'm going to have to agree with you on that, though I am shocked the president is a big Babylon 5 fan.




http://worldsofjms.com/usenet/post/021126a.htm


----------



## MonsterMash (Jun 7, 2005)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> IMHO, I think artists (and celebs) should realize that no one really cares about their opinions on politics.
> 
> That's harsh, but it's pretty much the truth.  If I wanted insightful political commentary, it wouldn't be from a supermodel or a lead singer of a band or the editor of a RPG magazine.



Often very true, though on the whole writers, who after all have to think for their work, tend to have more chance of having some sort of worthwhile views compared to actors, musicians or (even worse) celebrities. 

I'd say its fine for people to express their political views on a blog, after all the US has laws to guarantee free speech, but if providing a link from an explicitly apolitical site then there should be fair warning about political content.


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 7, 2005)

Monte At Home said:
			
		

> A fine, but misplaced worry. That is to say, in the 18 years I've been in the industry I can't think of one case where this was even remotely an issue. Every company I've worked at has had creatives of wildly different and fervently held political views, and it's never mattered one whit. I don't think, for example, that Sean (who's been pretty vocal on the topic) has ever wanted for work because of it.




And it's good to know that that's the way it is, as it should be. Of course as a person who's never made any serious attempt at doing anything in the industry, doing any writing like my storyhours or Planewalker stuff simply for the enjoyment of the act, I couldn't have said one way or the other how political opinion might impact people who did in fact work in the rpg industry. But as you and others have said, it doesn't make an impact, and that's good and heartening for this outsider to know.


----------



## Keeper of Secrets (Jun 7, 2005)

Frankly, I am usually interested to hear about the political views/philosophical views/entertainment views of game designers.  I liken it more to trivia.  Its much more interesting to learn about these things for comics writers since their philosophy can be caught easier in their writing.  I was shocked to learn that Frank Miller is a Libertarian, chain smoking Catholic (who takes all three pretty seriously, apparently).  

The problem occurs when the writer goes overboard and tries to shove a philosophy down your throat - especially in a gaming book.  When the guys at Central Casting (a series of books for help in creating backgrounds for characters) got around to their 'Modern' series they took some heavy handed views when they were talking about 'perversions' and 'psychological problems.'  Their heavy-handed disclaimers about what is right and wrong could have been there to appease parents who were esily shocked, but as an adult it always struck me as a little agenda-driven.


----------



## Belen (Jun 7, 2005)

Monte At Home said:
			
		

> A fine, but misplaced worry. That is to say, in the 18 years I've been in the industry I can't think of one case where this was even remotely an issue. Every company I've worked at has had creatives of wildly different and fervently held political views, and it's never mattered one whit. I don't think, for example, that Sean (who's been pretty vocal on the topic) has ever wanted for work because of it.
> 
> I say "misplaced," because ironically it's not political talk that gets people work (or ensures that they get none), but gaming talk. Either talk about games themselves or companies or people in the industry. I know lots of people who haven't gotten to work with people or companies they wanted to work with because of things they've said to others or written about in magazines or the internet. And really, I'm not talking about legitimate reviews here or anything like that, I'm talking about criticizing people (or sometimes companies) directly, revealing confidential information, and that sort of thing.




It's hard not to be critical in this hobby simply because it's creative in nature.  One person may find a book to be a gem, while another believe it should never have been made.


----------



## Lhorgrim (Jun 7, 2005)

I believe that everyone has the right to express their views in the proper venue.  A personal Blog is the perfect venue for political expression.

I am not in the same political camp as Erik, but I fully support his right to get _his_ personal message out on his blog.

I don't think it is a big deal that Erik didn't have disclaimer on the link post to his blog.  If he had put in a warning, I think most people still would have gone to the blog.  Some might have gone just to see what his politics were.  I do try to keep real life politics out of my D&D as much as possible, but that doesnt mean that I expect everyone involved with D&D to keep their political ideas concealed.


----------



## boredgremlin (Jun 7, 2005)

Politics are an unfortunate part of life. You can ask a person not to tell you what they think in straight forward terms but that doesnt mean politics arent involved in their work and thier life. 

   The fact is that a persons politics reflect thier hopes, thier dreams, thier beliefs in how the world should be. Its not possible to seperate a person from thier politics. Just because they dont come out and tell you that they believe in this or that doesnt mean that it didnt influence thier works. Artists especially. Everything that anyone says or does in life is influenced by thier morals and ethics. Asking a person not to share those beliefs in a straight forward way doesnt mean that they dont have them. Or that they didnt affect what you have seen or heard from that person. Just accept that politics are a part of life. Insepperarable from the rest of what people say, do or write.


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 7, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I refuse to let the fact that I have a public voice (albeit a minor one, in a niche industry) keep from saying whatever I want to in my "normal" voice.




This is my take as well.  If you don't want to get to know someone, don't read their blog.  

Personally, I feel no one can be harmed by reading something they disagree with.  The reason I forbade political (and religious) discussion from the get-go was not that these topics are inherently "bad," but that almost no one can discuss them without getting nasty, personal, rude, emotional, etc. and that it was no fun for me to "moderate" such discussion on my forums.   (And it's not just the internet; with few exceptions I have seen almost no one who could really "discuss" politics or religion in a way that didn't have my skin crawling because of all of the dirty tricks, emotional cheap shots, sloganeering, etc.  The reason: they want to "win".  You can't "win" a debate about ideology.)

I read a great quote just recently about how political debate should work: "True debate is about more than winning; it is collaborative truth-seeking."  In order to come to the table with "sound habits of thought" we need to do certain things: respect facts, research, and learning; think critically about sources of information including bias, credentials, funding sources and affiliations; examine our own unquestioned assumptions and motivations; practice open-minded listening; and resist "argument by slogan and sound-bite."

I think instead of telling RPG "celebrities" to shut up about their politics on their personal websites, it should be the reader's responsibility to choose whether to read or not.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jun 7, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> 1)
> 3) I'm with Ari 100%.   Halfwits who can't separate the art from the artist are welcome to their opinion....but I'm not going to lose any sleep over offending their delicate sensibilities and losing them as customers.




I am much more likely to be offended by your penchant for name-calling (halfwits) than your political opinions. Not everyone that is a politically active person is close-minded or arrogant (on either side). I understand that the voices become very shrill when preaching ethics and politics to others, but people should understand that theirs isnt the only point of view and respect others.


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 7, 2005)

I think it boils down to this for artists (authors, etc.) posting in a blog:

1) You are allowed to post/discuss your views in a blog.

2) If you discuss your political views in a blog, some people will agree with you, and others will disagree.

3) Those who disagree may choose not to purchase the products that you are selling.  That's one of the consequences of free speech - people can "enhance" their disagreement with you by not buying your products that they otherwise might have.

4) If you are willing to accept #3, then post away!  You most-likely will lose some customers.  If you are afraid of losing customers, then don't post controversial stuff.   

I asked Chris Pramas in the other thread about this, because he indicated that he may lose business because of his blog.  He felt that his freedom to post his views was more important than the bottom line.  Nothing wrong with that, IMO.


----------



## Belen (Jun 7, 2005)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> But that's not quite what I'm asking. I'm simply asking whether you think that writers in this industry should be talking politics. It sounds to me like the answer is yes, as long as it is in the appropriate place.
> 
> I would very much like to hear if there are any dissenting opinions.




Ok, I will play devil's advocate here.  The answer is no.  Writers or celebrities should not attempt to mix their career with their politics.  Using fame or status to force personal beliefs on others is wrong.  There is no difference between using status to foist political beliefs on another than using it to foist religious beliefs.  

Now, I am not saying that they always have to hide their views.  However, if I am at a Star Wars convention and talking to Timothy Zahn about his novels, then I am not there to here about his political leanings.  I want to hear about his novels.  I attended the convention because I love Star Wars and his books.  If he uses that time to talk about the Treaty of the Red Eagle and how the Superfudge is evil, then I have been cheated.

If I am sitting at the political flumph convention, then Zahn should fire away about his belief in the superiority of flumphs.

Blogs are tricky.  It is wrong to call them diaries because they are public.  You're not writing for yourself.  You are writing to an audience.  You want those people to listen to you.  That is the entire point of a blog.  If you're a writer in the tar industry and you decide to have a blog that is 90% about tar and you advocate your blog among tar enthusiasts, then you place comments about flumph in your blog, then you're using your audience to advocate your beliefs in flumph.

If you have a disaclaimer at the top of the page that says "This is my blog about gaming, life, and flumph."  Then you're covered and people have an idea of what they may find.  However, if you're happily reading about tar and then find an article on poison flumph, then it becomes a slight betrayal of your audience. 

End Devil's Advocate.

Personally, I have long thought that 99% of the writers in our hobby lean a certain wait.  Maybe I have been colored by people such as Sean Reynolds and Anthony Valterra, but I have come to half-expect certain political leanings.  No big deal in many cases.  I actually go to SKR's site from time to time just to see what is happening on his politcal boards.  The difference being that Sean clearly labels his site and you know what to expect.

Maybe I am a bit spoiled by ENWorld, but (for me) if a writer posts a link on ENWorld, I assume that it will follow the same guidelines of etiquette or be clear about the differences.  But then, maybe I am just hyper-aware because I am assulted by politics everyday.  My boss is always making comments, which is annoying because you are not allowed to disagree.  Politics also destroyed my last gaming group, so I have a strict rule about not mixing the two.


----------



## Berandor (Jun 7, 2005)

I'm fine with whatever political opinion someone espouses, as long as he/she is fine with me blatantly disregarding said opinion.

Honestly, though, a game designer or other artist is just like any other person. I know if I had to keep political opinions out of my personal blog, then I would be extremely unhappy, because there are things happening around the world that rile me. On the other hand, I force nobody to read my blog or said opinion pieces, nor do I force my (imaginary, I often suspect) readers to agree with me - though I might try to convince you of my point  Nor would I think that just because you might know me from a published story or the internet my opinion should be somewhat more worthy than anybody elses.

My opinion is more worthy than anybody else's because I'm right, and they're not, but that's another matter altogether


----------



## Belen (Jun 7, 2005)

boredgremlin said:
			
		

> Everything that anyone says or does in life is influenced by thier morals and ethics.




Politics is not about morals or ethics.  It is about power.  People may try to make it about morals and ethics, but that eventually makes it impossible for rational discourse to take place.  For some people, politics has become religion where only their beliefs and faith are right.  Facts become meaningless once that happens and hatred and disdain for people on the opposite spectrum become your ally.


----------



## boredgremlin (Jun 7, 2005)

I feel differently. Free speech and freedom in general is the most important thing americans have. Anything and anyone that tries to impinge on that is dead wrong. No one has the right to tell other people what they can and can not say. Men died to give the right of free speech to americans. So unless your willing to die to take it away again, (and fight for it, because i for will fight you to the death) you dont have that right. 

  You can disagree, you can not buy the products of people you dont like or agree with. You can call that person an idiot and list all the reasons why you think they are an idiot and your better. What you cannot do is tell them that they cannot speak. Not now or ever.


----------



## Belen (Jun 7, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I read a great quote just recently about how political debate should work: "True debate is about more than winning; it is collaborative truth-seeking."  In order to come to the table with "sound habits of thought" we need to do certain things: respect facts, research, and learning; think critically about sources of information including bias, credentials, funding sources and affiliations; examine our own unquestioned assumptions and motivations; practice open-minded listening; and resist "argument by slogan and sound-bite."
> 
> I think instead of telling RPG "celebrities" to shut up about their politics on their personal websites, it should be the reader's responsibility to choose whether to read or not.




You're a very smart man, Mr. Noah.  

I do not think anyone has asked the writers to shup up, at least, not here on ENWorld.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 7, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Politics is not about morals or ethics.  It is about power.




In my experience, politics is about money. Which is close to being the same thing as power, but not quite. Most people in the U.S. don't realize that the bulk of Congress' time every session is spent on approprations bills, determining how to spread Federal money around, fighting over the roughly 40% (actually about 19%, because DoD/HS is sacrosanct these days) of the budget that isn't on autopilot.


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 7, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> You're a very smart man, Mr. Noah.
> 
> I do not think anyone has asked the writers to shup up, at least, not here on ENWorld.




In the "Erik's got a blog" thread, I seem to recall people smackin' Mona around 1 for talking politics in his blog.  That's where I'm coming from, here.  


1. "Smackin' Mona Around" is a fun party game, btw!


----------



## Belen (Jun 7, 2005)

boredgremlin said:
			
		

> No one has the right to tell other people what they can and can not say.




And no one has.  At most, people have asked for a bit of common sense about when, where, and how to say it.  "Free" speach is a tricky road to follow.  I am sure that you can think of one or two things that you would never want to say to another person or that could cause you trouble if you said them.  

The funny thing about absolutes is that they never are.


----------



## Belen (Jun 7, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> In the "Erik's got a blog" thread, I seem to recall people smackin' Mona around 1 for talking politics in his blog.  That's where I'm coming from, here.




Well, I do not recall anyone getting really personal with Erik in that thread.  And he should not have felt the need to apologize for anything.  Erik is a good guy.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 7, 2005)

*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 (Jun 7, 2005)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 7, 2005)

*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 (Jun 7, 2005)

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 (Jun 7, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Jun 7, 2005)

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


----------



## S'mon (Jun 7, 2005)

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 (Jun 7, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 7, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 7, 2005)

> 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.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 7, 2005)

heirodule said:
			
		

> 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.




I agree that linking to an outside site that contains infringing material is not the same thing as posting infringing material on the website.  I think the purpose of the religion/politics ban on ENW is to prevent debate/flamewars rather to prevent offense per se?  So you can in theory link to sites that include religion/politics, you just can't discuss them on ENW?


----------



## S'mon (Jun 7, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> 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.




I believe you are probably right.  

Anyway going by that Seattle Times article you just need a good religious war in the USA & then you'll be a 'developed' nation just like us.


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 7, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I think the purpose of the religion/politics ban on ENW is to prevent debate/flamewars rather to prevent offense per se?




Exactly -- it's a matter of what volunteer message board moderators are willing to moderate.  Being a moderator is tough enough as it is.


----------



## Belen (Jun 7, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I believe you are probably right.
> 
> Anyway going by that Seattle Times article you just need a good religious war in the USA & then you'll be a 'developed' nation just like us.




I highly doubt the finding of the article in the Seattle times.  The polling questions seemed written to produce the results they wanted.
\
However, when I originally mentioned it, I was referring to people who believe that their politics is their religion.


----------



## Belen (Jun 7, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Exactly -- it's a matter of what volunteer message board moderators are willing to moderate.  Being a moderator is tough enough as it is.




No doubt.  No sure I would want to do it.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 7, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Exactly -- it's a matter of what volunteer message board moderators are willing to moderate.  Being a moderator is tough enough as it is.




 
So the question as to whether it's 'legitimate' to post links to eg a blog containing politics as well as RPG stuff doesn't really arise.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jun 7, 2005)

Napftor said:
			
		

> Unless it's part of the game material written, I don't want it anywhere on my gaming site (like this one).  I'm sure there's plenty of politically-oriented forums where people can go to express their opinions.  If you, as a writer, want to asociate yourself with politics, fine; but don't do it here as it has _no_ relevance to what you're writing.  A writer's background and interests are of minor concern when judging what it is he/she has penned.
> 
> Is this the type of answer you're after, Darrin?




I agree completely with you on this. I went the SKR's website once and came across his "little bloody hands" bit and I have to say that was the last time I ever went to his site and from that point forward I have never knowingly purchased a product designed by him or with major content from him.


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 7, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I highly doubt the finding of the article in the Seattle times.  The polling questions seemed written to produce the results they wanted.




What's the quote ... "lies, damned lies, and statistics?"


----------



## Henry (Jun 7, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> So the question as to whether it's 'legitimate' to post links to eg a blog containing politics as well as RPG stuff doesn't really arise.




Our bigger concerns are taking care of Spam and non-work-safe stuff (links to porn sites a such); it's never been an issue, but if the forums in general start fighting over it, we'd probably have to pay more attention to restricting those, too.

Personally, I hope it doesn't have to come to that.


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 7, 2005)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> ...that was the last time I ever went to his site and from that point forward I have never knowingly purchased a product designed by him or with major content from him.




And that's understandable.  Doesn't mean he should change the way he is or the way he runs his website if he's willing to accept the consequence -- that some folks will be turned off by that.


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 7, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> So the question as to whether it's 'legitimate' to post links to eg a blog containing politics as well as RPG stuff doesn't really arise.




You know, I posted a link to my politics-laden blog about 3 weeks ago and no one said boo.  I think that's because I did so in the "right" forum (off-topic).  Maybe it was that subtle difference that changes the whole issue?  In General RPG folks might have expected it to contain only RPG stuff.  Dunno...

(And my blog's gone now -- I didn't need a second "personal journal" and it was boring as heck anyway.)


----------



## The_Universe (Jun 7, 2005)

It seems that it would be logical to expect some personal stuff on a weblog that's explicitly personal (though one related to gaming by virtue of the blogger's career).  Politics are inherently personal, and I don't think it's out of line to expect someone to mention their own beliefs at such a place.

That being said, I don't think a warning (contains a political discussion!) would have been out of line.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jun 7, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> And that's understandable.  Doesn't mean he should change the way he is or the way he runs his website if he's willing to accept the consequence -- that some folks will be turned off by that.




Also true. But it should ring a small bell for people who consider doing the same. I could be wrong but if a gamer goes political then I see him losing more customers then he will gain. 

Who is going to go out of their way to buy from a game designer just because he has a similar political stance? Maybe a few but not enough in my opinion to offset the number of customers he will lose.

All of this comes with the caveat that I bet 90% of the people who have bought SKR's material have never been to his website and have no clue what his political leaning is and thus we are probably talking about a very small change in sales.

But a smart business person knows alienating and offending even a single customer is not a good thing. Word of mouth can be dangerous and we gamers just never seem to shut up.


----------



## Renshai (Jun 7, 2005)

One of my personal hobbies, besides roleplaying, is politics. I've become very involved in them. It is as much as part of my life as roleplaying is. Thats why I don't like seeing the two mixed, I suppose.

All game designers have the right to post their political views on their site, that "is" their right. However, when I go to a roleplaying site I want to read about RPGs or about that industry. Now, Erik's site is a blog so that is a little different.  I just don't care to read a political jab every now and then when reading Erik's insightful game material. Its very distracting. I'm not offended at all by his politics. I just want to read his gaming material without the political side.

The same goes for Sean Reynolds. I haven't been to his site since he had a certain title posted at the top of this website. I would very much like to purchase his Argonauts RPG, but the comments he made so long ago really turned me on him.

I guess my opinion is that an RPG personality should have a web presence for his gaming material and keep his/her blog seperate from that gaming material. 

Its not about being offended by a view different that my own, its about wanting to read about RPGs and not politics...

These are just my personal opinions on the subject. I don't dislike Erik for including political commentary mixed with gaming material, I just prefer that it wasn't there. That is self-centered I suppose... 

Ren


----------



## billd91 (Jun 7, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> 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.




I largely have to disagree with this. Celebrities have no more responsibility to check on their facts _than anybody else_ do before they spout off. I don't think that the cult of celebrity that surrounds certain people in the public eye changes that a single bit. If people fall victim to that cult and give more weight to what celebrities say simply because they are famous, that's their problem... well, it's all our problems in certain way because it means that critical thinking education has failed too many people at some point. But it's not the celebrity's fault.


----------



## Renshai (Jun 7, 2005)

> You know, I posted a link to my politics-laden blog about 3 weeks ago and no one said boo. I think that's because I did so in the "right" forum (off-topic). Maybe it was that subtle difference that changes the whole issue? In General RPG folks might have expected it to contain only RPG stuff. Dunno...
> 
> (And my blog's gone now -- I didn't need a second "personal journal" and it was boring as heck anyway.)




I'd say off-topic is the place for that kind of announcment.  Good call. 

You, boring? Now come on Eric!


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jun 7, 2005)

No one has any right to try and make a person sublimate their own views.  It's one thing to say that a certain forum (like this one) has a "no discussion of politics" rule, but its quite another thing to ask another person to sublimate their views under threat of financial reprisal - I won't buy from you because I disagree with your views.

Now, if those views are utterly and totally out there, that's a different story.  I don't think I'll be buying any Michael Jackson CD's, for example, and I'm unlikely to pay for an OJ Simpson autograph.

But so long as you're not an out and out whack job, I'll set my political and religious views to the side and buy your product based on what I think of your product.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jun 7, 2005)

I know anytime I go to someone's personal website that it will likely have personal opinions posted, and maybe not well segregated or with warnings.  

  A person of some type of celebrity will of course get more attention, not because their opinion matters more, or is well thought out, but because people have some kind of connection to or association with that person.  Sometimes I am very interested in what other people have to say when they feel they can be completely open, which is what I think happens in many blogs.  

Many times I read enough to know that what they are writing is pure unthought bunk and I won't waste more of my time.  Occasionally I find that what they write makes me a little warm and fuzzy as it validates my own thinking and stokes my ego a little.  And then there are those rare and honestly cherished moments when what someone writes really makes me think.  In the end it may not change what I think, but anytime someone gets me to consider my own thoughts and opinions it is effort well spent.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jun 7, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I highly doubt the finding of the article in the Seattle times.  The polling questions seemed written to produce the results they wanted.




Having lived in France (a highly Roman Catholic country, yet one that is very active in trying to seperate religion from the state) for five years in the past, and been through Europe farily extensively, I found the article to back up my own personal experience.


----------



## Henry (Jun 7, 2005)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> No one has any right to try and make a person sublimate their own views.  It's one thing to say that a certain forum (like this one) has a "no discussion of politics" rule, but its quite another thing to ask another person to sublimate their views under threat of financial reprisal - I won't buy from you because I disagree with your views.




Does "making someone sublimate their views" correspond with refusing to buy someone's stuff because of ideologies? To me, it's not the same thing. Making someone hide their views is more the province of censorship or blacklists, than boycotts.


----------



## Mark (Jun 7, 2005)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> But so long as you're not an out and out whack job, ...





_So far, so good..._


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jun 7, 2005)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> No one has any right to try and make a person sublimate their own views.  It's one thing to say that a certain forum (like this one) has a "no discussion of politics" rule, but its quite another thing to ask another person to sublimate their views under threat of financial reprisal - I won't buy from you because I disagree with your views.





Why?

I have a whole list of actors/actresses who I wont see their movies because I find them to be rather repugnent political weenies whose views I disagree with. 

I wont give them my money because to me that financially supports their stance. That and because it offends the hell out of me that there are so many sheep in this world who actually care what Tom Hanks might think about this president or that political situation. Where do celebrities get this deep profound wisdom that so many sheep in society must know and follow.

Gamers are no different. If politics is important enough to SKR to post it in his business site then his poltical stance is important enough for me NOT to financially support it.

I am sure politically extreme celebrities donate money to their pet causes. If they support causes I oppose or disagree with then it behoves me not to give them more money to support those causes.

The last thing I want to do is buy a SKR product and then find out later he donated $1000 to the election of someone I think is a whack job. ;-)


----------



## Pramas (Jun 7, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Personally, I have long thought that 99% of the writers in our hobby lean a certain way.  Maybe I have been colored by people such as Sean Reynolds and Anthony Valterra, but I have come to half-expect certain political leanings.  No big deal in many cases.  I actually go to SKR's site from time to time just to see what is happening on his politcal boards.  The difference being that Sean clearly labels his site and you know what to expect.




By and large, the game industry is actually pretty conservative. When I first started freelancing, I found that it was best to avoid two topics with my peers when attending events like GenCon: politics and music. Politics because I was invariably more lefty than other industry folk and music because so many of them were into music I found, shall we say, agonizing. And sure, I made friends who I could speak plainly to in off hours, but when I was acting in a professional capacity I found it better to keep politics out of it. And that's the difference between the Green Ronin website and my blog. You'll never see my use the GR site to promote my political views. My blog, however, is personal and I'm going to say what's on my mind there.

Chris Pramas


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jun 7, 2005)

> Originally Posted by Vigwyn the Unruly
> The country is very polarized right now, and nerves are raw.






			
				Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> Without putting too fine a point on it - I assume by "The Country" you mean "The USA"... it would be helpful to recognize that there are a lot more people out there writing - and reading said Blogs than just Americans.




This is why they hate us.

RPG-Related Corollary: It's also why a lot of gamers hate WOTC.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jun 7, 2005)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> No one has any right to try and make a person sublimate their own views.  It's one thing to say that a certain forum (like this one) has a "no discussion of politics" rule, but its quite another thing to ask another person to sublimate their views under threat of financial reprisal - I won't buy from you because I disagree with your views.




That's ridiculous. It's absolutely appropriate for a consumer to base his purchasing decisions on whatever whim strikes him at the moment.

It's no different than not buying from Wal-Mart for reasons that have nothing to do with the product and everything to do with their corporate image.


----------



## Henry (Jun 7, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> By and large, the game industry is actually pretty conservative.




As with BelenUmeria, this is actually a surprise to me, given my perceptions. But I'd love to find another venue to discuss it.


----------



## John Morrow (Jun 7, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I read a great quote just recently about how political debate should work: "True debate is about more than winning; it is collaborative truth-seeking."  In order to come to the table with "sound habits of thought" we need to do certain things: respect facts, research, and learning; think critically about sources of information including bias, credentials, funding sources and affiliations; examine our own unquestioned assumptions and motivations; practice open-minded listening; and resist "argument by slogan and sound-bite."




While I tend to agree with that (as I mentioned in another thread here recently, the original meaning of the phrase "politically correct" has to do with judging ideas based on their political implications rather than their factual or logical validity and I think that's very dangerous no matter who does it), I also think this idea leads to part of what is causing the inability for people who disagree to have a civil discussion -- the idea that to understand is to agree.  That's simply not true in my experience.  

Many American strying to do business in Japan get themselves in a heap of trouble when they assume that hearing "wakarimasu" (I understand) means "I agree".  It doesn't.  It means that they understand all of the details of the American's argument and don't want to hear any more about it.  They may not agree with the argument at all.  They simply understand it.

What makes this confusion a real problem is that when people of various political leanings make a comprehensive argument in support of their position to people who disagree with them, they assume that if the other side hears and understands what they are saying, that the other side will agree with their position.  When the other side often doesn't agree, they reject the possibility that the other side understands their position but simply disagrees and jump to the conclusion that the other side is unreasonable, stupid, inattentive, or simply evil.  They can't imagine why an intelligent person of good character could possibly look at the same facts and arguments and come to a different conclusion.  And once you stop believing that the people who disagree with you might also be of good character, all civility tends to break down.

(FYI, this is not the only issue where two concepts have been merged that shouldn't be, in my opinion.)


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 7, 2005)

John Morrow said:
			
		

> What makes this confusion a real problem is that when people of various political leanings make a comprehensive argument in support of their position to people who disagree with them, they assume that if the other side hears and understands what they are saying, that the other side will agree with their position.  When the other side often doesn't agree, they reject the possibility that the other side understands their position but simply disagrees and jump to the conclusion that the other side is unreasonable, stupid, inattentive, or simply evil.  They can't imagine why an intelligent person of good character could possibly look at the same facts and arguments and come to a different conclusion.  And once you stop believing that the people who disagree with you might also be of good character, all civility tends to break down.
> 
> (FYI, this is not the only issue where two concepts have been merged that shouldn't be, in my opinion.)




I agree 100% with what you're saying; I am, however, not seeing what "two concepts" I have merged or confused.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jun 7, 2005)

John Morrow said:
			
		

> While I tend to agree with that (as I mentioned in another thread here recently, the original meaning of the phrase "politically correct" has to do with judging ideas based on their political implications rather than their factual or logical validity and I think that's very dangerous no matter who does it), I also think this idea leads to part of what is causing the inability for people who disagree to have a civil discussion -- the idea that to understand is to agree. That's simply not true in my experience.



An excellent point.  There's a book called _The Crooked Timber of Humanity_ that lays out a similar argument in meticulous, beautiful detail:  it's one that I recommend without reservation, and it's one that profoundly changed the tenor, if not the direction, of my own political views.

While I don't debate politics here, I love to debate them elsewhere, usually on a board that modestly describes itself as "Fighting Ignorance since 1973 (It's taking longer than we thought)."  My favorite types of political debates are ones in which people scrupulously avoid insults, work to understand what one another says, concede valid points, and marshall facts and resources to support their viewpoint.  Given such parameters, I've actually witnessed people changing minds as a result of a debate, a site rare and miraculous as an ivory-billed woodpecker.

Daniel


----------



## drothgery (Jun 7, 2005)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> Why?
> 
> I have a whole list of actors/actresses who I wont see their movies because I find them to be rather repugnent political weenies whose views I disagree with.




Bah. There are way too many good entertainers (whether actors or writers or artists or musicians) whose politics I rather strongly disagree with to just give up on their work over it.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 7, 2005)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> Why?
> 
> I have a whole list of actors/actresses who I wont see their movies because I find them to be rather repugnent political weenies whose views I disagree with.
> 
> I wont give them my money because to me that financially supports their stance. That and because it offends the hell out of me that there are so many sheep in this world who actually care what Tom Hanks might think about this president or that political situation. Where do celebrities get this deep profound wisdom that so many sheep in society must know and follow.





The consumer certainly has the right to boycott for any reason whatsoever, with the realization that the boycott may not actually have a significant effect or might actually hurt other people as much as or more than the primary target. That's the nature of boycotts and complex business relationships.

But in defense of celebrities who spout off, as citizens of a free society, they have as much (or as little) right to spout off as anybody else. And people should care about their opinions in proportion to how well we judge them intelligent and informed individuals and not simply because of their level of fame. As for me, if I think Tom Hanks is smart and informed on the topic, sure I'll give him a listen. And if Charleton Heston is smart and informed on a topic, I'll give him a listen.
But personally, if I disagree with either of them and think they're sleazeballs for the political/moral/ethical beliefs (and the three are VERY hard to pull apart) but still think they do a good job at their main profession, I'll still go see their movies. You can still make a pretty good movie and still not be much of a person, as far as I'm concerned (to steal a paraphrase from Kirk Douglas).


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 7, 2005)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> "Fighting Ignorance since 1973 (It's taking longer than we thought)."




Isn't the very name, though, a sign that you (or whoever runs the site) believes that the "other side" is "that way" out of "sheer ignorance"?

My new thought...

Typically we assume that someone thinks the way they do because they have witnessed the world, compiled all of the facts at their disposal, and then formed an opinion or taken a position; and that they constantly re-evaluate their position/opinion as new facts are uncovered.  

I posit that people, in actual practice, do the opposite -- they form their opinions early, then seek out facts or other evidence to reinforce their world view; and they cling very hard to their position/opinion despite opposing evidence.  In effect: no one wants their opinions changed, which makes a lot of political debate kind of pointless. 

You know, it links right to a book I've been re-reading recently -- Games People Play.  People, in their human interactions, seek two basic things: they want "strokes" (physical or emotional, and positive or negative doesn't matter), and they attempt to create or participate in situations that reinforce their world view.  Hmmm ... maybe I can re-read that section and bring more to this later...


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 7, 2005)

John Morrow said:
			
		

> While I tend to agree with that (as I mentioned in another thread here recently, the original meaning of the phrase "politically correct" has to do with judging ideas based on their political implications rather than their factual or logical validity and I think that's very dangerous no matter who does it), I also think this idea leads to part of what is causing the inability for people who disagree to have a civil discussion -- the idea that to understand is to agree.  That's simply not true in my experience.
> 
> Many American strying to do business in Japan get themselves in a heap of trouble when they assume that hearing "wakarimasu" (I understand) means "I agree".  It doesn't.  It means that they understand all of the details of the American's argument and don't want to hear any more about it.  They may not agree with the argument at all.  They simply understand it.
> 
> ...




A fine post.  If I may add an additional point.  The days in which the point of a political debate was to convert the 'other guy' (or at least a neutral observer) have long since past.  Meaningful political debates these days are aimed at framing an issue in such a way as it maximizes the base of support you already have.  

Whie this approach is far better served by aggressive strident language...it only works to an extent.  From a purely 'strategic' standpoing any political forum that enrages your opponents more than it motivates your supporters is an absolute waste of time (why motivate the other guy?).  Blog opperators be warned.

If you can 'wedge' your opponent from his or her supporters (by framing the issues in such a way that they have difficult keeping peace in their flock), all the better...but either way, rationed reasoned comparisons of rhetoric as a meaninful strategic device, are a thing of the past.

Two sides each preaching to their choir is like two neighbours that keep turning up the volume on each other's stereos to drown the other guy out.  Whether you're conscious of it or not, that's the state of political discourse in most western societies these days -- particularly within new media (talk radio, documentaries, and internet message boards).

Hence the heated rhetoric...hence the hurt feelings.  Hence the flamewars, the thread closures, and the requirements to leave your politics a the door.


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 7, 2005)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> Two sides each preaching to their choir is like two neighbours that keep turning up the volume on each other's stereos to drown the other guy out.  Whether you're conscious of it or not, that's the state of political discourse in most western societies these days -- particularly within new media (talk radio, documentaries, and internet message boards).
> 
> Hence the heated rhetoric...hence the hurt feelings.  Hence the flamewars, the thread closures, and the requirements to leave your politics a the door.




Nicely stated.  That's it (the no-politics-at-EN-World rule), in a nutshell.


----------



## Henry (Jun 7, 2005)

Eric makes a good point - by the time we are adults, we RARELY make large swings in our political or religious beliefs, and when we do it's usually because of a dramatic emotional event (usually tragedy). In childhood, our basic values are usually set in place, usually by role models, and whatever we learn from after that point is colored by the basic tenets that we "know" to be true. Even when we break from the role models (usually in teenage years) we eventually come back to these role models, or our images of them from childhood at the least. It's where you often get the phrase 

_"MY God, I've become my father/mother/grandmother." _


----------



## Renshai (Jun 7, 2005)

It is a testament to the users at this site and their maturity, that this very thread hasn't turned into a flame war. 

If political discussions took place in this manner all over the world.... we'd be in a better place 

Bravo.


----------



## John Morrow (Jun 7, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

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




While I think many people here believe that to one degree or another, I do think there are practical limits to how extreme those opinions can be before people do hold the artist responsible for their views.  If a game designer were seriously denying the Holocaust, praising Stalin's methods, advocating the legalization of pedophilia, advocating taking the right to vote away from women, praising the practice of slavery, etc. I think that many people would be saying very different things here.  

There is a privately written role-playing game that can be found on the web written by white supremacists that deals with fighting a racial "holy war" against minorities.  I have no doubt that no matter how good that author's "art" is, they'd have a hard time getting a job in the industry and a lot of people would boycott their work if they did.  And the reason would be wholly because of their offensive personal opinions.

And, personally, I have no problem with that.


----------



## tonym (Jun 7, 2005)

I don't think politics is such a horrible topic that Erik, or anybody, should feel obligated to warn people about the presence of politics on their blog whenever they mention their blog.  Politics is part of the life in the same way poverty and sickness are parts of life.  They are unpleasant subjects to some extent, but they are also important subjects.

Whenever a person publicly endorses constraining political thought--like has happened in this thread--the person is actually (and possibly unintentionally) delivering a subtle, yet powerful political message.  

The person is, in effect, saying, "The people should be silent."

Tony M


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 7, 2005)

First quick apologies to Whisperfoot if I got his quote wrong.  I couldn’t find the exact quote below, I found it being quoted by someone else, but I thought when it came to the nuts and bolts of his original post so I went with it.  



			
				Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> I'm simply asking whether you think that writers in this industry should be talking politics.




Sure, it’s there right, like anyone else’s right, and if they want to exercise it?  Well so be it, but as some have already said others can exercise their own rights and not buy their stuff.


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 7, 2005)

> My worry is that when game designers talk about their work and represent them and their work on the same place as they vent on politics, it makes me worry about speaking out on my own political beliefs if I would ever want a chance to get something published in that industry if I held opinions counter to those folks.




Sometimes I'm scarred about this. And then, I remember I have very good friends and a life partner who happen to be of an opposite political opinion on fairly regular basis. Being coworkers, friends, even lovers doesn't imply that people have to agree all the time on everything. This is an unrealistic assumption that is bound to bring disappointment sooner or later.

I remember Mike Moorcock told me once "you can recognize mature people when they agree to disagree". How true.


----------



## John Morrow (Jun 7, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I agree 100% with what you're saying; I am, however, not seeing what "two concepts" I have merged or confused.




I don't think that you, personally, have necessarily done this.  But I do think the idea that people should sit down at a table and look at the facts leads a lot of people to the conclusion that such an honest meeting of minds should produce agreement.  So consider what I wrote as a warning that sitting down to talk over issues like adults is a good thing but don't expect it to work miracles.


----------



## Son_of_Thunder (Jun 7, 2005)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> Also true. But it should ring a small bell for people who consider doing the same. I could be wrong but if a gamer goes political then I see him losing more customers then he will gain.
> 
> Who is going to go out of their way to buy from a game designer just because he has a similar political stance? Maybe a few but not enough in my opinion to offset the number of customers he will lose.
> 
> ...





Amen to this, especially the bolded part. It's just smart customer service. Now, I would be far better off and spend lots more money if I didn't know your political views, your religion or your sexual preferences.

If I know them and don't agree with them, then I take my money elsewhere.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jun 7, 2005)

John Morrow said:
			
		

> When the other side often doesn't agree, they reject the possibility that the other side understands their position but simply disagrees and jump to the conclusion that the other side is unreasonable, stupid, inattentive, or simply evil.  They can't imagine why an intelligent person of good character could possibly look at the same facts and arguments and come to a different conclusion.  And once you stop believing that the people who disagree with you might also be of good character, all civility tends to break down.



It is just this sort of innuendo I get when I visit certain blogs of professionals who I admire for their work, and then read stuff that comes off just as you describe. And it is usually snarky innuendo, not face-slappingly obvious. I don't want to listen to people openly express that I am unreasonable, stupid, inattentive, or evil just because I disagree.

If they are going to run for the self-congratualtory "but I'm an artist" high ground when called on it, I will happily run for the degenerate "and I'm a consumer in a saturated market" low ground, and send my hard-earned money elsewhere.

We're I able to find blogs by creative professionals who were also professional in expressing their politics on their personal blogs I happily shrug it off and ignore our differences, maybe even with greater admiration for them and willingness to go out of my way to check out their stuff! But when I read that they look at me as a less-than-equal, so much that they see me as almost less-than-human... well pardon me, but I'm not that stupid that need to stick around for that kind of abuse, however rarely they express it.

I have found exactly the situation I described above so common that I make an effort to skip such blogs by creative-professionals. No, I don't go mining their archives to find something offensive. *shrug* When there is one that doesn't try to insult me, I keep it.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 7, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> 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.




Pretty much, yes.  If you step up and put your thoughts in a public place, expect the public to react to them.



> 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.




Ask them to?  No.  Expect them to be bright enough to do so without our bidding?  Yes.

If you're a professional, and you write publicly about your profession, you should expect (and probably want) fans of your work to read your writings.  That makes those writings an extension of your professional life.  It also effectively makes any other writings associated with the professional ones into part of your professional life.  Do you _want_ your political leanings (or health, or sex life, or whatever other private matters) to become part of your professional life?  Then don't mix 'em together in a publicly accessible place!  

Knowing when to separate the private from the public is part of "professionalism".  Folks who mix them willy-nilly aren't behaving in a professional manner, and will be judged accordingly.

It surely isn't difficult to segregate blogs into professional and personal subsets.  It isn't like I'm suggesting some onorous burden.


----------



## John Morrow (Jun 7, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I posit that people, in actual practice, do the opposite -- they form their opinions early, then seek out facts or other evidence to reinforce their world view; and they cling very hard to their position/opinion despite opposing evidence.  In effect: no one wants their opinions changed, which makes a lot of political debate kind of pointless.




I don't think the evidence really shows that.  Some articles to consider:

http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arch/6_29_96/bob1.htm
http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~camerer/web_material/latimes050204.htm

(A more scientific paper published in a peer-reviewed journal on the issues mentioned in the second article can be found at http://www.csbmb.princeton.edu/~jdgreene/ if the newspaper article is too unscientific for you.)

I think the last two articles may explain why people resist change and why purely rational arguments don't always persuade people to change their mind.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 7, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> _"MY God, I've become my father/mother/grandmother." _




I think there's a template for that that Aberrations book ...


----------



## mearls (Jun 7, 2005)

I've never really been clear on *why* industry people talk about politics. I rarely, if ever, bring it up on my journal simply because I doubt I have anything truly interesting to say about the topic. There are highly paid analysts and political scientists out there who have far more compelling things to say than I do. I think I have a much better chance of saying something interesting and thought provoking about games.

Aside from that, political discussions on the Internet are either sewers stuffed with shrieking, battling extremists or echo chambers designed to reinforce and comfort.

The odd thing is that I've met a number of people who seem to assume they know my political beliefs, but no one has ever gotten it right.

Monte mentioned that he's seen RPG writers get in far more hot water from industry comments than anything else. That's definitely true - a lot of people in the business make major, fundamental mistakes in assessing who they need to impress to get more work or make it as a full-timer.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 7, 2005)

I find it depressing that so many people want to equate the personal opinions of the artist with the art itself.

I find Orson Scott Card to be a religious nutjob.  Doesn't prevent me from really liking the "Alvin Maker" books.

Harlan Elllison is a grade-A jerk.   Writes brilliantly, though.

Bono has some seriously inflated opinions on his relevance on the stage of world affairs, but that doesn't change the fact that I like U2, and continue to buy their music.

Earnest Hemingway was a misogynistic, macho kook with a ton of personal issues....and I love his work.

Christopher Marlowe was a bisexual (possibly homosexual) who betrayed and spied against his friends on behalf of the government.   Doesn't change the fact that I consider him to be the greatest writer of the Elizabethan era. (_edit: just to clarify, it's the betrayal I have the problem with, not the bisexuality._)

In short....if you only allow yourself to enjoy art produced by people you agree with, you're going to have a very boring life.


"I won't see movies by X, because they hold political opinions I don't believe in" --- never mind that X is one of 400-odd people who worked on the film, and X made their money before the cameras rolled, so your little boycott doesn't effect them in the slightest.  It's slacktivism at its finest....a meaningless act which isn't hard to undertake, and serves no purpose other than to make you feel righteous.   Knock yerself out, I guess.


----------



## Son_of_Thunder (Jun 7, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> I've never really been clear on *why* industry people talk about politics. I rarely, if ever, bring it up on my journal simply because I doubt I have anything truly interesting to say about the topic. There are highly paid analysts and political scientists out there who have far more compelling things to say than I do. I think I have a much better chance of saying something interesting and thought provoking about games.
> 
> Aside from that, political discussions on the Internet are either sewers stuffed with shrieking, battling extremists or echo chambers designed to reinforce and comfort.
> 
> ...





Agreed. I'm looking forward to your stuff from WotC.


----------



## Miln (Jun 7, 2005)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> I think it boils down to this for artists (authors, etc.) posting in a blog:
> 
> 1) You are allowed to post/discuss your views in a blog.
> 
> ...




DaveMage, thank you for writing my reply for me!


----------



## Son_of_Thunder (Jun 7, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> I find it depressing that so many people want to equate the personal opinions of the artist with the art itself.
> 
> I find Orson Scott Card to be a religious nutjob.  Doesn't prevent me from really liking the "Alvin Maker" books.
> 
> ...





You're of course entitled to this view. I don't live a boring life, in my opinion. And I will knock myself out, cause I chose with my dollar.

Thanks for reminding me why I don't buy any Adamant product.


----------



## John Morrow (Jun 7, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> Eric makes a good point - by the time we are adults, we RARELY make large swings in our political or religious beliefs, and when we do it's usually because of a dramatic emotional event (usually tragedy).




I disagree with this observation.  I know of plenty of people who changed their political and religious views fairly substantially after they became adults, sometimes much later in life.  Sometimes it is because they were mugged by a reality that conflicted with their opinions but it's also often an evolution in opinions over time.  For example, the title of Harry Stein's How I Accidentally Joined the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (and Found Inner Peace) reflects this sort of transition, as do Dennis Miller's essays about his similar transformation of opinion.  And, yes, some people go from right to left later in life, too, so I'm not trying to suggest that this is a one way street.  But I don't think the cause of the change needs to be dramatic or tragic and it is not, in my experience (judging by my own relatives, friends, and others) all that uncommon.


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 7, 2005)

Maybe Henry meant "sudden" swings as opposed to "wide but slow (over time)" swings.  My dad swung from moderate liberal to moderate conservative over the course of years, but not all of the sudden.  Heck, we're all changing all the time and we do it so slowly we hardly notice it...


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Jun 7, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Knowing when to separate the private from the public is part of "professionalism". Folks who mix them willy-nilly aren't behaving in a professional manner, and will be judged accordingly.
> 
> It surely isn't difficult to segregate blogs into professional and personal subsets. It isn't like I'm suggesting some onorous burden.




_that_ is how it's done, ladies and gentlemen. not too wordy, not too extreme, not too clever.  just plain. common. sense.  

in a thread filled with numerous posts, on both sides of the issue, that truly are some of the best we've seen around here in some time, Umbran's above quote takes the proverbial cake.

how can anyone argue with that?  

W.P.


----------



## John Morrow (Jun 7, 2005)

(Accidental Duplicate)


----------



## billd91 (Jun 7, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> I've never really been clear on *why* industry people talk about politics. I rarely, if ever, bring it up on my journal simply because I doubt I have anything truly interesting to say about the topic. There are highly paid analysts and political scientists out there who have far more compelling things to say than I do. I think I have a much better chance of saying something interesting and thought provoking about games.




As a political scientist, I have to ask you: Do you _really_ want to leave running the country or even controlling the terms of debate, to highly paid analysts and political scientists? I'd argue that a large part of the problem is not enough participation by the masses. I'd encourage anyone who feels passionate about what they believe to do some due diligence in looking at the problems they feel are important and then get up on that soapbox and make their opinions known. And then put those opinions to work with other people who feel the same way. Gotta keep the government by, for, and of the people actually by, for and of the people.

I assume that the reason some people in the gaming industry (and other industries) post their politics is because they feel strongly about it. Good for them. As long as it's not in their  apolitical professional publications, fine. Blogs are fair game.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jun 7, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I posit that people, in actual practice, do the opposite -- they form their opinions early, then seek out facts or other evidence to reinforce their world view; and they cling very hard to their position/opinion despite opposing evidence.  In effect: no one wants their opinions changed, which makes a lot of political debate kind of pointless.



This is doubtless at least somewhat true, but it my experience the _extent_ of the ossification is highly negatively correlated with the extent and quality of the individual's education.  That is, highly educated people are more open to examining _all_ viewpoints (including their own) critically and logically.  (Not to mention more capable of doing so.)


----------



## John Morrow (Jun 7, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Maybe Henry meant "sudden" swings as opposed to "wide but slow (over time)" swings.  My dad swung from moderate liberal to moderate conservative over the course of years, but not all of the sudden.  Heck, we're all changing all the time and we do it so slowly we hardly notice it...




One of the things that causes seemingly sudden swings seems to be when one person does a wide but slow swing in one direction and their friends do a wide but slow swing in the other direction and they realize that they just don't have a lot in common with what their friends think anymore, which causes them to consider why.  That's pretty much what happened to Harry Stein.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 7, 2005)

Son_of_Thunder said:
			
		

> Thanks for reminding me why I don't buy any Adamant product.




Because I disagree with you???

Um.....OK.....


----------



## mearls (Jun 7, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> As a political scientist, I have to ask you: Do you _really_ want to leave running the country or even controlling the terms of debate, to highly paid analysts and political scientists?




You've never heard any of the epic political debates that occured around the dinner table at the Mearls family home. I am more than happy to discuss politics in the right context.

I have yet to see the Internet provide the proper context for intelligent, enlightening political debate. It's like talk radio, but even worse.

I have posted about donating money to tsunami victims. I may have posted something about the genocide in Darfur - I can't remember off the top of my head. But I know that my audience comes to my journal to find talk about games, not politics.


----------



## Mark (Jun 7, 2005)

John Morrow said:
			
		

> (Accidental Duplicate)





_I loved that movie..._


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 7, 2005)

_(I'm not a moderator, and this is not addressed to any one poster: but ... can we try to keep this from going into "one particular poster vs. another particular poster"?  Please?  Thanks)_


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 7, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> But I know that my audience comes to my journal to find talk about games, not politics.




I think that's a key distinction, right there.

You view your journal as addressing your audience.   In other words, as part of your branding.

Folks like Chris Pramas (and myself) view our journals as aimed not at our audiences, but at our peers and friends.   We communicate with our audience via forums like EN World and our own websites.

I think that, given we're in the infancy of this particular phenomenon, there is a disconnect between the two ways of thinking, with both groups attaching very different meanings to the same word (journal or blog).   Some view them as an extension of their public personae, and some view them as the virtual equivalent of a conversation in a pub.


----------



## Pramas (Jun 7, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> I've never really been clear on *why* industry people talk about politics.




Because I have a life outside of the game industry and my blog is an outlet for it. I work on game stuff seven days a week, so when I started a blog it wasn't so that I could spend yet more time writing about games. Now I do make the occasional post about games or the game industry but that's only a part of what I write about on my blog. I never pretended it was just about games, as the blogs of some other designers are (Matt Forbeck, for example, who goes so far as to get his updates promoted on Gaming Report). If gamers are interested, cool. If not, that's cool too.

Chris Pramas


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jun 7, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> Because I have a life outside of the game industry and my blog is an outlet for it.




So why not use a handle or nickname that won't get associated with your company?  You can distribute that nickname to people who you want "in the know".  You can still chat about gaming and whatnot, but it'll be seperate from your company.

It'll also let you openly air your desire to see a _Smurfs d20_ product (or whatever) and your fans won't think you've gone nuts.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jun 7, 2005)

I guess I've never really understood the idea of consumer activism.  I tend to judge things I buy based upon its individual merits, just as I try and do with the people I meet.  I may not agree with someone's politics, but that does not mean I won't have anything to do with them.  

My officemate at my last job was very far removed politically from myself.  We had quite a few loud, very intense debates (OK, more like arguements).  Never managed to sway each other at all, but I did get some great perspective on how he saw things and why.  And at the end of the day we could go out to a bar and have a couple of drinks together or have our kids play together because I knew that there was a lot more to him that just his politics.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jun 7, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> Does "making someone sublimate their views" correspond with refusing to buy someone's stuff because of ideologies? To me, it's not the same thing. Making someone hide their views is more the province of censorship or blacklists, than boycotts.




It's along the same lines.  If I am worried about expressing what is a fairly innocuous political opinion because I think it may cause me to lose money, that's a bad thing.  It isn't actually censorship, or blacklisting, but it's a step in that direction.

One of the things that concerns me here is taking a step (boycotting) that is sensible in one instance - I don't think I'll buy an album by that metal band because they ate their lead singer - and extending it further to those who are only mildly disagreeable to me  - I don't think I'll buy that other metal band's album because they think Ted Nugent is sane.  In one case, you can make an argument, in the other the argument is much weaker.  It seems to me , that the collapse of political discussion in the USA comes from reacting to a mildly opposing position with a reaction that would only be appropriate to a much more stongly opposing position.

If I feel I have to keep quiet about something in order to not be persecuted in some form, I think that's bad.


----------



## John Morrow (Jun 7, 2005)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> This is doubtless at least somewhat true, but it my experience the _extent_ of the ossification is highly negatively correlated with the extent and quality of the individual's education.  That is, highly educated people are more open to examining _all_ viewpoints (including their own) critically and logically.  (Not to mention more capable of doing so.)




I *don't* think that's true, either, though I think a lot of highly educated people think it is.  I've met plenty of highly educated people who think, by virtue of their education, that they have all they answers and don't need to hear the other side.  Whether a person is willing to look at other viewpoints has little to do with how much they know, in my experience.  It has much more to do with how much they realize they don't know.

(EDIT: replaced an important word that I dropped.)


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 7, 2005)

John Morrow said:
			
		

> I think that's true, either, though I think a lot of highly educated people think it is.  I've met plenty of highly educated people who think, by virtue of their education, that they have all they answers and don't need to hear the other side.  Whether a person is willing to look at other viewpoints has little to do with how much they know, in my experience.  It has much more to do with how much they realize they don't know.




And their ability to step outside themselves and examine their quirks, knee-jerks, assumptions, opinions, etc. with an objective eye, which is extremely challenging for everyone regardless of your education, I think.  So in some sense it's more a wisdom thing than an intelligence thing (to put it in simplistic D&D parlance. ).  I'm not particularly good at it myself!  But I keep trying...


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jun 7, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> That's ridiculous. It's absolutely appropriate for a consumer to base his purchasing decisions on whatever whim strikes him at the moment.
> 
> It's no different than not buying from Wal-Mart for reasons that have nothing to do with the product and everything to do with their corporate image.




I certainly don't mean to say people shouldn't use whatever particular whim strikes them as a reason to buy or not buy a product.  What I mean is that it is ultimately a bad thing for us all when those choices are based largely on relatively minor whims, and I would like people to give that more thought.  

Saying you don't want to support Wal-Mart is one thing, saying you don't want to support all large chain retailers is another.  I think you ultimately run the risk of marginalizing your own position.  I'm not a big fan of boycotts.  I tune them out in almost all cases, because they're over done.  Save it for when it matters.


----------



## Napftor (Jun 7, 2005)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> ...It'll also let you openly air your desire to see a _Smurfs d20_ product (or whatever) and your fans won't think you've gone nuts.




Is that nuts?!

*quickly pushes Smurfs research into desk drawer*


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jun 7, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> "I won't see movies by X, because they hold political opinions I don't believe in" --- never mind that X is one of 400-odd people who worked on the film, and X made their money before the cameras rolled, so your little boycott doesn't effect them in the slightest.  It's slacktivism at its finest....a meaningless act which isn't hard to undertake, and serves no purpose other than to make you feel righteous.   Knock yerself out, I guess.




Nope. 

It is called principles. I have them and live by them whether or not it will change the big picture. You dont bother to have them on things you don't feel you can directly affect. 

Neither is the right or wrong way to live.

BTW, out of curiosity do you like Wagner?


----------



## Belen (Jun 7, 2005)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> So why not use a handle or nickname that won't get associated with your company?  You can distribute that nickname to people who you want "in the know".  You can still chat about gaming and whatnot, but it'll be seperate from your company.




Right.  I think that if you want to distinguish between public and personal persona, then you'll want to separate them.  If you have a blog that is meant for just your friends and family, then go for it.  However, once a blog gets advertised to your audience, then it is no longer about your personal thoughts and quirks.  It has become professional.

IMO, if you're advertising your blog to your audience, then I expect it to be professional in nature.

Actually, blogs are so new that I really think that society has not created any sort of etiquette behind their use, kind of like cell phone use.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 7, 2005)

> BTW, out of curiosity do you like Wagner?




*Looks ahead to where any mention of Wagner in this context must inevitably lead, waits for thread closing*


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 7, 2005)

Napftor said:
			
		

> Is that nuts?!
> 
> *quickly pushes Smurfs research into desk drawer*




I told you, man....do the Snorkles instead.   They've got more _angst._  They're *edgier.*


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 7, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> *Looks ahead to where any mention of Wagner in this context must inevitably lead, waits for thread closing*




I was thinking that too...


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 7, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> *Looks ahead to where any mention of Wagner in this context must inevitably lead, waits for thread closing*




I assume he meant Robert Wagner.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jun 7, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> *Looks ahead to where any mention of Wagner in this context must inevitably lead, waits for thread closing*




It shouldnt close the thread. Just a question of curiosity.

By all accounts the German composer Richard Wagner was one of the biggest a$$holes to walk the earth. Of course he was completely forgiven and allowed to be the biggest a$$hole in the world because he was such a great composer.

It is much like post-WW2 France. Thounsands of german sympathizers were rounded up and arrested/ hounded / mobed/ etc....  yet much more well known famous French men and women who were also sympathizers but were also rich and or famous got away with it with little or no consequence.

Far too many people allow a double standard for the rich and famous. I don't and it seems that GMSkarka does.

As for Robert Wagner? Who cares. I never followed the case far enough to be able to have an opinion if he was guilty or innocent.


----------



## Belen (Jun 7, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> "I won't see movies by X, because they hold political opinions I don't believe in" --- never mind that X is one of 400-odd people who worked on the film, and X made their money before the cameras rolled, so your little boycott doesn't effect them in the slightest.  It's slacktivism at its finest....a meaningless act which isn't hard to undertake, and serves no purpose other than to make you feel righteous.   Knock yerself out, I guess.




Actually, there are only three actors who have sunk so low as to make my list.

No act of conscious is meaningless.  If enough people do not attend a movie because an actor has gone completely overboard, then the studio may not cast them again.  If you're going to have a public career such as acting, then expecting someone to be professional is not out of line.

This does not mean that they cannot express opinion.  However, it does mean that that should express that opinion in a professional way.  Rants, extremist, insulting, and inflammatory statements are not professional.  If an actor malignes a certain subset of people, then why would they want to see their flick?  I certainly do not want to support someone who thinks that I am worth less than moldy dog poop.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 7, 2005)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> It is called principles. I have them and live by them whether or not it will change the big picture. You dont bother to have them on things you don't feel you can directly affect.




You don't know me, sir, and know nothing about my principles, so I'd like to ask that you refrain from making such accusations.



			
				DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> BTW, out of curiosity do you like Wagner?




Some of his stuff, sure.  And yes, I'm fully aware that he's OMFGaNAZIfascistEEEEVILbadguyOMFG!!!11! (or, rather, admired by them)  Doesn't change the fact that some parts of _Der Ring Des Nibelungen_ are pretty cool.  (A lot of it is bombastic crap, though.  I prefer _Lohengrin_, in general.)

There.  I suppose that I've fallen for your clever trap.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 7, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Right.  I think that if you want to distinguish between public and personal persona, then you'll want to separate them.  If you have a blog that is meant for just your friends and family, then go for it.  However, once a blog gets advertised to your audience, then it is no longer about your personal thoughts and quirks.  It has become professional.
> 
> IMO, if you're advertising your blog to your audience, then I expect it to be professional in nature.
> 
> Actually, blogs are so new that I really think that society has not created any sort of etiquette behind their use, kind of like cell phone use.




I -- CAN'T -- STOP -- READING -- THIS -- THREAD

It still eludes me why some people blog.  Some people (ironically the 'political' bloggers) use the blogs as a means to disseminate information.  Others (personal bloggers) use their blogs to update dispersed friends and families on their commings and goings.

And then you have group three...seemingly 90% of the blogs out there...who use this new technology to spread their day-to-day musings with the world.  IF somebody thinks they're important enough that total strangers will swoop in and read their blogs...they better also believe they're important enough to be judged on their musings...not matter how unfairly.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jun 7, 2005)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> It seems to me , that the collapse of political discussion in the USA comes from reacting to a mildly opposing position with a reaction that would only be appropriate to a much more stongly opposing position.



If it is only mildly innocuous, whatever, the vast majority of consumers don't care. But when there is a faceslapping insult, don't expect to get sympathy playing the victim card when the insulted walk away. It is not so much the opposition, strong or mild, it is the tone and manner.

But the problem isn't so much insults as it is that everyone now has been given permission to respond to slight mistakes as if they were the worst most vile hateful thought. Folks see people on the opposite side flip out over seemingly mild, if not innocent, comments again and again and again. They are told by the opposite view that for them to not understand shows just how stupid, or rotten, or uneducated, or unenlightened they are... again and again and again. Not long, soon folks who have been told they are so awful, and they certainly don't think they are, mimic the hair-trigger sensitivity of the opposition.

It is that environment that is the reason people need to say things carefully and politely... not to censor themselves. Myself, I'm just suggesting simple restraint, deference, and careful phrasing, for everybody!... hardly censorship. Ain't gonna happen though so I just skip the blogs entirely knowing that I'm missing interesting hobby related discussions that aren't happening in "public" forums because I don't care to be insulted over hobby issues. The balkanization of the RPG-discussion forums continues apace.

Hmmm, it might be an interesting idea to start a blog that skims RPG industry personal blogs for RPG posts and links to the posts of interest to the RPGer. Sounds like a million-dollar idea...


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 7, 2005)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> Far too many people allow a double standard for the rich and famous. I don't and it seems that GMSkarka does.




Wow, did you ever misread that.


----------



## John Morrow (Jun 7, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> So in some sense it's more a wisdom thing than an intelligence thing (to put it in simplistic D&D parlance. ).




And excellent, and amazingly on-topic for this forum, way of putting what I was trying to say.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 7, 2005)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> Nope.
> 
> It is called principles. I have them and live by them whether or not it will change the big picture. You dont bother to have them on things you don't feel you can directly affect.
> 
> ...





It's not that stark a choice.  Some people like moral victories.  Nobody actually counts 'votes with your wallet' but if it makes you feel better for doing it, and helps you sleep at night...more power to you.  

Other people prefer to focus their 'activist' energy to causes which have a higher chance of achieving concrete victories.  It doesn't mean they're lazy or unprincipled, just that they measure their acticism not by righteousness but by results.

Nothing to get personal over at all.


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 7, 2005)

Miln said:
			
		

> DaveMage, thank you for writing my reply for me!




I live to serve.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jun 7, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Wow, did you ever misread that.





Not really. You have basically said that if someone has put out something you like enough you don't really care who or what kind of person they are.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 7, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> If an actor malignes a certain subset of people, then why would they want to see their flick?  I certainly do not want to support someone who thinks that I am worth less than moldy dog poop.




Yet, I'm willing to bet that if an actor ranted and/or made inflammatory statements that you AGREED with, you'd have no problems with that.

Isn't that hypocrisy?   If you have a problem with rants and inflammatory statments, enough to boycott, shouldn't that apply to ALL rants and inflammatory statements?

Of course, it doesn't.   This just gets down to double standards.  "If you say what I like, you're cool.  If you challenge my views, you're a jerk, and I'll threaten your livelihood, and the livelihood of anyone who works with you."   Tell me that you don't see a problem with that.....


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 7, 2005)

Well, folks, now we know what it's like to be on the Titanic as it's sinking....  Everyone wave to the camera!


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 7, 2005)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> As for Robert Wagner? Who cares. I never followed the case far enough to be able to have an opinion if he was guilty or innocent.




Wagner? Guilty or innocent? Of what?

Perhaps you are thinking of Robert Blake?


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 7, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Well, folks, now we know what it's like to be on the Titanic as it's sinking....  Everyone wave to the camera!





One hundred and fifty posts aint bad.  Somebody was bount to get way too wound up eventurally.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jun 7, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Well, folks, now we know what it's like to be on the Titanic as it's sinking....  Everyone wave to the camera!




*"I will never let go, Jack. I'll never let go." *


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 7, 2005)

I am genuinely happy at the civilized, polite, respectful level of this thread and how well it reflects on the community here at ENWorld.

That said, when an artist or celebrity uses their place in the public eye to push a political ideology or religious point of view, they have to accept that there may be consequences of that.  I make a point of not going to Tom Cruise and John Travolta movies because I vehemently disagree with the religious beliefs they publically extole.  I may agree with the beliefs and positions of some celebrities, but that doesn't mean I'll watch their movies and shows even if they are awful otherwise.

I regret that there are so few places where people can meaningfully have any kind of political discourse without it degenerating into a flame war.  Godwins Law gets invoked way too often nowadays.  Of course, people yelling at each other and making a scene gets ratings on TV, intelligent and moderated political discussion shows have faded from view.  This Week, Meet the Press and Face the Nation don't get anywhere near the attention of inflammatory demagogues, regrettably.  Physical violence sells in the movie theaters and TV, and verbal violence sells in politics.

I'm not anybody in any industry, I have a small blog, a livejournal under the same username I have here.  Even then, I make a point of making all my political postings and ramblings (which I do moderately often) friends-only, because I am mindful that political manifestos, strong ideologies can offend people and I really don't want some prospective employer finding my blog filled with my political ideas (in case they offend my potential employer).  As for celebrities (and for these purposes, published and known game authors count as celebrities), if they want to use their blogs to talk religion and politics, they're welcome to do so, as long as they are willing to deal with any consequences.  They have every right to their opinion and I'm not going to stop them.  If I strongly disagree with their opinion, I'll make a rational and reasoned comment on their blog, that's it.


----------



## John Morrow (Jun 7, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Wagner? Guilty or innocent? Of what?
> 
> Perhaps you are thinking of Robert Blake?




It all went down hill after he started working for Dr. Evil...


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jun 7, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Wagner? Guilty or innocent? Of what?
> 
> Perhaps you are thinking of Robert Blake?





Yes I was thank you for the correction. Which is funny because I didnt mean him at all and got completely side tracked by someone elses comment.

Anyway I did not mean to detract this conversation or insult anyone. 

My basic stance is if your views radically differ from mine and in the course of me possibly buying your product you rub your views in my face a la SKR then I won't buy from you. That is all and anything beyond that which I said should probably be either dropped or taken to private email.

Sorry all.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jun 7, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> And their ability to step outside themselves and examine their quirks, knee-jerks, assumptions, opinions, etc. with an objective eye, which is extremely challenging for everyone regardless of your education, I think.



Absolutely it's difficult for everyone.  But the difference is that educated people have the tools to think objectively, abstractly, and logically about their "quirks, knee-jerks, assumptions, [and] opinions."

For example, take progressive taxation.  Understanding progressive taxation as it affects _me_ is simple.  Understanding progressive taxation as it affects people _like_ me is only slightly harder.  But there can be no real _objective_ understanding of progressive taxation without understanding concepts like, but not limited to, what John Rawls' called "the veil of ignorance."

There are plenty of people who stand for and against progressive taxation without understanding the veil of ignorance, but their understanding of it is either subjective or simplistic, no matter which side they're on.  They do not have the tools to truly understand their own position, and thus they are not equipped to support it, to refute the opposing position, or to recognize _if and when_ they're wrong and think about exactly _how and why_ they're wrong.  If one is unable to do that, it is much, _much_ less likely that one will change his mind on a subject.  And even when one _does_ change his mind on a subject, his new opinion is going to be worth about as much as his old one.

It has become fashionable to claim that all opinions merit equal respect, but it is simply not true.  The opinion that is grounded in objectivity and logic is superior to one that is grounded in emotion and subjectivity, at least insofar as the consequences of the opinion in question, as social policy, affects others, like him and unlike him.  (In other words, someone's emotional attachment to Mandy Moore and thus his opinion that Mandy Moore is a better singer than Billie Holiday was doesn't really matter.)  The only thing sacred about opinions is that everyone has the right to hold and express them; that right of equal expression does not translate to equal value.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jun 7, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> I am genuinely happy at the civilized, polite, respectful level of this thread and how well it reflects on the community here at ENWorld.
> 
> That said, when an artist or celebrity uses their place in the public eye to push a political ideology or religious point of view, they have to accept that there may be consequences of that.  I make a point of not going to Tom Cruise and John Travolta movies because I vehemently disagree with the religious beliefs they publically extole.





LOL, you know if I was religious I might actually be offended that you just grouped my faith in with that cesspool known as scientology by calling it a religion.  ;-)


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 7, 2005)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> One hundred and fifty posts aint bad.  Somebody was bount to get way too wound up eventurally.




Somebody got wound up?   Where?

I haven't seen a single flame yet....(Or maybe my flame-tolerance-meter is skewed from too many years at RPGnet...)   

I think we're seeing some empassioned opinions, sure....but I don't see any "U R an ***hat!!" blasting going on.


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 7, 2005)

Or maybe the well-educated are better at finding facts/data/statistics/evidence that matches and reinforces their world view?    Dunno, just playing devil's advocate here...


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 7, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Somebody got wound up?   Where?
> 
> I haven't seen a single flame yet....(Or maybe my flame-tolerance-meter is skewed from too many years at RPGnet...)
> 
> I think we're seeing some empassioned opinions, sure....but I don't see any "U R an ***hat!!" blasting going on.




*Snickers*   You do have amazingly thick skin, sir!  I think I would have freaked out if someone had essentially called me a Nazi to my face.  

If you're ok with it, and given DocM's clarification recently, maybe the Titanic can continue on its voyage a little while longer...


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jun 7, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Or maybe the well-educated are better at finding facts/data/statistics/evidence that matches and reinforces their world view?    Dunno, just playing devil's advocate here...





Give me 15 minutes and the internet and I can find "facts/data/statistics/evidence" to support any arguement from any side.


----------



## Belen (Jun 7, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Isn't that hypocrisy?   If you have a problem with rants and inflammatory statments, enough to boycott, shouldn't that apply to ALL rants and inflammatory statements?.




Not really.  I tend to be an equal opportunity person.  If someone makes rants no matter what side of the spectrum, then they get ignored.  Like I said, only a very small number have made it to my list.  In fact, only 3.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jun 7, 2005)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> But the problem isn't so much insults as it is that everyone now has been given permission to respond to slight mistakes as if they were the worst most vile hateful thought.




Thanks, I think you said what I was trying to say a little better than I did...


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jun 7, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Not really.  I tend to be an equal opportunity person.  If someone makes rants no matter what side of the spectrum, then they get ignored.  Like I said, only a very small number have made it to my list.  In fact, only 3.





And you just are loving the fact that you have not named those 3 arent you?


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 7, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> *Snickers*   You do have amazingly thick skin, sir!  I think I would have freaked out if someone had essentially called me a Nazi to my face.




I've been working in this industry since 1988, and online in public fora since the beginning.

I've had gamers call me everything under the sun, make brutal hateful attacks on me about my divorce, threaten my children, and engage in real-world stalking.  (and no, I'm not kidding).

Having somebody insinuate that I'm a Nazi (or, rather, as I read it, attempt to corner me into appearing that way) is NOTHING.   Water off a ducks' back.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jun 7, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Or maybe the well-educated are better at finding facts/data/statistics/evidence that matches and reinforces their world view?    Dunno, just playing devil's advocate here...



Maybe so.  But doesn't that still mean that the less well-educated are forming and expressing their opinions _without_ finding or formulating such  "facts/data/statistics/evidence"?


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 7, 2005)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Absolutely it's difficult for everyone.  But the difference is that educated people have the tools to think objectively, abstractly, and logically about their "quirks, knee-jerks, assumptions, [and] opinions."
> 
> For example, take progressive taxation.  Understanding progressive taxation as it affects _me_ is simple.  Understanding progressive taxation as it affects people _like_ me is only slightly harder.  But there can be no real _objective_ understanding of progressive taxation without understanding concepts like, but not limited to, what John Rawls' called "the veil of ignorance."
> 
> ...




A good read.  I don't agree, but I like the line of reasoning.  This would be a great post for a great debate...if only a different time and place.

Qualifying somebodies views on the basis of their level of education or attention to the issues, sounds great, but is inherent undemocratic.

Democracy is all about having the right to be wrong.  If my friend Bobby Joe refuses to vote for any candidate with the letter 'E' in his name, his vote should (and must) be equally legitimate to mine, even if I base my votes on a complex comparative analysis of different candidate's economic platforms.


----------



## Belen (Jun 7, 2005)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> And you just are loving the fact that you have not named those 3 arent you?




Naw...there is no reason to name names.  That really would start down the thread closing path here at ENWorld.  

Suffice it to say, I am not worried about my really affecting the movie industry, just that I do not think I would enjoy a movie with those three involved.  Actually, they do tend to make bad movies, in general, so that is another major draw in my not going to see their flicks.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jun 7, 2005)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Maybe so.  But doesn't that still mean that the less well-educated are forming and expressing their opinions _without_ finding or formulating such  "facts/data/statistics/evidence"?




For what it's worth, polling suggests the more educated you are, the less likely you are to be a swing voter.

And, no, I don't have a link or whatever to support that.  It's something I read sometime last October or so.  I completely forget where.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jun 7, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> I've been working in this industry since 1988, and online in public fora since the beginning.
> 
> I've had gamers call me everything under the sun, make brutal hateful attacks on me about my divorce, threaten my children, and engage in real-world stalking.  (and no, I'm not kidding).
> 
> Having somebody insinuate that I'm a Nazi (or, rather, as I read it, attempt to corner me into appearing that way) is NOTHING.   Water off a ducks' back.




Nope was not trying to call you a nazi. Just wondering how far you would take your stance that if you like something enough you dont care what kind of person the creater happens to be. I have a rather short line, cross over it and I will find another product. Your line appears to be much longer than mine.

Like I said earlier, neither way is the right or wrong way to live ones life. You can seperate a person from the product and enjoy one without thinking about the other. I cannot. To a small degree I envy you for that.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 7, 2005)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> Your line appears to be much longer than mine.




Mostly because I view the product and person as two entirely different things.   Maybe it comes from creating stuff myself....I dunno.   I don't think of the things I write as being a part of me...once they're created, they are their own thing.  Kinda like kids, in a way....there is a relation, but they are not the same as their parent.

EDIT:  This just occurred to me:  I actually view artistic product (books, movies, music, comics, RPGs, whatever) as actually more a part of the consumer than the creator.  After all, WE are what make it meaningful to ourselves.   The musician doesn't make our favorite song.  They make a song, and we make it our favorite.   I think that view has a lot to do with why I don't mix the art and the artist.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jun 7, 2005)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> Qualifying somebodies views on the basis of their level of education or attention to the issues, sounds great, but is inherent undemocratic.
> 
> Democracy is all about having the right to be wrong.  If my friend Bobby Joe refuses to vote for any candidate with the letter 'E' in his name, his vote should (and must) be equally legitimate to mine, even if I base my votes on a complex comparative analysis of different candidate's economic platforms.



Would it greatly surprise you to learn that I completely agree?  I'm not advocating rule by educated elite.  I'm simply pointing out that the educated are better equipped to form robust opinions _and_ (almost paradoxically) better equipped to abandon opinions that have been discredited.

(One reason that I would never go for a "scholastocracy," BTW, is that the educated are _also_ well equipped to ignore and obfuscate completely valid and superior counter-arguments, should they choose to do so.)


----------



## Barak (Jun 7, 2005)

Politicians get my vote based on what their views are, because they all state their views (at least publicly), and they are supposed to represent them for me.

Artists don't get my money based on their views.  First all, they don't all state them, so it'd be kinda hard to make sure I don't support a crazy-dude.  Secondly, there is too many art out there that I hate.  I really dislike country music, for example.  But if country music artist X states his/her views, and I agree with them, I'd really hate having to buy his/her CD.  So instead I buy what I enjoy listening to.  Much less work, and allows me to listen to what I like instead of what whoever I happen to agree with makes.


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 7, 2005)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> (One reason that I would never go for a "scholastocracy," BTW, is that the educated are _also_ well equipped to ignore and obfuscate completely valid and superior counter-arguments, should they choose to do so.)




Heh.  This is an interesting statement considering you are discussing the issue with someone who uses the handle "nothing to see here".

That irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jun 7, 2005)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, polling suggests the more educated you are, the less likely you are to be a swing voter.



Well, of course.  The majority of people are poorly educated.  Thus a large percentage of our electorate is likely to cast votes based on (1) emotional appeals, and (2) subjective appraisals.  (Also known as the "Hey, I like this fella" and the "Well, I lost _my_ job, so this guy sucks" factors.)

(Edited to remove an extraneous and distracting phrase.  My bad.)


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jun 7, 2005)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Well, of course.  The majority of people in the United States are poorly educated (especially when compared to other First World nations.)  Thus a large percentage of our electorate is more likely to cast their votes based on (1) emotional appeals, and (2) subjective appraisals.  (Also known as the "Hey, I like this fella" and the "Well, I lost _my_ job, so this guy sucks" factors.)




Depends on what you consider poorly educated. I would love to see the data to support this statement.


----------



## Troll Wizard (Jun 7, 2005)

I have to admit that SKR's website really irked me last year, so that I quit visiting his website and made it a point not to buy any products with his name on them.  Secondly because he was working on a project with Monte Cook, I also stopped visiting his website and chose to boycott his products as well.
I had not thought myself all that political until last year.  It turned out to be quite an interesting year for my family, my wife's family, and even work.  With the exception of my father-in-law everyone is/was non-active politically and no one is religious.
We soon realized during political discussions that most of my family (myself and 3 siblings) had moved to the right, with the exception of one sibling who had moved to the far left... who is now living on the other side of the country.
My wife suddenly changed from a long-time Democratic to "I am not going to vote for Kerry, because he won't kill even single one of those sonsof..." the venom in her voice surprised and worried me, and I am a former Marine.
My father-in-law was a registered Democratic and union member, went ballistic when Kerry was nominated, he served two tours in Vietnam.  Now he hates both parties and he is pretty vocal about it.  My mother-in-law just stayed on the right and continues to rib him about Kerry to this day.
Even my work atmosphere became strange.  It is a hardware/software development company of 300+ employees, 90% of whom are hardware/electronics/spacecraft engineers and physicists.  The overwhelming majority of who are republicans, the rest are democratic and a few libertarians.  Last summer was really interesting, some of the younger engineers would make comments like “hey folks, there are now four Kerry stickers in the parking lot…” in the lunch room.  Before that it was obvious that several people walked on pins and needles, it seemed they wanted to vent, but did not know who it was safe to talk with.  My boss the senior VP of our group surprised me one day with his anti-administration comments, which surprised for several reasons, one being that he always seemed apolitical, he was normally a stickler for keeping religion and politics out of the office, but I guess even he needed to vent.  He must have thought that as a minority I would be in agreement with his views, which I wasn’t.  Luckily it did not affect my work and I did ask that we not discuss politics.

Last year (probably last five years) have been rather heavy with politics and to have my primary hobby invaded by it just annoys me to no end.  Visiting a designer’s website for free content, rules clarifications, and previews of upcoming products and getting smacked by the dogma of the left (or even the religious right) is just pouring salt into already open wound.
Express your views all you want, but it would be in own economic/business/professional interest to keep it separate from the material you are trying to sell.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 7, 2005)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Well, of course.  The majority of people in the United States are poorly educated (especially when compared to other First World nations.)  Thus a large percentage of our electorate is more likely to cast their votes based on (1) emotional appeals, and (2) subjective appraisals.  (Also known as the "Hey, I like this fella" and the "Well, I lost _my_ job, so this guy sucks" factors.)




Those two appeals work far beyond America's borders.  They're damn near universal, as our friends in France or the Netherlands could well testify.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jun 7, 2005)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> Those two appeals work far beyond America's borders.  They're damn near universal, as our friends in France or the Netherlands could well testify.




Interesting, so you think that they should have voted for the EU. I can admit that I dont know what the afore mentioned constitution looked like so I cannot say either way.

Have you studied it? Do you think they hurt themselves by voting no?


----------



## Belen (Jun 7, 2005)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Well, of course.  The majority of people in the United States are poorly educated (especially when compared to other First World nations.)  Thus a large percentage of our electorate is more likely to cast their votes based on (1) emotional appeals, and (2) subjective appraisals.  (Also known as the "Hey, I like this fella" and the "Well, I lost _my_ job, so this guy sucks" factors.)




I have a feeling that a good portion of people in most countries are just as poorly educated.  Remember, just because we see the public persona of another country, does not mean that they do not have just has many uneducated people.


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 7, 2005)

Folks, let's do our best to avoid discussing political particulars.  Let's not drag parties into this if we can avoid it.  It'll help the Titanic avoid icebergs.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jun 7, 2005)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> Those two appeals work far beyond America's borders.  They're damn near universal, as our friends in France or the Netherlands could well testify.



You're right.  There was no need for my inclusion of the phrase "in the United States."  My point has nothing to do with comparison of uneducated voters internationally, but rather with explaining the "swing vote."


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 7, 2005)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> Interesting, so you think that they should have voted for the EU. I can admit that I dont know what the afore mentioned constitution looked like so I cannot say either way.
> 
> Have you studied it? Do you think they hurt themselves by voting no?




A discussion I would love to have!  Just not on these boards.  My point was more about the appeals used by the winning campaigns...which matched up to Jeff Wilders two examples very nicely.


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 7, 2005)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Maybe so.  But doesn't that still mean that the less well-educated are forming and expressing their opinions _without_ finding or formulating such  "facts/data/statistics/evidence"?




My devil's advocate position is:

There is no superiority in finding and using only the facts that support your position, vs. not having any facts to back up your position.  

Furthermore, my hypothesis is that people make up their minds first, then find facts (if necessary) later, to reinforce their world view.  

Now... should a person decide that they ARE going to try to engage "all" the facts/evidence they can find, and allow their mind to be changed if necessary ... is the more educated person going to be better equipped?


----------



## Belen (Jun 7, 2005)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> Those two appeals work far beyond America's borders.  They're damn near universal, as our friends in France or the Netherlands could well testify.




Remember, this is the first time they were allowed to vote on any aspect of the EU.  For instance, the German government voted to ratify the EU constitution without a referendum, so the people of Germany did not get to vote on how they felt about the 400+ page document.

But enough of this for now.  If you want to talk more then send me a PM.


----------



## Erik Mona (Jun 7, 2005)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> For instance, some folks have refused to read anything by China Mieville because he's somewhere to the left of Trotsky and to an extent it carries over to some of his fiction.




And these people are missing some of the best fantasy fiction written in the last 25 years. Their loss, not China's.

To speak specifically to your post about the Whig party, I think I understand your concern, and I can say with authority that a person's politics does not enter into my business decisions in terms of what goes into the magazine. Not only would that be grossly unethical, but it wouldn't be good for the magazine.

As I understand it, Gary Gygax himself is something of a strict libertarian, and I would publish him in an instant because I like his writing and because it would be good for the magazine.

All of us are political animals, in one way or another. I'd like to think that the one thing we do share is a love of D&D, and that should bring us together, not split us apart.

--Erik Mona
http://www.superunicorn.com/erik


----------



## John Morrow (Jun 7, 2005)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> For example, take progressive taxation.  Understanding progressive taxation as it affects _me_ is simple.  Understanding progressive taxation as it affects people _like_ me is only slightly harder.  But there can be no real _objective_ understanding of progressive taxation without understanding concepts like, but not limited to, what John Rawls' called "the veil of ignorance."




Fundamentally, people support or oppose ideas like progressive taxation (and decide exactly how progressive they think taxes should be) on the basis of what they think is "fair" and how they believe human nature works, _even when they fully understand the issues involved._  In fact, there are two quite valid definitions of fair that roughly correspond to the two main political camps -- equality of opportunity and equality of results.

The fact that there are highly educated people with a broad variety of political opinions and opinions on things like progressive taxation should suggest that either there isn't just one right answer or that there is more to their disagreement than simply knowing the facts. 



			
				Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> It has become fashionable to claim that all opinions merit equal respect, but it is simply not true.  The opinion that is grounded in objectivity and logic is superior to one that is grounded in emotion and subjectivity, at least insofar as the consequences of the opinion in question, as social policy, affects others, like him and unlike him.




While I agree that all opinions don't merit equal respect, there are plenty of examples where the consquences of attempting to make decisions based on objectivity and logic are no superior in practice.  Why?  Because people rarely if ever have enough information to make a decision that's wholly objective and not based on any assumptions.  Economist Thomas Sowell talks about this in some detail in his books The Quest for Cosmic Justice and A Conflict of Visions.

By the way, if you haven't read them when I posted them earlier in this thread, you should probably read these two articles, too:

http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~camerer/web_material/latimes050204.htm
http://www.csbmb.princeton.edu/~jdgreene/


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 7, 2005)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> LOL, you know if I was religious I might actually be offended that you just grouped my faith in with that cesspool known as scientology by calling it a religion.  ;-)



Hey, I was being polite and diplomatic.  If I want to be honest, just go to www.xenu.net and read around.

Gamers are a diverse lot.  The ones I've always seen have tended to be an open-minded, relatively intelligent bunch who are capiable of seeing other points of view.  They've seen (or at least simulated) a variety of ideologies (alignments), cultures, and governmental systems.  

Although I am greatly saddened by the extreme political polarization that the US has taken over the last 5 or so years.  The nation is politically divided into two halves of roughly equal size and approximately opposite ideology.  In the past, you had a small extreme faction on both sides, and a large moderate middle that supported both ends to some extreme.  Now we've become factionalized and splintered.  Personally, I think it is intentional manipulation of the media and the electorate to appeal to the extreme ends of the spectrum, and use elements of fear to cow many of the moderates into supporting a radical agenda that is far beyond their own beliefs.  "Red State" and "Blue State" just serve to keep us split apart, and this nation isn't going to get any better until we learn to look beyond simplistic "us and them" divisions, or at least chill out and realize that a lot of "hot button" issues are really quite petty and small-time compared to bigger questions of the economy, environment and foriegn relations, but it's easier to create a moral panic and cast blame on a percieved enemy as the source of all problems than to fix difficult issues like the budget, trade policy, or environmental policy.

Approaching 200 posts and still civil and polite.  Don't want to jinx it, but things like this really do give me hope (Just as reading political flamewars on Fark deplete hope).


----------



## Belen (Jun 7, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Now... should a person decide that they ARE going to try to engage "all" the facts/evidence they can find, and allow their mind to be changed if necessary ... is the more educated person going to be better equipped?




My answer would be no.  Degrees are not a real sign of education.  Someone can get through college without ever educating themselves, whereas another may never have been able to afford an education but made real use of their library card.

But using degree to measure education is not a real sign of someone's knowledge.  A dumb person can pay their way through college.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jun 7, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Now... should a person decide that they ARE going to try to engage "all" the facts/evidence they can find, and allow their mind to be changed if necessary ... is the more educated person going to be better equipped?



Of course, even if only because a better educated person will be better at the research.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jun 7, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> But using degree to measure education is not a real sign of someone's knowledge.  A dumb person can pay their way through college.



You're the first person here to mention using degrees to measure education.  In an earlier post, in fact, I removed the phrase "whether formal or informal" because I believed it to be unnecessary.  (As a member of the California bar, I am _very_ well aware that real education and number of frames on one's wall aren't congruent.  Correlated, maybe.  At best.  One of the most well-read, well-informed,  and reasonable people I've ever known is a friend of mine who didn't finish high school.)

I was apparently wrong.


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 7, 2005)

That whole "I'll never have all the facts" thing really speaks to me.  I get very suspicious of anyone who claims to have all of the answers...


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jun 7, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> That whole "I'll never have all the facts" thing really speaks to me.  I get very suspicious of anyone who claims to have all of the answers...



Just because one can't have _all_ of the answers doesn't mean there's not value in (1) having more, and (2) looking for more.  Right?


----------



## billd91 (Jun 7, 2005)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> Give me 15 minutes and the internet and I can find "facts/data/statistics/evidence" to support any arguement from any side.




But given the internet's lack of authority control and the likelihood that you'd be cherry picking information doesn't do much to help your argument, assuming your opponent in the argument has any skill or knowledge at forming a good position. The proof of the pudding comes when you can back up an argument based on a wider variety of valid data from reputable sources.
That's why some opinions really have more weight than others.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jun 7, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> That whole "I'll never have all the facts" thing really speaks to me.  I get very suspicious of anyone who claims to have all of the answers...




What I don't like about that it that it can lead to "nobody can know anything and therefore I'm free to ignore your arguement".  There is such a thing as an objective truth.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 7, 2005)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> What I don't like about that it that it can lead to "nobody can know anything and therefore I'm free to ignore your arguement".  There is such a thing as an objective truth.




OMG!  This is the most fun thread ever!

After weaving through the minefields of politics and religion, we're about to enter a philosophical debate on the merits of moral and aesthetic relativism!

...and to think I only came to the boards a few minutes ago to look for tidbidts about DMGII...


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jun 7, 2005)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> OMG!  This is the most fun thread ever!
> 
> After weaving through the minefields of politics and religion, we're about to enter a philosophical debate on the merits of moral and aesthetic relativism!
> 
> ...and to think I only came to the boards a few minutes ago to look for tidbidts about DMGII...



Yes, but when we're done, although some of us may claim that "nothing is knowable," we'll _still_ all of us leave through the door.

(Holy crap.  Actually we won't!  Wait until I get to Hell and tell Hume he was wrong!)

Before I get back to doing what I _should_ be doing, I want to pose a question relevant to my argument for the correlation between education and value of opinion: how many folks skip the postings of some people here at EN World, but go out of their way to read the postings of others ... because they know that the former will be disorganized, rife with spelling and grammatical errors, and difficult to read or understand, while the latter will be just the opposite?


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 7, 2005)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Just because one can't have _all_ of the answers doesn't mean there's not value in (1) having more, and (2) looking for more.  Right?




*sigh* I guess.  

Man, and I almost had an excuse to just stop caring!


----------



## John Morrow (Jun 7, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Furthermore, my hypothesis is that people make up their minds first, then find facts (if necessary) later, to reinforce their world view.




Did you read the articles I provided a link to earlier in the thread?  That's exactly what some MRI scans of people's brains while they make moral decisions is showing. 



			
				EricNoah said:
			
		

> Now... should a person decide that they ARE going to try to engage "all" the facts/evidence they can find, and allow their mind to be changed if necessary ... is the more educated person going to be better equipped?




I would agree that there is a bare minimum of education need to be able to learn more.  Basically, you need to be able to read and know the basics.


----------



## John Morrow (Jun 7, 2005)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> You're the first person here to mention using degrees to measure education.  In an earlier post, in fact, I removed the phrase "whether formal or informal" because I believed it to be unnecessary.
> [...]
> I was apparently wrong.




In the common usage, "education" normally mean "formal education".  But I still don't see a strong correlation even with informal education.  There are plenty of people who research and learn only to support what they already believe.  Without the added element of wanting to challenge your own opinions, I still claim that education does not lead to open mindedness.


----------



## Mark (Jun 7, 2005)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> ...and to think I only came to the boards a few minutes ago to look for tidbidts about DMGII...





_Most of this thread can be used in-game, as well..._


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jun 7, 2005)

John Morrow said:
			
		

> In the common usage, "education" normally mean "formal education".  But I still don't see a strong correlation even with informal education.  There are plenty of people who research and learn only to support what they already believe.  Without the added element of wanting to challenge your own opinions, I still claim that education does not lead to open mindedness.





Far too often I see quite the opposite. The more "educated" formally someone is the more sure that they are right and less willing to change. Also I find that the more educated someone is the more important it is to them. IE they are more willing to use it as a scale to determine value and intelligence. If someone else does not possess an education beyond a certain level then they are not worthy of respect nor are their opinions.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 7, 2005)

Wow, sitting at my desk at work, reading in between job duties, I finally got caught up.

My opinion on the education issue is that it is only one factor that leads to an informed position. The other is that individual's specific situation. I'm going to try to avoid quoting specifics here, so let's just say that if a person feels that their situation will be better accomodated by one candidate over another, they may be likely to support that candidate, despite the fact that said candidate's politics might cause other consequences. The person who supports that candidate might simply not care about the other party since their needs/wants will be met. In my opinion, that person's opinion is just as valid as the person making the decision based on their morals and principles becasue it represents who they are and what they are.

So really, I think education level is just one of the axes. The other is personal situation.


----------



## John Morrow (Jun 7, 2005)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> What I don't like about that it that it can lead to "nobody can know anything and therefore I'm free to ignore your arguement".  There is such a thing as an objective truth.




For the record, I believe in objective reality, as well.  What I'm cautioning against is the other extreme -- the idea that knowledge and logic can solve all problems.  As with most things, moderation should be the objective.  A little humility goes a long way, too, but alas humility is dying as a virtue.


----------



## John Morrow (Jun 7, 2005)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Just because one can't have _all_ of the answers doesn't mean there's not value in (1) having more, and (2) looking for more.  Right?




That can depend on the quality of answers and how you go about looking for them.  If, for example, you only look for answers among friendly sources that agree with you, you are probably digging yourself into a hole.  If you want to find the answers, you need to look beyond sources that simply confirm what you think you already know.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jun 7, 2005)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> My opinion on the education issue is that it is only one factor that leads to an informed position.



Indeed, and being well-educated does not equal having well-informed positions. IMO, it is self-flattery of the well-educated to think otherwise. For example of what I mean, I cannot tell you the number of times I have met an allegedly well-educated individual who uses their once having attended college (and getting good grades) for justifying positions taken based on their heart and their feelings.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 7, 2005)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Indeed, and being well-educated does not equal having well-informed positions. IMO, it is self-flattery of the well-educated to think otherwise. For example of what I mean, I cannot tell you the number of times I have met an allegedly well-educated individual who uses their once having attended college (and getting good grades) for justifying positions taken based on their heart and their feelings.




I'm going to put forth a theory here...

I don't believe anyone _ever_ takes positions that don't have a basis primarily in their heart and feelings. They may have logic to support it, they may even have used logic and research and education to _reach_ it. But very few people, IME and IMO, adopt positions they cannot make themselves feel good about.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 7, 2005)

I should probably clarify that I'm talking about major life-style decisions, political decisions, and moral standards, not the relatively little stuff.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jun 7, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> "If you say what I like, you're cool.  If you challenge my views, you're a jerk, and I'll threaten your livelihood, and the livelihood of anyone who works with you."   Tell me that you don't see a problem with that.....




No, really, I don't. Honestly. I mean, it's a bit of hyperbole you got there. Choosing to purchase or not purchase your product isn't _quite_ the same as "threatening your livelihood." 

Everyday I go to game stores where I like the staff (or the customers); I eat at restaurants where they are friendly; I take my car to the shop where the mechanics aren't greaseballs; I prefer to get my hair cut by either an attractive woman or an old (maybe Italian) barber; I prefer the service at Lowe's but the 'grimy-ness' of Home Depot; and so on. None of these decisions really has anything to do with the product that I'm ultimately buying.

This doesn't directly speak to your "If you say what I like," comment but it's illustrative of the sorts of perfectly reasonable purchasing decisions that I think most folks make on a daily basis, even if they'd be difficult to justify if the only legitimate reference was the product itself.

And as far as 'challenging my views' goes, it's not as if I have a political litmus test that's pass/fail; but if I do happen to be in your shop, and you feel like you have to express a political opinion contrary to mine, then don't be surprised or offended when I choose to go someplace where I don't have to hear it. Doesn't mean you can't have your opinion, and it doesn't even mean I care one way or the other what that opinion is, just realize that if I have to HEAR it in the course of doing business with you, I might choose NOT to.

But that's partly because I have plenty of other places to go for those 'products.' 

Now, my experience is that most of the leading designers in the game industry lean left to my right. (And I think any suggestion to the contrary is about as valid as polling the local newsroom and finding out that they all consider themselves 'moderates.')

Most of them _also_ don't violate my 'don't push your crap in my face' rule, so no problem. If you _want_ to market your products part and parcel with your very opinionated views, and use your website to protest our fascist theocracy, then don't be offended or surprised if I choose to spend my money over at the more reserved (though in all likelihood equally left-leaning) games designer's site.

Surprise or offense is unlikely. I'm quite confident that such folks, who are as outspoken as me in their own views, are as comfortable as I am to see some folks walk away, and other folks to find common identity and come back for more.



			
				GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Having somebody insinuate that I'm a Nazi (or, rather, as I read it, attempt to corner me into appearing that way) is NOTHING.   Water off a ducks' back.




A ha! And if I am not mistaken, sir, you keep your hair quite short. _Quite. Short._


----------



## Pielorinho (Jun 7, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Isn't the very name, though, a sign that you (or whoever runs the site) believes that the "other side" is "that way" out of "sheer ignorance"?



The board admins highly frown on evangelizing about the board, and I'm in no way an authority over at the board ,which is why I'm referring to it only obliquely (anyone that wants to find it knows enough to do so). At the same time, the board's snarky motto is not at all referring to political positions (except inasmuch as a prioritizing of formal research skills and a strong undercurrent of skepticism qualifies as a political position). The "other side" really just consists of people who accept urban legends uncritically.  And yeah, I think they're ignorant .

The delight of the board is that I can go there, encounter brilliant people whose political positions are very different from mine, and have a gruelingly-intense political debate with them, full of cites to peer-reviewed research, news articles, history, formal logic, and legal opinions, without having the affair bogged down by personal insults, logical fallacies, or shallow rhetoric. 

If it were an echo chamber, it'd be worthless to me; as it is, it's the single best source I have for understanding the underpinnings of political positions different from my own.

Daniel


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 7, 2005)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> The delight of the board is that I can go there, encounter brilliant people whose political positions are very different from mine, and have a gruelingly-intense political debate with them, full of cites to peer-reviewed research, news articles, history, formal logic, and legal opinions, without having the affair bogged down by personal insults, logical fallacies, or shallow rhetoric.




On the Internet?? Now THAT'S fantasy!  

Seriously, sounds like you found a gem in the rough!


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 7, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> A ha! And if I am not mistaken, sir, you keep your hair quite short. _Quite. Short._




Nope:   Evidence behind the link

Now, the armor might say something about me, however...


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 7, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Nope:   Evidence behind the link
> 
> Now, the armor might say something about me, however...




Nah, the armor says nothing.

The little yellow plastic planter in the corner, however, speaks _volumes_.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jun 7, 2005)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> What I don't like about that it that it can lead to "nobody can know anything and therefore I'm free to ignore your arguement".  There is such a thing as an objective truth.




Exactly.

I'm a lawyer - a litigator in my day job and I put defences and claims in frequently that are questionable.  That is the nature of our system. (Though in Canada - if you are wrong - you pay the legal costs. And not just in theory - it is almost invariably imposed in practice, so the shake em down for money thing is a pretty dangerous tactic north of the border).

But I am not naive enough  - nor are our judges naive enough - to actually pay a bullcrap argument any sort of legitimacy unless there is really a triable issue.  And that's a mighty rare thing. Two to three percent of cases, tops, are truly worthy of trial.  In other words the "I can find evidence for my position in 15 minutes on the net" statements may be true - but AN argument is not the same as a GOOD argument, and it certainly is not the same as a WINNING argument.

Most of the time, these supposed "differences of opinion" are not valid differences of opinion at all.  In all but a handful of deep hot-button issues, there is an objective truth.

I absolutely agree with Jon Stewart: The Crossfire Mentality has measurably hurt America.  There is an objective truth - there is an evidentiary basis to make an informed and CORRECT decision.  The persistent belief that it's all "subjective" and "lies, dam lies and statistics" tends to be brought forth by someone who does not want to listen - or has listened quite well, thank you, and well understands that his position is pretty damned weak.  Rather than abandon the position in the face of some uncomfortable evidence, the defeated seek solace in a suggestion that it's all a matter of personal subjective opinion - *so screw you*.

Meh.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 7, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Nah, the armor says nothing.
> 
> The little yellow plastic planter in the corner, however, speaks _volumes_.




That's funny, I always thought it was the ceiling fan that spoke editions.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 7, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Nah, the armor says nothing.
> 
> The little yellow plastic planter in the corner, however, speaks _volumes_.




I'll have you know, sirrah, that the planter in question is WOOD, thankyouverymuch.  In accordance with the display guidelines for vendors at the KC Renaissance Festival.

I will let myself be called a Nazi....but some things just go TOO FAR.


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 7, 2005)

Can someone give me an example of one of these "objective truths" that is not particularly political in nature?  I just want to make sure I understand what we're talking about here.  Are we talking something like "slavery is wrong" or something more akin to "the earth is 5 billion years old"?

From where I sit, a person who says "objective truth" w/regards to politics/ethics/morality/etc. is a person who has decided there is no further need to look for evidence because the matter is decided, the case is closed.  But I may be unclear on what you are referring to.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 7, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> The little yellow plastic planter in the corner, however, speaks _volumes_.




If you’re going to shoot you might as well aim for the picture for the fairy in the background. 



			
				GMSkarka said:
			
		

> In accordance with the display guidelines for vendors at the KC Renaissance Festival.




Been a real long time but I use to go to those.   (way off topic so I won't say anymore.  )


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 7, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> I'll have you know, sirrah, that the planter in question is WOOD, thankyouverymuch.  In accordance with the display guidelines for vendors at the KC Renaissance Festival.
> 
> I will let myself be called a Nazi....but some things just go TOO FAR.




Ah. I besmirched a man's RenFaire honor.

In atonement, I offer my own garb, from last year's Texas Renaissance Festival: http://www.livejournal.com/userpic/21427785/47058

I'm afraid I only have the icon-sized pic online. I took the others off my site, due to space issues.


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 7, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> If you’re going to shoot you might as well aim for the picture for the fairy in the background.




You rang?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 7, 2005)

You know, I think it's the bowl-cut that _really_ makes that picture work, Eric.


----------



## John Morrow (Jun 7, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Can someone give me an example of one of these "objective truths" that is not particularly political in nature?  I just want to make sure I understand what we're talking about here.  Are we talking something like "slavery is wrong" or something more akin to "the earth is 5 billion years old"?




How about DNA exists and works through certain chemical processes?  See:

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/Ehrenreich.html

(This is also one of the reasons why I'm pessimistic about associating formal education with open mindedness, logic, and facts.)


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jun 7, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Nope:   Evidence behind the link
> 
> Now, the armor might say something about me, however...




You fell for my clever trap, you dirty hippie.


----------



## Renshai (Jun 7, 2005)

No, its that hat..and that collar.


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 7, 2005)

John Morrow said:
			
		

> How about DNA exists and works through certain chemical processes?




Cool, thanks.


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 7, 2005)

Renshai said:
			
		

> No, its that hat..and that collar.




The sash!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 7, 2005)

> Everyday I go to game stores where I like the staff (or the customers); I eat at restaurants where they are friendly; I take my car to the shop where the mechanics aren't greaseballs; I prefer to get my hair cut by either an attractive woman or an old (maybe Italian) barber; I prefer the service at Lowe's but the 'grimy-ness' of Home Depot; and so on. None of these decisions really has anything to do with the product that I'm ultimately buying.




While it is perfectly fair for you to make these descisions based on information that has no bearing on the quality of your purchase, I think it's important to note that this is, almost in definition, a shallow view.

Not that we all aren't shallow in many situations, just that this is an example of a lack of deapth in practice. It is the arbitrary equivalent of "I don't date blondes."

Not that it's invalid or anything, just that by living life by that code you're going to be excluding things that are very worthwhile simply because you would have to deal with a little bit of difficulty to find it.

That's not bad, per se, but it's very closeted. You'd rather be comfortable than discover true skill. You'd rather have everyone smile and nod, even if the true complexity of life lays behind those views. You'd rather have these people as tools, characters, figures empowering your own life, than have to pay attention to their human complexity.

Again, this isn't nessecarily a bad thing. It's easy to say that people generally don't say anything worth paying attention to, and that whatever reason you have to go to Home Depot supercedes whatever dim opinion of the government that the cashier has at the moment. People should do their jobs.

But at the same time, asking people to just do their jobs is denying the complex humanity that lays behind every person with a job. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe complex individuals generally don't have much wisdom to offer anyway, and ignoring them helps you achieve what you want to. But that's not dealing with them as individuals, that's dealing with them as tools for the advancement of your own goals, and desiring them to be nothing more....

Of course, this probably doesn't accurately reflect your own views, either, but that above statement can be seen as evidence for it, ya?

For me, I'm not about to pretend that shallow traits like professionalism and public face *don't* influence what I do. I'm not about to trust my car to a shop that employs arrested carjackers, even if the criminals are the best mechanics on the planet. However, I'm not about to get rid of a good store because their cashiers offer me an opinion.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 8, 2005)

After slogging my way through all 6 pages of this amazingly civil (and thoroughly interesting) dialogue, I'll chip in my two cents.

I think what people are talking about is not "objective truth" but "objective fact." Science (and reasoned logical argument) is about facts, not truth. To borrow a quote from an Indiana Jones movie  (_Last Crusade_ for the curious), "if you're looking for truth, the philosophy class is down the hall."

Certainly it's possible to find arguments and statistics for all kinds of things. But real debate involves two (or more) people, operating from the same set of assumptions and trying to decide what to do. As I was growing up, my family had all kinds of discussions around our dinner table, frequently engaging in such minefield topics as politics, religion, philosophy, and ethics. But the one thing we NEVER did was argue facts. You can't have a reasoned discourse if you disagree on the facts.

Once the facts have been established, a real discussion can be had. Until then, it's noise. And what's going on today in media often is people screaming at each other over whose facts are right. That's not exactly difficult to solve. Facts can be looked up, studied and verified. If you have an opinion based on false facts (which aren't really facts at all), it's not worth a thing. Now you might reach the same conclusion even if you had real facts, but it being based on fact makes it, in one sense, a totally different opinion.

And in my opinion, slipshod attention to fact is what has degenerated political discourse in general. Obviously some people might disagree.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jun 8, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Can someone give me an example of one of these "objective truths" that is not particularly political in nature?  I just want to make sure I understand what we're talking about here.  Are we talking something like "slavery is wrong" or something more akin to "the earth is 5 billion years old"?




You have invited disaster.  Let's go half way in the middle :

1 - It is objective truth that the "theory" of evolution explains the origin of species and best explains the creation of and rise of the human species to dominance on this planet.

From which flows

2- It is objective truth that we were not literally created in the Garden of Eden some 5,600 years ago and granted the earth through the divine providence of God.

One is a matter of measureable and predictable science that is wholly consistent with the fossil record while creationism is a tenet of faith that flies against all the evidence.

From this - a very great deal of uncomfortable evidence and objective truth flows.  

I'd say - "let's discuss" - but I expect that is counterproductive.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 8, 2005)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> Also true. But it should ring a small bell for people who consider doing the same. I could be wrong but if a gamer goes political then I see him losing more customers then he will gain.
> 
> Who is going to go out of their way to buy from a game designer just because he has a similar political stance? Maybe a few but not enough in my opinion to offset the number of customers he will lose.
> 
> ...




I don't know about most people but I support people who have the courage to stand up for what they believe. Even if I disagree with them. I went out and bought Dixie Chicks CDs even though I don't really like their music when radio stations were trying to get people to ban them them for stating what they believed. 

You see to me if people don't stand up for what they believe because they are afraid of the consequences then we are heading to a a very dangerous place. A place like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. Think about it. Look at the author Rushee who has a death sentence on him because he wrote things that offended certain muslims.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jun 8, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Can someone give me an example of one of these "objective truths" that is not particularly political in nature?  I just want to make sure I understand what we're talking about here.  Are we talking something like "slavery is wrong" or something more akin to "the earth is 5 billion years old"?




I'll give you one that is mildly political in nature.  

You are an educator by trade if I remember correctly (if I don't remember correctly, please pretend to be one for the duration of this post).  You have some ideas about teacher pay, class size, vouchers, testing and whatnot.  Let's say the topic is teacher pay.

One way to spin data is to take teacher salary for a 1st year educator who teaches no other classes and doesn't work in the summer.  That data can be passed off as "some teachers only earn X per year"!  

Another way to spin the data is to take the salary of a 30 year educator who also picks up some coaching and summer school.  That data can be passed off as "teacher salaries are fine!  They can make up to Y per year!"

A more objective way would be to say "teachers in ______ county who have worked for seven years, don't teach extra cirricular activities, but do teach summer school, make Z per year and please note that ________ county has an average cost of living ratio for the country".

I'm sure there are permutations there that I missed.  But that's the kind of thing I mean by presenting objective truth.  Presenting facts within context.  The problem is determing that context.  For example, I have seen environmental data used by both the left and right, and let me tell you the data used in environment debates has been abused so badly by both sides that it should be sent to a protective shelter.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jun 8, 2005)

John Morrow said:
			
		

> I still claim that education does not lead to open mindedness.



You strike me as someone speaking from vast first-hand experience.

(That's intended as funny, not snarky.  I've never been able to pass up a great straight line.)

It depends on what you mean by "open-minded," of course.  If you're talking about being willing to change one's opinions depending upon which way the wind blows, then you're right, and I've already conceded that the average American is more "open-minded" than the highly educated.

But if you're talking instead, as I am, about being more willing and better equipped to _consider_ and _evaluate_ one's own opinions and opposing opinions, I just don't know what to say to you at this point.  The proposition began as something close to a tautology, and in my illustrations and clarifications I've pushed it even closer.

BTW, there are several posts to which I'm not bothering to respond, because they call out exceptions that are self-evident.  If I argue that "kindness is a virtue," and someone feels the needs to respond with something like, "Except where kindness becomes enabling of destructive behavior," it's frankly a waste of my time to argue (and concede) the point.  And I'm not going to explicate every possible picayune exception to an argument's merit.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jun 8, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> That's not bad, per se, but it's very closeted. You'd rather be comfortable than discover true skill. You'd rather have everyone smile and nod, even if the true complexity of life lays behind those views. You'd rather have these people as tools, characters, figures empowering your own life, than have to pay attention to their human complexity.




Yes, it's true, I'm a horribly sheltered Philistine unable to appreciate the beautiful, beautiful specimen of human complexity that is the average Home Depot staffer. 

Fortunately I think I'm on to an unexpected alternate source for 'complete tools.'


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jun 8, 2005)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> IMHO, I think artists (and celebs) should realize that no one really cares about their opinions on politics.
> 
> That's harsh, but it's pretty much the truth.  If I wanted insightful political commentary, it wouldn't be from a supermodel or a lead singer of a band or the editor of a RPG magazine.



Actually, I think too many put credit to their idea's, simply because of their popular status.

What I think they should realize, is that there opinion is no more VALID then anyone elses. Both sides of the arguement can be intelligent folks, who just don't share the view.

Actors and Singers seem to forget that, finding their opposite viewers to be just stupid.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 8, 2005)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> You have invited disaster.  Let's go half way in the middle :
> 
> 1 - It is objective truth that the "theory" of evolution explains the origin of species and best explains the creation of and rise of the human species to dominance on this planet.
> 
> ...




The trouble is that it is not really an objective truth that evolution is the best explanation of the origin of species. To say so is tantamount to declaring that there can be no other theory that can explain it better, even theories that are currently unknown. Just because something is the best theory currently going that fits the evidence does not make it an objective truth. It's merely the best bet going so far.
Absolute, objective Truths (with a capital T) are very hard to come by since they deal more with the interpretation of facts than the discovery of facts themselves.


----------



## pogre (Jun 8, 2005)

I do think certain RPG designers should keep their political mouths shut. Those who work for a company they do not own have an obligation not to alienate potential customers. Yes, some people will not buy a product due to the creators political slant. Because those folks exist, RPG designer employees should keep quiet about politics instead of saddling the company with a small loss in potential revenue because of the burning need for expression. If, on the other hand, the company explicitly says - say what you want - all bets are off.

Now, before I get sacked for saying some folks should limit their speech, please understand I will defend to the death their right of expression. However, you should pay the consequences for your expression, not the stockholders of the given company.

Personally, I don't care what a designer's personal political viewpoint is - especially those who take care not to intertwine it with their gaming stuff. I am far more likely to buy from a designer I _like, regardless of their political stances,_ on a personal level than someone who comes off as rude - no matter how brilliant they are. Yeah, I'm really that shallow .


----------



## John Morrow (Jun 8, 2005)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> But if you're talking instead, as I am, about being more willing and better equipped to _consider_ and _evaluate_ one's own opinions and opposing opinions, I just don't know what to say to you at this point. The proposition began as something close to a tautology, and in my illustrations and clarifications I've pushed it even closer.




I'll agree that in theory and with "education" broadly defined, the well educated should be better equipped to evaluate various opinions. I'm not sure how one can be educated to be better equipped to _consider_ other viewpoints (unless you are simply using "consider" to mean the same thing as "evaluate") because I see that as often being inversely proportional to how certain one is that they are correct. And many people who are highly educated, even broadly defined to include self-education, become quite certain about their opinions in my experience.  In those situations, education closes minds rather than opening them.

And additional point I've raised is that people who might be highly educated may be educated with information that is dated or inaccurate giving them a false sense of certainty and leading them to reject things they shouldn't reject. While this can happen with people who only look for information that confirms their beliefs, it can also happen using mainstream sources and within a formal education.  

Now you can dismiss those as being cases that are flawed and don't fit your tautology but then I'd argue that your tautology represents a mythic ideal that rarely exists in the wilds of the real world.

Let me give you a specific example from the beginning of Lawrence Keeley's War Before Civilization (from the introduction):



> _My first excavations, as a college freshman, were on a prehistoric "shell-mound" village site on San Francisco Bay, where we uncovered many burials of unequivolcal homicide victims. It never occurred to me or my fellow students that the skeletons with embedded projective points we excavated evidenced a homicide rate that was extraordinarily high. This brutal physical evidence we were uncovering never challenged our acceptance of the traditional view that the native peoples of California had been exceptionally peaceable._
> 
> _Even more tellingly, in my senior thesis, I used all the rhetorical tricks I accuse my colleagues of here to deny the obvious importance of warfare in early Mesoamerican civilizations. For my B.A. thesis at the end of the 1960s, I chose a topic--the role of militarism in the rise of Mesoamerican civilizations--that seemed to unite my personal interest in military history with my developing academic interest in prehistory. In fact, it was a final decree of divorce, since I concluded (dutifully following the current consensus of archaeological opinion) that the first civilizations in Mesoamerica had developed in especially peaceful circumstances. In other words, I argued that militarism and warfare had no role in the evolution of the Olmec, Teotihuacan, and Classic Maya civilizations and that warfare and soldiers had become important only when these more or less "theocratic" civilizations collapsed._
> 
> ...




Basically, it was Keeley's education and knowledge rather than his ignorance that caused him to reject what his own eyes were seeing.  He chose to rely on what he already know rather than new information.  Later, on pages 18, Keeley writes:



> _The earliest farmers to appear in Britain during the period known as the Early Neolithic, beginning about 4000 B.C., constructed ditched and palisaded enclosures called causewayed camps by archaeologists. In Brian Fagan's very popular textbook on perhistory, the function of these enclosures is discussed in entirely peaceful terms. Noting that several such camps were "littered with human bone," Fagan concludes that "perhaps these camps were places where the dead were exposed for months before their bones were deposited in nearby communal burials." In an excellent survey of the early farming cultures of prehistoric Europe, Alasdair Whittle suggests that "interrupted ditches backed by solid barriers," (log palisades banked or daubed with earth from the ditches) typical of these camps merely expresses the "symbolism of exclusion." [...]_
> 
> _A far different impression is conveyed by the reports of the archaeologists who have conducted extensive excavations of some of these enclosures. At several camps, the distribution of thousands of flint arrowheadds, concentrated along the alisade and especially at the gates [a disagram is provided in the book], provides clear evidence that they "had quite obviously been defended against archery attack," making it extremely probable that the enclosures were "built with this intention."  Moreover, the total destruction by fire of some fo these camps seems to have been contemporaneous with the archery attacks. [...] Whatever ritual or symbolic functions of the enclosures might have had, they were obviously fortifications, some of which were attacked and stormed._




Given the diagram that Keeley provides, even a child could tell that the evidence is evidence of an attack against a defensive structure.  Only a person who was certain that they knew better could reject the obvious interpretation of that information.



			
				Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> BTW, there are several posts to which I'm not bothering to respond, because they call out exceptions that are self-evident.  If I argue that "kindness is a virtue," and someone feels the needs to respond with something like, "Except where kindness becomes enabling of destructive behavior," it's frankly a waste of my time to argue (and concede) the point.  And I'm not going to explicate every possible picayune exception to an argument's merit.




I don't think that many of those examples represent the exception.  I think they all too often represent the norm or at least very common situations.  I think your expectations that people use their knowledge and education to explore and evaluate other ideas fairly are unfortunately the idealistic exception, at least currently.  In an ideal world without false information and without emotional and social motivations, your statement may very well be a tautology.  In my experience and reading (and I can give you more examples than Keeley, Lee, and Ehrenreich if you want), we don't live in a perfect world and highly educated people often use their eduction to dismiss new ideas rather than to evaluate them.  In those cases, their education equips them to reject new information as well as it equips them to consider and evaluate it.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 8, 2005)

pogre said:
			
		

> I do think certain RPG designers should keep their political mouths shut. Those who work for a company they do not own have an obligation not to alienate potential customers. Yes, some people will not buy a product due to the creators political slant. Because those folks exist, RPG designer employees should keep quiet about politics instead of saddling the company with a small loss in potential revenue because of the burning need for expression. If, on the other hand, the company explicitly says - say what you want - all bets are off.
> 
> Now, before I get sacked for saying some folks should limit their speech, please understand I will defend to the death their right of expression. However, you should pay the consequences for your expression, not the stockholders of the given company.




In other words, you have the freedom of speech but watch what you say if you're not self-employed? I don't buy that. The company may be able to restrict your freedom expression when you're on the clock, but that game designers free time is his own free time. The designer has the right of free expression. The stockholders do not have the right to hold onto their money. Investing entails risk.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 8, 2005)

pogre said:
			
		

> I do think certain RPG designers should keep their political mouths shut. Those who work for a company they do not own have an obligation not to alienate potential customers. Yes, some people will not buy a product due to the creators political slant. Because those folks exist, RPG designer employees should keep quiet about politics instead of saddling the company with a small loss in potential revenue because of the burning need for expression. If, on the other hand, the company explicitly says - say what you want - all bets are off.
> 
> Now, before I get sacked for saying some folks should limit their speech, please understand I will defend to the death their right of expression. However, you should pay the consequences for your expression, not the stockholders of the given company.
> 
> Personally, I don't care what a designer's personal political viewpoint is - especially those who take care not to intertwine it with their gaming stuff. I am far more likely to buy from a designer I _like, regardless of their political stances,_ on a personal level than someone who comes off as rude - no matter how brilliant they are. Yeah, I'm really that shallow .




Let me get this straight you feel that an employer has the right to dictate what a person says or does after hours? 

That is dangerous ground. With what you are saying an employer would have the right to fire anyone who did something that might offend someone when they are not working. Say you go to a poltical rally or a protest march and someone reconizes you and gets offended and tells your boss that because of it they will no longer do business with your company so your boss fires you or tells you you can no longer exercise your freedom of speech if you want to work.


----------



## pogre (Jun 8, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Let me get this straight you feel that an employer has the right to dictate what a person says or does after hours?




No, of course they will not be fired or anything like that. I just think it is disingenuous of them to bite the hand that feeds them. Even if they have the _right_ to do so. 

It is just fine for the company to ask the person to make it clear to others they are off the clock and not representing the company in any way.

edit: I don't think Erik did this necessarily btw.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 8, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Let me get this straight you feel that an employer has the right to dictate what a person says or does after hours?
> 
> That is dangerous ground. With what you are saying an employer would have the right to fire anyone who did something that might offend someone when they are not working. Say you go to a poltical rally or a protest march and someone reconizes you and gets offended and tells your boss that because of it they will no longer do business with your company so your boss fires you or tells you you can no longer exercise your freedom of speech if you want to work.




Yeah, sorry, but I'm not buying that line of thought either. I could go off on the amount of control the corporations already have on society, but that would be political and not a good subject to broach, so instead, I will say that a company should respect the talented individuals it employs, not try to control them.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jun 8, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Let me get this straight you feel that an employer has the right to dictate what a person says or does after hours?



While I fervently wish this were _not_ the case, emerging jurisprudence is going exactly that way.  There have been at least a couple of high-profile cases in which employees were forced to shut down their blogs or severely curtail their freedom of expression, and the employers are coming up victorious.  And it's not limited to the Internet, though so far non-blogging cases been limited to situations in which the employees' activities are high-profile and their corporate affiliation is known.

Pretty freakin' scary, if you ask me.  (Of course, I also find it pretty freakin' scary that courts have found that an employee has no expectation of privacy when using company email, but ... )  I'd be willing to bet that there are many posters on this thread, however, who would argue that there's nothing wrong with employers doing this.


----------



## pogre (Jun 8, 2005)

Look, it is not about corporate control at all. It is about not alienating a potential customer base. That's it.

Which, is what the original question was - 


> Actually what I'm interested in is whether or not people who write games, or are in the eyes of a given community, should associate themselves with politics.




- this is a reason they shouldn't.


----------



## John Morrow (Jun 8, 2005)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> But if you're talking instead, as I am, about being more willing and better equipped to _consider_ and _evaluate_ one's own opinions and opposing opinions, I just don't know what to say to you at this point.  The proposition began as something close to a tautology, and in my illustrations and clarifications I've pushed it even closer.




I finally figured out the analogy I was looking for to explain what I consider to be the problem with your (Jeff Wilder's) claim that education makes one better equipped to consider or evaluate one's own opinions and opposing opinions -- the Laffer curve.

The Laffer curve was developed by economist Arthur Laffer to illustrate the relationship between tax rates and revenue collected.  In theory, the higher you raise your tax rate, the more revenue you collect.  But in practice, that's not how it works.  Why?  Because the tax rate has effects on the economy, the behavior of taxpayers, and the cost of enforcement.  As you raise taxes beyond a certain point, the detrimental effects of the increased rate of taxation on the economy, the behavior of taxpayers, and the cost of compliance start to reduce the tax base and taxes collected until the detrimental effects actually exceed the positive effects.  As a result, the optimal rate of taxation to maximize revenue is not 100% but somewhat lower (how low is debatable).

I think that with respect to open mindedness, education often works like the Laffer curve.  While an increase in education does better equip people understand and evaluate their own ideas and the ideas of others, it also often has detrimental effects that eventually outweight those positive effects such that at a certain point, more education actually seems to produce a less open mind.  I think you are considering only the positive effects of education (both formal and informal) and not the negative effects nor some of the problems that can negate the benefits of being highly education entirely.  Being open minded isn't simply about knowledge and logic.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jun 8, 2005)

John Morrow said:
			
		

> I finally figured out the analogy I was looking for to explain what I consider to be the problem with your (Jeff Wilder's) claim that education makes one better equipped to consider or evaluate one's own opinions and opposing opinions -- the Laffer curve.



While I understand your analogy ("Voodoo ... _voodoo_ economics ... ") and the illustrations you used earlier from academia, I've simply never seen it work like that.

Just to summarize, so that you understand that _I_ understand, your argument is that at a certain point an individual's education ossifies his ability to absorb new information and use it to reevaluate his views.  Rather than look at new information and wonder, "Now how might that change what I've always believed?" he instead looks at new information and either (1) dismisses the new information as "flukey" or otherwise invalid or (2) wonders, "Now how can I make this new information fit what I've always believed?"

Is that a fair summary?

I dunno.  Maybe I'm simply lucky (or equipped with exceptional taste), in that the highly educated people I know do not do this, and maybe I'm giving the highly educated people on the "Other Side" _way_ too much credit, but my experience (and belief) is that such individuals nearly _always_ know when they're seeing information that doesn't jibe with the viewpoints they present to the world.

Understand, my definition of open-minded doesn't require that people express a change of opinion upon learning new and contradictory information ... it only requires that they be willing and able to _evaluate_ the information.  Whether or not they then openly express a change of opinion has more to do with ethics and honesty (and, frankly, self-esteem and other psychological factors) than it has to do with open-mindedness.

Imagine a guy who, given all available information, is simply never wrong in the conclusions he draws from that information.  (Yes, I know, such people don't really exist, although we think we do.)  This guy may very well, and very validly, _never_ change his opinion on a given subject, assuming that any new evidence continues to support his opinion.  Yet although he never changes his opinion, he is nevertheless extraordinarily open-minded.  He considers and evaluates all new information.

Now note that nowhere in the above paragraph does it state what viewpoints the guy _expresses_.


----------



## trancejeremy (Jun 8, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Actually, I think too many put credit to their idea's, simply because of their popular status.
> 
> What I think they should realize, is that there opinion is no more VALID then anyone elses. Both sides of the arguement can be intelligent folks, who just don't share the view.
> 
> Actors and Singers seem to forget that, finding their opposite viewers to be just stupid.




Yeah, that was partly my point.  But my larger point was, I think most people really don't want to hear the political (or religious) beliefs of others, at least when they aren't asking for it/looking for it. )  (Be it from celebrities or people they know).

Because unless that person happens to have the same beliefs, it's just going to generate ill will ('cause it's a touchy subject). And if they have the same beliefs, then what's the point?


----------



## trancejeremy (Jun 8, 2005)

pogre said:
			
		

> Look, it is not about corporate control at all. It is about not alienating a potential customer base. That's it.




Exactly - freedom goes both ways. Sure, someone is allowed to express their views of something. But then others are allowed to express their views of those views by taking action - boycotting the company that employs that person, or not buying products made by that person. 

You just have the freedom to say what you want - you don't have freedom from repercussions from what you say.  If what someone says affects their employer's business, then they are an interested party.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jun 8, 2005)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Because unless that person happens to have the same beliefs, it's just going to generate ill will ('cause it's a touchy subject). And if they have the same beliefs, then what's the point?



(This is a general point, because I'm not someone who particularly cares what celebrities have to say because of their celebrity, anymore than I generally care what anyone has to say.  There are celebrities whose ability to reason and articulate their position I respect, whether I disagree with them or not, just as there are non-celebrities whose ability to reason and articulate their position I respect, whether I disagree with them or not.)

It _is_ possible to learn from someone with views similar to one's own, you know.  Such education doesn't tend to produce the dramatic shifts of understanding possible when learning from someone with whom one disagrees, but that doesn't make the learning less valuable.

As an undergrad, there were certain political viewpoints I held without fully understanding why I held them, and certainly without being able to logically support them at a high level.  (They basically arose from an ability to imagine myself in the position of someone else, and from there from a strong sense of fairness.)  Occasionally in classes a professor of the same leanings would share something that would hit me so hard that I'd be sure the other student could hear the "BONNNNNG."  (Rawls' veil of ignorance, mentioned earlier in this thread, was one such occasion.)

And, of course, I also learned things that _contradicted_ my feelings about a particular subject, and was thus forced to rearrange my opinions.

Both of these occurrences continue for me on a fairly regular basis.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 8, 2005)

> Yes, it's true, I'm a horribly sheltered Philistine unable to appreciate the beautiful, beautiful specimen of human complexity that is the average Home Depot staffer.




Well, show me how the Home Depot staffer is any less of a complex and multifaceted human being than a local politican, and I'll cede that bearing their use only as a Home Depot staffer is in line with who they really are.

People have opinions, and they like to voice them and have others hear them. The most polite will be very reserved about it, but politeness is very reductive of individuality.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 8, 2005)

John Morrow said:
			
		

> While I think many people here believe that to one degree or another, I do think there are practical limits to how extreme those opinions can be before people do hold the artist responsible for their views.  If a game designer were seriously denying the Holocaust, praising Stalin's methods, advocating the legalization of pedophilia, advocating taking the right to vote away from women, praising the practice of slavery, etc. I think that many people would be saying very different things here.
> 
> There is a privately written role-playing game that can be found on the web written by white supremacists that deals with fighting a racial "holy war" against minorities.  I have no doubt that no matter how good that author's "art" is, they'd have a hard time getting a job in the industry and a lot of people would boycott their work if they did.  And the reason would be wholly because of their offensive personal opinions.
> 
> And, personally, I have no problem with that.




I didn't mean you shouldn't boycott their products or refuse to employ them.    I do mean that you as the state authority shouldn't censor their website and/or punish them unless they're inciting actual crimes (like murder).    If you're a board moderator you shouldn't normally censor links to their website either, but I can see a case for removing links to holocaust-denial or pro-pedophilia websites given that those may be criminal in themselves (certainly in eg France or Germany holocaust-denial is prosecutable), the other two also if they're also illegal somewhere.  I can see a case for removing a political link from a board if it is causing the kind of political debate that is banned on the website.

BTW I'm 32 and my political views did change quite strongly over the 2000-04 period.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 8, 2005)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> This is doubtless at least somewhat true, but it my experience the _extent_ of the ossification is highly negatively correlated with the extent and quality of the individual's education.  That is, highly educated people are more open to examining _all_ viewpoints (including their own) critically and logically.  (Not to mention more capable of doing so.)




Having worked in Universities all my adult life, I can tell you that this is not true.    

Besides, I'm highly educated (PhD), but I know that when I had a sudden shift of political opinion at the start of September 2004 it was a highly emotional, not logical, experience.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 8, 2005)

John Morrow said:
			
		

> I think that with respect to open mindedness, education often works like the Laffer curve.  While an increase in education does better equip people understand and evaluate their own ideas and the ideas of others, it also often has detrimental effects that eventually outweight those positive effects such that at a certain point, more education actually seems to produce a less open mind.




I don't agree with this either.  If you work in the "education industry" you may be likely to be inculcated in the views prevalent in that industry, and clearly there is a correlation in the US between education level and voting pattern, but I don't think (over) education per se causes close-mindedness.  I suppose it can cause arrogance and a lack of appreciation of why the less educated think as they do.  It can also cause open-mindedness and awareness of a variety of possibilities.  I don't think PhDs are more close-minded than BAs, or BAs are more open-minded than high school graduates, etc.

Edit: OTOH... maybe you're right.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 8, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> I largely have to disagree with this. Celebrities have no more responsibility to check on their facts _than anybody else_ do before they spout off.




Careful there - I said _absolutely nothing_ about the specific responsibility to check facts.  I was speaking more generally about responsibility. 

Though, I do tend to think that the responsibility to check facts increases with the size of the audience.  I can spout nonsense and unsupported in my own blog to my heart's content, if  nobody reads the thing.  If have reason to expect that my blog won't ever have any effect on anyone's decisions, factual correctness isn't a priority.  

A professional or celebrity (or an author, or a news organization) who can reasonably expect to be read, and who might impact people's choices, has a much higher responsibility to get their facts straight.  Again, it's really a matter of public/private.  If so few people read your blog that it is effectively private, you've got all the responsibility you'd have in your living room to say only factually correct things.


----------



## Belen (Jun 8, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I don't agree with this either.  If you work in the "education industry" you may be likely to be inculcated in the views prevalent in that industry, and clearly there is a correlation in the US between education level and voting pattern, but I don't think (over) education per se causes close-mindedness.  I suppose it can cause arrogance and a lack of appreciation of why the less educated think as they do.  It can also cause open-mindedness and awareness of a variety of possibilities.  I don't think PhDs are more close-minded than BAs, or BAs are more open-minded than high school graduates, etc.
> 
> Edit: OTOH... maybe you're right.




Well, now you start getting into mob mentality and group think/speech.  IMO, I think that many highly educated people look to opinions held by other highly educated people.  This tends to reinforce their own belief system.

Now, if we look at a university, then you can see what could become a major problem.  If the majority of professors and administrators at an institution hold a certain set of common beliefs, then those beliefs become a common discourse.  The administration then seeks to give structure to the common discourse, which becomes institutionalized.  From that point, it becomes easy to hire people that will fit within the common structure.  And the very low turnover rate in government employ mean that few new ideas enter into the mix.  

IMO, political parties do very little to introduce people to new ideas.  People are challenged by new ideas on a personal level, such as with friends, family and co-workers.  I do not know anyone who chooses friends based on politcal bent.  Most people choose friend's based on common interest: RPGs, Books, Television, Movies, Barhoping, Sports, Work, or Family.  Ulitmately, people spend a good portion of their time at work, so water-cooler talk tends introduce you to most different/new ideas.

So, if a university settles on a certain structure and common discourse, and a majority of people share those thoughts and ideas, then they are not getting introduced to new/ dissenting ideas at the water-cooler.  Suddenly, the only path to new ideas if following a path that leads further from the mainstream.  And, since you're a prof with a good education, you're ideas have to be more right than the mechanic who serves you.

It is a collective mentality that never serves to challenge you.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 8, 2005)

Folks it seems to me, whether consciously or not, this debate has evolved into discussing the objective nature of truth.

I can now categorically lump the participants in this thread into a largely objectivist camp (not necessarily the Ayn Rand version, eitehr), a post-modernist camp...as well as those admirably looking for a middle.

The problem is there is no middle.

I learned a long time ago that it's damn near impossible to argue with a postmodernist because they will call into question the relative 'objectivity' of every single basis of fact.

The gulf between postmodernists and people who believe in objective reality (and, as an extension, objective truths) is, in my experience, far wider than that which exists between the political poles in most societies.

If you believe that all truth is relative, and therefore ephermeral, than it will be damn hard to convince you otherwise...because you will call into question all the evidence, and even the logic used to regfute your case.

It makes you hard to beat in a debate true...but the victores are shallow ones...what exactly do you win if you don't really believe in anything?


----------



## tonym (Jun 8, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> ...Most of them _also_ don't violate my 'don't push your crap in my face' rule, so no problem. If you _want_ to market your products part and parcel with your very opinionated views, and use your website to protest our fascist theocracy, then don't be offended or surprised if I choose to spend my money over at the more reserved (though in all likelihood equally left-leaning) games designer's site....




That's the tricky part about voicing one's opinion.  There are a bunch of people out there with a "don't push your crap in my face rule," and you might make them angry and they might make a mental note to not buy anything associated with you.  I call this the Freedom Fries effect.

If you anger the Freedom Fry Fellowship (I made that name up), they'll seek to effect your income, or get you fired, or scare you into shutting your mouth.

Me, I admire people who voice political opinions in public forums (even opinions I don't agree with).  My hat is off to GMSkarka and every other designer who dares speak his mind! 

Tony M


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jun 8, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Well, now you start getting into mob mentality and group think/speech.  IMO, I think that many highly educated people look to opinions held by other highly educated people.  This tends to reinforce their own belief system.
> 
> [...]
> 
> People are challenged by new ideas on a personal level, such as with friends, family and co-workers.  [...] Ulitmately, people spend a good portion of their time at work, so water-cooler talk tends introduce you to most different/new ideas.



So ...

Institutions of higher learning are worse than useless for the process of learning about new ideas; true wisdom comes from the novelty of family-held beliefs and chats around water coolers.

Gotcha.

(Backing away slowly, now ... )


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jun 8, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> ...Clearly there is a correlation in the US between education level and voting pattern.




Really? _Clearly_ there is a correlation? Clearly? 


How do underpriveleged minorities vote?

How do those with a high school diploma from an inner-city public school system vote?

How about those with nothing more than a high school diploma from a suburban public school system?

How do working class people vote?

How does the middle class vote?

How do the highly educated elite vote?

How about those educated in expensive "Ivy League" schools? 

How about people who attended higher university in the midwest, as opposed to universities on the coasts?

Cause, I'm just talking me personally, I don't remember having to list my educational level when I registered to vote.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 8, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> That's the tricky part about voicing one's opinion.  There are a bunch of people out there with a "don't push your crap in my face rule," and you might make them angry and they might make a mental note to not buy anything associated with you.  I call this the Freedom Fries effect.
> 
> If you anger the Freedom Fry Fellowship (I made that name up), they'll seek to effect your income, or get you fired, or scare you into shutting your mouth.
> 
> ...




Good metaphor.  There are five lessons for people to from this whole debate:

1) If you work in the public or commercial sphere and you use your prominence in that sphere to express strong political view points...you are certainly within your rights.  However you are also responsible for whatever fallout (in esteem or financially) that comes from such activism.

2) If you are a consumer who votes with your wallet, you are also exercising your fundamental rights.  However you are also limiting your exposure to quality products that just happen to originate from your political adversaries.  And you shouldn't expect your political statement to move the debate much in any extent.

3) Should, as sometimes happens, enough people in group two band together to cause grave discomfort in group one, there is a real debate whether this constitutes some sort of normative, informal censorship...or is simply somebody getting his/her just desserts.  Ususually your opinion on whether this is censorship or not depends on whether you agree with the politics of the offended party.

4) Item 3, therefore calls into question the whole idea of when you criticise a public figure for political statements, whether you are criticising the idea of political activism crossover in general, or are simply upset by this particular public figure's political opinions.  As a secondary concern this debate calls into questio whether it is possible to stand apart and criticise the whole idea of public figure advocacy without betraying your own political biases.

5) Which segues into the current debate, whether or not our notions of truth are based on preconceived perceptions of reality.  How likely we are to change our opinions based on new evidence, and the personal characteristics which lead to the most flexibility and/or resillency in your own political perspective.  At its crux is the debate on whether there are objective standards on which you can judge people's political discourse...or are you, in each case merely betarying your own political perrogatives...

...I'm off to the House Rules forums to look for new feats..


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 8, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Really? _Clearly_ there is a correlation? Clearly?
> 
> 
> How do underpriveleged minorities vote?
> ...




Well, educated people do vote MORE.  However they are also more likely to be decided partisans in the first place, which makes them essentially useless to political campaigns when targeting their messages and organization.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 8, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Folks like Chris Pramas (and myself) view our journals as aimed not at our audiences, but at our peers and friends.   We communicate with our audience via forums like EN World and our own websites.




Going back to the topic of blogs for a moment...

Basic problem - what's making sure that your aim has anything to do with who actually reads the thing?  It is not enough to match content and writing style to reach teh people you want to talk to.  You also need to stop and think about who really will be reading the thing.

Part of the price of celebrity and fans is loss of privacy.  Chris Pramas is reasonably well-known in the business.  He can expect that folks interested in his products will go lookign for information on them.  If his blog is under the name "Pramas", a quick web search will (and did) find it.  The fact that he titles it as "The Completely Personal and Totally Non-Corporate Blog of Chris Pramas" doesn't change the fact that it's going to be read by customers.  

As a practical matter, that title give Mr. Pramas exactly zero protection from the feelings of the audience.  The claim "I said it was personal, not corporate!" will be of little comfort if a public relations blunder happens in that blog.


----------



## Belen (Jun 8, 2005)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Institutions of higher learning are worse than useless for the process of learning about new ideas; true wisdom comes from the novelty of family-held beliefs and chats around water coolers.




No, I am saying that new ideas come from interacting with people that may have different ideas than yourself.  Universities, by desire, have latched onto one set of social and political beliefs, then created structures to maintain them.

Family shapes your view in the beginning; introduction to new and varied people continues to shape your ideas throughout school; co-workers and friends shape or introduce you to new ideas throughout a lifetime.

My main point, is that if you work in an environment of stagnant ideas or stratified social structure, then the people you meet will only reinforce your beliefs and not challenge them.

IMO, universities no longer participate in rational debate or discourse.  They have their own methods for discussion that does not include normal people.  Tenure and difficulty in getting rid of government employees result in less turnover, fewer differences in viewpoint. and stagnation.  It can take years to fire someone who is incompetent etc.  This gives them a security that most normal people can never enjoy and so they feel free to say things that would be unconscionable in other arenas where actual consequences exist or someone has the power to effectively disagree with you.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 8, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> IMO, universities no longer participate in rational debate or discourse.  They have their own methods for discussion that does not include normal people.  Tenure and difficulty in getting rid of government employees result in less turnover, fewer differences in viewpoint. and stagnation.  It can take years to fire someone who is incompetent etc.  This gives them a security that most normal people can never enjoy and so they feel free to say things that would be unconscionable in other arenas where actual consequences exist or someone has the power to effectively disagree with you.




Tenure puts to the lie every notion that censorship is product of hierarchy.  By removing direct organization-based accountability from people in academia/government all you do is allow demographiclly based biases free reign, regardless of their substantive merits, while agressively silencing outside views.  Ironically this process takes place under the label of 'political correctness'


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 8, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> IMO, universities no longer participate in rational debate or discourse. They have their own methods for discussion that does not include normal people. Tenure and difficulty in getting rid of government employees result in less turnover, fewer differences in viewpoint. and stagnation. It can take years to fire someone who is incompetent etc. This gives them a security that most normal people can never enjoy and so they feel free to say things that would be unconscionable in other arenas where actual consequences exist or someone has the power to effectively disagree with you.



I agree that it "can take years to fire someone who is incompetent etc." It's a problem.

But universities (or rather, students and staff therein) no longer participating in rational debate or discourse? That sounds to my mind a little harsh. . . or unfounded? Then again, I don't know the origin of the opinion to begin with. Is it based on your experience of university? Or is it somehow statistically borne out?


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jun 8, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Universities, by desire, have latched onto one set of social and political beliefs, then created structures to maintain them.
> 
> [...]
> 
> ...



This is bizarre.  I dunno where you went to school, but every university I've attended has been _all about_ "rational debate [and] discourse," not to mention "introduction to new and varied" people and ideas.



> They have their own methods for discussion that does not include normal people.



So ... is it the millions of university students that are abnormal, or just the millions of staff and faculty?  (Or is it both?)



> Tenure and difficulty in getting rid of government employees result in less turnover, fewer differences in viewpoint. and stagnation.



Or one could say that tenure results in the _freedom_ to express ideas that may very well be unpopular with a university's administration.  You know, kinda like how lifetime tenure is designed to grant the same freedom to the federal judiciary?



> This gives them a security that most normal people can never enjoy and so they feel free to say things that would be unconscionable in other arenas where actual consequences exist or someone has the power to effectively disagree with you.



Uh ... _exactly_.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 8, 2005)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> This is bizarre.  I dunno where you went to school, but every university I've attended has been _all about_ "rational debate [and] discourse," not to mention "introduction to new and varied" people and ideas.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Staffan (Jun 8, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> 1. "Smackin' Mona Around" is a fun party game, btw!



Yeah, now that Hong has seemingly abandoned us, we have all these sticks around that need using.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 8, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Really? _Clearly_ there is a correlation? Clearly?
> 
> <snip>
> How about people who attended higher university in the midwest, as opposed to universities on the coasts?
> ...




Then you must not have been exit polled. But even if you weren't polling still identifies trends in the general population, some of which are strong and some of which are not. Elementary social sciences, really.


----------



## Belen (Jun 8, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Then you must not have been exit polled. But even if you weren't polling still identifies trends in the general population, some of which are strong and some of which are not. Elementary social sciences, really.




Polls tend to be designed to give you the answer you want regardless of how someone answers.  I was laughing at the polls that said the last US election was centered on moral values.  Who in their right mind would say that are against "moral values?"


----------



## Belen (Jun 8, 2005)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> This is bizarre.  I dunno where you went to school, but every university I've attended has been _all about_ "rational debate [and] discourse," not to mention "introduction to new and varied" people and ideas.




I went to a state school.  I remember very clearly getting a "D" on my freshmen comp midterm paper because I had used "mankind" rather than "humanity."  That was the only red mark on it.  When I protested, I was told that I was responsible for perpetuating gender inequity.  She never told us not to use "mankind" and my female English teachers in High School never batted an eye at the term.



			
				Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> So ... is it the millions of university students that are abnormal, or just the millions of staff and faculty?  (Or is it both?)




Sorry, I was mainly commenting on faculty and admin.



			
				Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Or one could say that tenure results in the _freedom_ to express ideas that may very well be unpopular with a universities administration.  You know, kinda like how lifetime tenure is designed to grant the same freedom to the federal judiciary?
> 
> Uh ... _exactly_.




Lifetime tenure is a blight.  It a system whereby you force people to work in a certain way.  You can deny qualified people based on ideology, gender, or race and enforce that only people who "think" correctly get permanent positions.  It also shields people from reality by giving them a security that no normal person could ever attain.

Tenure does not give them a shield versus any administration.  Admins are usually on their side.  It grants them immunity to public accountability.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 8, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> ...With what you are saying an employer would have the right to fire anyone who did something that might offend someone when they are not working. Say you go to a poltical rally or a protest march and someone reconizes you and gets offended and tells your boss that because of it they will no longer do business with your company so your boss fires you or tells you you can no longer exercise your freedom of speech if you want to work.




There have been a few excellent articles in recent news about the relationship between bloggers and their employers. 

Fired Microsoft Blogger
Fired Google Blogger
A Blogging Policy 
Bloggers on the Payroll

Yes, several bloggers (even bloggers that, in their blog, never identify themselves or the exact company) have been told to either trim comments or been fired outright. People that have been arrested in protest marches or who have, on their own time, made certain comments have been fired.

While it is 'dangerous', the company also has a right to protect itself. Obviously debate about whose rights are paramount is still ongoing, but currently the rights of the employer are generally recognized over those of the employed. I guess it usually comes down to how much control they like to have, how fearful of bad publicity they are, and how hard they are willing to fight for every single dollar that may or may not come their way. 

The second seems to be the main reason: they don't want someone to change a carefully managed image that has been created in the mind of the public. If I were a programmer, the famous ea_spouse article certainly would make me think twice about ever working for them specifically or in the gaming industry in general. If I were a really hot-shot programmer, able to code with my feet and still put a project in under time and under budget, that would mean that, technically, ea_spouse had cost EA a good programmer; it's an opportunity cost. I _love_ EA's games, love 'em to death, but the article has made me at least think twice about buying some of their stuff. I have not yet failed to buy an EA game I wanted, but if I was on the fence about something of theirs, ea_spouse's revelations might make me put it back. Technically, she's cost them a sale that might otherwise have been made. Since any company exists not provide employment but to make money, the question obviously becomes 'why should we continue to pay someone who is hurting the company?'

I applaud Pramas and others who don't fear to lose some sales by people who disagree with their personal views. It's good to be able to compartmentalize some things and thus be able to consider a product just on it's own merits - generally I'm able to do that. I'll go see a movie with Person X even though Person X might be an idiot outside that current persona; I go to movies to see characters, not stars. I could, though, see myself passing on a film if a star did something that deeply offended me. It would have to be something pretty horrific, thuogh. I'm able to compartmentalize very well, but not 100%. As we see, though, sometimes that's not possible. Myself, I agree with pretty much every non-gaming-related thing I've read on the sites profiled and it's made me _more_ likely to think of the associated companies in a good light.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 8, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Polls tend to be designed to give you the answer you want regardless of how someone answers.  I was laughing at the polls that said the last US election was centered on moral values.  Who in their right mind would say that are against "moral values?"




The general problem with exit polls is that it is impossible to verify a true random, representative sampling of the voting population -- at least compared to more scientific research exercises.  Americans have the last two presidential elections to verify just how suspect the practice is.

As for polling language...absolutely there is a lot of agenda-driven loaded polling out there...which has reared it's head most nastily in push-polling.  With that said there is a core group of three or four pollsters who base their business on staking out accureate non-partisan research.  'Morale values' as an issue cluser is less a "for/against" proposition than it is a priority placement compared to the economy, foreign affairs, terrorism etc.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jun 8, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Polls tend to be designed to give you the answer you want regardless of how someone answers.  I was laughing at the polls that said the last US election was centered on moral values.  Who in their right mind would say that are against "moral values?"




Well made polls are designed to be neutral in that regard.  Most major AP polls are pretty well done.  The election polls asked the question "what is most immportant to you in this election," or a variation of that.  A certain group of folks answered "moral values" more often than other groups; other questions identified what that group was and which specific moral values were the issue.  

Re: Universities becoming more hide-bound and less open to ideas - I think people sometimes have  tendency to romanticize the past.  I'm sure the universities of the 60's, 50's and before were just as bad in their way as the ones are now.  Higher education does not equal better people, just as the reverse is also not true.

My experience of the college grad/non-college grad difference is that people who hav attended college have a wider range of knowledge as opposed to non-college attenders, but non-college attenders can be just as talented in specific areas.  College will make you a little more well-rounded in your outlook and experiences.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jun 8, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> That's the tricky part about voicing one's opinion.  There are a bunch of people out there with a "don't push your crap in my face rule," and you might make them angry and they might make a mental note to not buy anything associated with you.  I call this the Freedom Fries effect.



To be equal-opportunity about this, one could call it the Florida Orange Juice effect, or the Dr. Laura TV Show effect, too.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 8, 2005)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> Folks it seems to me, whether consciously or not, this debate has evolved into discussing the objective nature of truth.
> 
> I can now categorically lump the participants in this thread into a largely objectivist camp (not necessarily the Ayn Rand version, eitehr), a post-modernist camp...as well as those admirably looking for a middle.
> 
> The problem is there is no middle.




There are some severe problems with your analysis. To start with there is no non-Randian "objectivism"; there's empiricism, which isn't the same thing. Besides, objectivism is kind of stupid, so I wouldn't want to curse so many of this thread's participants.



> I learned a long time ago that it's damn near impossible to argue with a postmodernist because they will call into question the relative 'objectivity' of every single basis of fact.




That's not postmodernism. That's philosophical idealism.



> The gulf between postmodernists and people who believe in objective reality (and, as an extension, objective truths) is, in my experience, far wider than that which exists between the political poles in most societies.




That's still not postmodernism. It is still idealism. Postmodernism is a set of theories about what parts of our experience are *significant.* In other words, the postmodern critique of this thread would be that a discussion about the nature of truth is not only divorced from how people assess truth in everyday life, but the actual topic of the thread. 

What would we do from here? We'd ask why it drifted and what this thread means to participants. None of this has to do with what is eternally true, which is such a pretentious drift from the original topic that it's scarcely worth touching on. If you were a Derridean, you'd look at the language used and how it can mutate. If you were a Foucaultian you'd talk about the power relations involved and the commonly accepted story that comes from it.

Postmodernism is the theory that allows you to question constructions like, "Have you stopped beating your kids?" or "How can the (ethnic community) take responsibility for the violence of some of its members?"

(This last is a pop quiz; can you spot the problem with the second statement? Can you tell how these framing problems are significant to this thread?)

Idealism is the philosophical position that reality is reductible to thought, and was mostly notably articulated by George Berkeley. Idealism *does* say there's no objective truth.

It always amazes me when people who appear to have never studied postmodern and post-existential thinking as more than a one-off course or a unit in university feel qualified to hold court on it. 

(And before you ask: My BA majors were in *both* postmodern/existential and emperical philsosophy, so I do in fact have a solid basis for comparison. This is why inaccurate descriptions of either annoy me.)


----------



## tonym (Jun 8, 2005)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> To be equal-opportunity about this, one could call it the Florida Orange Juice effect, or the Dr. Laura TV Show effect, too.




Huh?  It appears that you are trying to dilute my branding of certain like-minded people as the Freedom Fry Fellowship.  

Freedom Fry Fellowship!
Freedom Fry Fellowship!

There, the damage has been undone. Democracy has been saved.


Tony M


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 8, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Basic problem - what's making sure that your aim has anything to do with who actually reads the thing?




Absolutely nothing.

Then again, there's nothing guaranteeing that a game is played in the manner intended by the designer, either, so we're used to that sort of disconnect.  

I wont' speak for Chris, but my point is simple:   I don't worry about pissing people off in my journal posts, because the sort of person who is (in my opinion) shallow enough to let the clearly-labeled personal opinions of a creator affect their decision to purchase their works, is not somebody that I'm particularly going to miss as a customer.    

Plus, the past decade and more that I've spent in this business have shown me conclusively that Internet Crusades (tm) and loudly-proclaimed-boycotts have NEVER had a negative impact on sales, ever....and often lead to a sales spike as non-involved gamers pick up the product to see what the fuss is about.    So, gamers who only want product from people they agree with don't affect me in the slightest...because even if they get irritated enough to bitch loudly, the only discernable effect (aside from the personal aggravation) will be a slight JUMP in sales.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jun 8, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> The trouble is that it is not really an objective truth that evolution is the best explanation of the origin of species. To say so is tantamount to declaring that there can be no other theory that can explain it better, even theories that are currently unknown. Just because something is the best theory currently going that fits the evidence does not make it an objective truth.




This is sophistry. It is the very _worm wriggling on the hook_. 

The _death penalty_ is *routinely* applied by the states and the Federal Government in the USA based on a standard of proof which is a lesser standard than the one you propose. 

Absolute certainty is not required for that; it ought not to be required for assessing whether a political question or fact is objectively true.  If you wish to make determinations and evaluate policy based on the doubts and "but ifs" that men and women each routinely discount as they make decisions which effect their daily lives, then such considerations are, in my view, reasonably adjudged to be without merit and are wholly subjective.

Which was exactly my point in the original post.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 8, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> .
> 
> (And before you ask: My BA majors were in *both* postmodern/existential and emperical philsosophy, so I do in fact have a solid basis for comparison. This is why inaccurate descriptions of either annoy me.)




I certainly wouldn't dare match up my philosophical credentials against yours...and yes you are quite right to rephrase my use of 'objectivism' to empiricism (I just find objectivism a more intuitive word to somebody with a non-philosophy background).

Ad for your somewhat spirited (if ironic) defence postmodernism -- I would argue that my central point -- that the one side in this debate believes there are objective moral standards outside of context, the other doesn't.  But then again my readings of Derrida are limited and Foccault, admittedly, nonexistant.

As for your charge of my pretentiousness -- my only response is that "you can't please everybody"...so please my apologies if my hazy recollections of my philosophy education offend your scholarly sensibilities.

I read a thread I enjoy and contribute to it.  I know a thing or two about the political process, so I occassionally jump in to clarify points other people make about it -- always done in good humour and good faith.  Unless you inform me otherwise, I'll take your criticism of my post likewise.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 8, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Plus, the past decade and more that I've spent in this business have shown me conclusively that Internet Crusades (tm) and loudly-proclaimed-boycotts have NEVER had a negative impact on sales, ever....and often lead to a sales spike as non-involved gamers pick up the product to see what the fuss is about.    So, gamers who only want product from people they agree with don't affect me in the slightest...because even if they get irritated enough to bitch loudly, the only discernable effect (aside from the personal aggravation) will be a slight JUMP in sales.




Very True.  Indeed some people (ranging the gamut from Howard Stern and Eminem to 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" and "Desperate Housewives") have intentionally used the fact they infuriate certain demographics as a marketing tactic.


----------



## Mark (Jun 8, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> Huh?  It appears that you are trying to dilute my branding of certain like-minded people as the Freedom Fry Fellowship.
> 
> Freedom Fry Fellowship!
> Freedom Fry Fellowship!
> ...





I know I only use Freedom Ticklers since "_the Incident_"...


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 8, 2005)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> In short where once universities were about the process of learning, today they are all about product.  Education has become more bureaucracy than enlightenment.




Yep.  It's all about outcomes (degrees and placement in the workforce) and those outcomes are currently tied (in part) to funding.


----------



## John Morrow (Jun 8, 2005)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> While I understand your analogy ("Voodoo ... _voodoo_ economics ... ") and the illustrations you used earlier from academia, I've simply never seen it work like that.




Oh, I have.  I've both read about it and seen it personally.

By the way, dismissing the Laffer Curve as just "Voodoo Economics" hardly suggests an open mind and illustrates the attitude that I'm talking about.  "Yeah, I read an article about the Laffer Curve.  That's that Voodoo Economics thing, right?  I already know all I need to know about that."  Turn critical mind off.  You may not be doing that but a lot of people do.

I've worked in tax enforcement and find that Ivory Tower economists, both on the left and right, tend to ignore the entire issue of compliance and how tax rates and collection methods affect compliance.  Let's just say that my home state wound up with a tax that was actually costing the state money because they non-compliance was nearly universal, the way it was being collected could not be legally enforced, and the rebate mechanism for those who were due a refund on the tax was easily abused.  In essence, the state was not only barely collecting taxes but it was refunding money it never collected.  

My point here is that the importance of the compliance variable increases as tax rates increase (and the benefit of avoiding a tax instead of complying with it increases) such that it can eat up any benefit of increasing the tax rate producing, well, a Laffer Curve all by itself.  Most economists seem to live in a perfect world where everyone dutifully pays their taxes no matter how high the rate goes or how it is collected and enforced.  As a result, they rarely consider compliance and, even when they do, it seems like they live in a fantasy world.  And in my experience, such experts are less likely to listen to what I have to say about compliance than people who are not experts because they don't want messy real world imperfections messing up their clean theories.



			
				Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Just to summarize, so that you understand that _I_ understand, your argument is that at a certain point an individual's education ossifies his ability to absorb new information and use it to reevaluate his views.




To be more accurate, it doesn't ossify their ability to absorb information but it _can_ and _may_ ossify their interest and desire to absorb new information and reevaluate their views.  I think part of the disagreement is that your focus is ability while my focus is use.  I personally don't care if they have a better ability to evaluate other opinions if, in practice, they never really do.



			
				Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Rather than look at new information and wonder, "Now how might that change what I've always believed?" he instead looks at new information and either (1) dismisses the new information as "flukey" or otherwise invalid or (2) wonders, "Now how can I make this new information fit what I've always believed?"




Sometimes it's that.  Sometimes it's simply a matter of thinking that they already understand the new information even when they might not ("That Laffer Curve is just a part of Voodoo Economics and we all know that supply side economics and been utterly disproven.") or filing new information into a category or pattern they already know rather than really looking at it to see if it's different.

(I'm not looking to debate supply side economics with you here.  I'm simply pointing out that if a person decides that an issue like supply side economics has already been resolved and is no longer worthy of serious consideration, they'll often dismiss anything that looks or smells like a discussion of supply side economics as unworthy of their time to even consider.)



			
				Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> I dunno.  Maybe I'm simply lucky (or equipped with exceptional taste), in that the highly educated people I know do not do this, and maybe I'm giving the highly educated people on the "Other Side" _way_ too much credit, but my experience (and belief) is that such individuals nearly _always_ know when they're seeing information that doesn't jibe with the viewpoints they present to the world.




I've given you several published examples so far of highly educated people failing to question their own assumptions and even believing some pretty absurd things.  I know anecdotal evidence is funny that way but perhaps I should point out that I'm offering specific examples (and could provide plenty more) and you don't seem to be offering any specific counter examples which, to me, looks an awful lot like what I'm talking about here.  Have you read the articles and examples I offered?  I ask because you also seem somewhat reluctant to question your own assumptions and conclusion.



			
				Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Understand, my definition of open-minded doesn't require that people express a change of opinion upon learning new and contradictory information ... it only requires that they be willing and able to _evaluate_ the information.  Whether or not they then openly express a change of opinion has more to do with ethics and honesty (and, frankly, self-esteem and other psychological factors) than it has to do with open-mindedness.




Oh, I get that and think I pretty much agree with you on that.



			
				Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Imagine a guy who, given all available information, is simply never wrong in the conclusions he draws from that information.  (Yes, I know, such people don't really exist, although we think we do.)  This guy may very well, and very validly, _never_ change his opinion on a given subject, assuming that any new evidence continues to support his opinion.  Yet although he never changes his opinion, he is nevertheless extraordinarily open-minded.  He considers and evaluates all new information.




I've rarely seen such a person, which is why I think your idea is nice in theory but nearly non-existent in practice.  What often seems to happen when people spend years being right (or having people tell them that they are right), they often forget how to know when they are wrong and start simply assuming that they aren't, even when the evidence suggests otherwise.  In the example I provided from Lawrence Keeley, he had simply read so many books and talked to so many professors who were certain that prehistoric people were peaceful and never questioned that assumption that he considered it a settled issue and never questioned it himself, even when he was digging up large numbers of human remains that were clearly victims of homicide.

Frankly, I think that's human nature.  Life is too short to constantly question everything we believe so people consider certain issues settled and go from there, never questioning them again.  

Years ago, James Burke began one of the episodes of his first Connections series in front of a nuclear power plant to make a point.  How does the average person know that a nuclear power plant is safe or not?  It's likely that most of the people who built the plant don't even understand every system or structure in the building because it's simply too complex for one person to know everything that they would need to know to fully understand how everything in that plant works.  So instead we rely on experts and a less-than-perfect understanding of the various components and make a more or less educated guess.  The same is true of airplanes, etc.  We live in a society where we simply can't know everything about everything so we have to choose when to investigate and when to trust.  Even highly educated people.  In fact, highly educated people know to much for it to be practical for them to constantly question what they already know.

But where their education becomes a liability is when they think they know more than they really do.  That's why there is the saying, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."  That's also why I said that knowing what you don't know is often more important than what you do know when it comes to being open minded.



			
				Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Now note that nowhere in the above paragraph does it state what viewpoints the guy _expresses_.




I don't think that really matters.  And note that I'm not saying that such a person couldn't exist.  I'm saying that becoming highly educated does not necessarily produce such a person and that there are aspects of becoming highly educated that can produce a very different sort of person.  As a result, I simply don't think it's fair to say that more education always produces a more open-minded person, even if you or I think it should.  And I can give you plenty more examples if you want but I'm trying not to make this any more political or personal than it needs to be.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 8, 2005)

Mark said:
			
		

> I know I only use Freedom Ticklers since "_the Incident_"...




I don't know what I should be more ashamed of...that I laughed at that...or that I had to read it twice, first.


----------



## ecliptic (Jun 8, 2005)

I remember the time I read George R. R. Martin's political views. It was like a punch to the stomach. Frankly I think writers, artists and celebrities should be more considerate of their fanbase when deciding if they should or shouldn't announce their political views.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 8, 2005)

I honestly don't care if a writer voices their political views as long as they leave it the heck out of my games.  I despise political leanings of either liberal or conservative slants (being a moderate myself) in my games and it's one way for me to sell a product outright no matter how well-written.  My only beef with celebrities and psuedo-celebs (or anyone else for that matter) voiceing their political views is when they voice their opinion as if it's gospel.  It's OK to believe in something, but at least be able to listen to other ideas even if you disagree with them.  

Kane


----------



## John Morrow (Jun 8, 2005)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> Well made polls are designed to be neutral in that regard.  Most major AP polls are pretty well done.  The election polls asked the question "what is most immportant to you in this election," or a variation of that.  A certain group of folks answered "moral values" more often than other groups; other questions identified what that group was and which specific moral values were the issue.




The problem with even well made polls is that you can draw a lot of false conclusions about them.  For example, a poll asking whether President Bush is doing a good job might show around 50% of Americans saying "no".  From that, politicians and pundits might assume that he's vulnerable or that support for his political opponents may be growing.  Other's might suggest that he needs to move to the left or moderate his policies to regain support.  But if a lot of those "no" answers are from _conservatives_ who are disappointed with his handling of illegal immigration, the federal deficit, the federal drug program, etc. then all of those conclusions may be very wrong because those people are interpreting generic "disapproval" with the type of disapproval that they see.

What I really want to see are approval polls and opinion polls that capture why people disapprove.  For example, does a person disapprove of the new federal prescription drug program because they think it's not enough or because they think it's too much?  Without knowing that, knowing that people disapprove of it doesn't really tell you much.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 8, 2005)

John Morrow said:
			
		

> The problem with even well made polls is that you can draw a lot of false conclusions about them.  For example, a poll asking whether President Bush is doing a good job might show around 50% of Americans saying "no".  From that, politicians and pundits might assume that he's vulnerable or that support for his political opponents may be growing.  Other's might suggest that he needs to move to the left or moderate his policies to regain support.  But if a lot of those "no" answers are from _conservatives_ who are disappointed with his handling of illegal immigration, the federal deficit, the federal drug program, etc. then all of those conclusions may be very wrong because those people are interpreting generic "disapproval" with the type of disapproval that they see.
> 
> What I really want to see are approval polls and opinion polls that capture why people disapprove.  For example, does a person disapprove of the new federal prescription drug program because they think it's not enough or because they think it's too much?  Without knowing that, knowing that people disapprove of it doesn't really tell you much.





Most poll datasets do just that.  Ever used SPSS?  Running cross-tabs on poll data is actually kind of fun (maybe I'm just weird).

However cross tabulation of poll results does not make for 'layman-friendly' reading to say the least.


----------



## Psion (Jun 8, 2005)

What it comes to is this: If you are a public figure, and you too vociferously or venimously unveil your disdain for a fan or what they beleive, you create the possibility for them disliking you or having something against you that has nothing to do with gaming.

Sometimes it's best to "not go there."


----------



## John Morrow (Jun 8, 2005)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> Most poll datasets do just that.




If the polling process captures it.  The few polls that I've taken of the sort that get reported in the press generally asked "approve" or "disapprove" questions but never asked why.  They can't capture what they don't ask.  Perhaps some polls do capture more information like that (and I suspect that the internal polls of various political parties do) but it almost never gets reported in the mainstream if they do.


----------



## John Morrow (Jun 8, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I didn't mean you shouldn't boycott their products or refuse to employ them.    I do mean that you as the state authority shouldn't censor their website and/or punish them unless they're inciting actual crimes (like murder).    If you're a board moderator you shouldn't normally censor links to their website either, but I can see a case for removing links to holocaust-denial or pro-pedophilia websites given that those may be criminal in themselves (certainly in eg France or Germany holocaust-denial is prosecutable), the other two also if they're also illegal somewhere.




Let me see if I understand you correctly.  You don't think that a state authority should censor a web site but you do think that web sites should comply with state authorities when they do censor websites without batting an eyelash?


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 8, 2005)

John Morrow said:
			
		

> Let me see if I understand you correctly.  You don't think that a state authority should censor a web site but you do think that web sites should comply with state authorities when they do censor websites without batting an eyelash?




I would think that private organizations should do what they believe is appropriate with their property, including censoring viewpoints they don't like, don't want to be associated with, don't want to promote, or simply for no reason at all.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 8, 2005)

John Morrow said:
			
		

> If the polling process captures it.  The few polls that I've taken of the sort that get reported in the press generally asked "approve" or "disapprove" questions but never asked why.  They can't capture what they don't ask.  Perhaps some polls do capture more information like that (and I suspect that the internal polls of various political parties do) but it almost never gets reported in the mainstream if they do.




I don't know if you're a computer guy, but if this issue interests you, you might want to check out: 

http://www.spss.com/

They are the premier manufacturers of commercial data processing software.  Expensive as hell though.

Sometimes you, interestingly enough, CAN capture what you don't ask.  If 60% of people support Candidate A and only 30% support Candidate B...while 70% of the people, in the same survey, are pro-widget while 30% are anti widget...you're first inclination, as candidate B would be to get more pro-widget.  If however, you cross-tabulate and find that 90% of people who are pro-widget voters support your opponent, while 50% of anti-widget voters are undecided voters...it actually pays to slant towards an "anti-widget" position.

You mix and match questions and answers and get all kinds of weird and wonderful results.  It really is a lot of fun.


----------



## John Morrow (Jun 8, 2005)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> This is bizarre.  I dunno where you went to school, but every university I've attended has been _all about_ "rational debate [and] discourse," not to mention "introduction to new and varied" people and ideas.




Have you ever tried to argue for a politically conservative idea in a college classroom?  Let's just say that I've personally encountered plenty of students and professors who weren't "all about" rational debate and discourse and didn't want to be introduced to new and varied people and ideas and I've read about plenty more specific examples.  It would be fair to point out that many of the worst abuses happen in basic writing classes taught by overzealous TAs without tenure but it would also be fair to point out that most colleges require incoming freshmen to take those classes.  And as someone with an English degree asked by other students to help them pass their basic writing class after repeated failures, my advise was invariably less about actually improving their writing or thinking and was more some variation on the theme, "Figure out what the professor wants to see and give it to them."  It always worked.



			
				Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Or one could say that tenure results in the _freedom_ to express ideas that may very well be unpopular with a university's administration.  You know, kinda like how lifetime tenure is designed to grant the same freedom to the federal judiciary?




As you'll also notice with the judiciary, such protection only shifts the battle lines to controlling who gets to join the club and it makes that control immensely important.  That's why the approval of federal judges has been consuming the Senate to a degree that even many legal scholars who lean to the left are starting to consider it unhealthy.  And in the case of colleges and tenure, it's like letting the federal judiciary pick its own new members.  Do you really think that would be a good thing?

I should also point out that FDR managed to find a quite effective way to force the Supreme Court to do what he wanted.  (Do a Google search on the quoted phrase "a switch in time saves nine" if you don't know what I mean.)


----------



## John Morrow (Jun 8, 2005)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> Sometimes you, interestingly enough, CAN capture what you don't ask.




Ah.  Gotcha.  If you have the raw data, you can draw other conclusions.  But why doesn't the press report more analyses like that?  Or better yet, why don't they just capture that information when they do the polling?


----------



## John Morrow (Jun 8, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I would think that private organizations should do what they believe is appropriate with their property, including censoring viewpoints they don't like, don't want to be associated with, don't want to promote, or simply for no reason at all.




Oh, I agree.  But that wasn't the point I was trying to make.  I was trying to square the statement "I do mean that you as the state authority shouldn't censor their website and/or punish them unless they're inciting actual crimes (like murder)." with the statement, "If you're a board moderator you shouldn't normally censor links to their website either, but I can see a case for removing links to holocaust-denial or pro-pedophilia websites given that those may be criminal in themselves (certainly in eg France or Germany holocaust-denial is prosecutable), the other two also if they're also illegal somewhere."  In other words, France and Germany are doing exactly what the first sentence claims shouldn't be done but it makes sense for web sites to comply with their restrictions.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 8, 2005)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> I certainly wouldn't dare match up my philosophical credentials against yours...and yes you are quite right to rephrase my use of 'objectivism' to empiricism (I just find objectivism a more intuitive word to somebody with a non-philosophy background).




I understand, but you have to look at how different Randing Objectivism is from empiricism.



> Ad for your somewhat spirited (if ironic) defence postmodernism -- I would argue that my central point -- that the one side in this debate believes there are objective moral standards outside of context, the other doesn't.  But then again my readings of Derrida are limited and Foccault, admittedly, nonexistant.




A moral argument is somewhat different. The empiricist/postmodern conflict is really between whether the choices we make in framing a moral argument, or the moral arguments we choose to have exist prior to what influences us to make them in the first place, and what weight that gives to the answers. So an empirical moral argument may be consistent, but the postmodernist would ask if it's actually relevant.



> As for your charge of my pretentiousness -- my only response is that "you can't please everybody"...so please my apologies if my hazy recollections of my philosophy education offend your scholarly sensibilities.




There's nothing wrong with what you said per se; I just feel you're ascribing the wrong labels. It is possible to approach an argument in a nihilistic fashion so that nothing means anything, and this *is* a problem.

Now, to apply it to this thread:

So somebody looked at Erik Mona's blog and found that there was stuff other than game design. So:

*Is that really his problem? Did he promise to have an apolitical online presence, or divorce his views from gaming content?

*Is this a designer-side issue, when they do not choose what fans do and don't want to see in designers' blogs?

*Is this actually relevant outside of the small number of people who can't bring themselves to read the gaming parts of the blog because there might be politics?

*Are the supposed problems being brought up real problems, or theoretical ones? Are they a way of making an issue bigger than: "I personally don't like gaming and political content in the same blog," or somesuch?

* Considering the above, what was the content of this thread constructed in the generalizing, problematic tone it now has?


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 8, 2005)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> This is bizarre.  I dunno where you went to school, but every university I've attended has been _all about_ "rational debate [and] discourse," not to mention "introduction to new and varied" people and ideas.




I went to a state college and majored in Social Science with an emphasis on Education.  I got several poor grades primarily because I didn't hold true to their political leanings.  After 3 years of simply swallowing my pride and giving the professors what they wanted, I stood up for my beliefs and was promptly dealt with.  Yeah, real open-minded and rational debate going on there...  Sadly, my brother is going through the same thing now at a different college in North Dakota...

Kane


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 8, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I would think that private organizations should do what they believe is appropriate with their property, including censoring viewpoints they don't like, don't want to be associated with, don't want to promote, or simply for no reason at all.




Everybody likes the part of On Liberty where you're told you can do what you want; nobody likes the part where he says you can still be told how dumb you are for doing something dumb anyway.

In short, propriety is not a moral defense, and the use of "should" in this context is deeply mistaken. Private organizations and people *may* do anything they like, but this does not mean they *ought* to make any decision they like. In the US, you may put up idiotic racist content on your website, but it's still dumb. You may direct your corporation to use its leverage against certain points of view with its media properties, but your ownership does not magically translate into moral absolution.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Jun 8, 2005)

Okay, I'm an outsider to what seems to be largely a US debate, but it does seem that politics in the US is now so polarised that people don't distinguish between reasonably held views other than their own, and views that are totally unacceptable.

In other words, I think it's reasonable to refuse to purchase goods or services from someone who holds views that you consider to be totally unacceptable. For instance, if I found out that someone was a hard core white supremist racist who thought that the Holocaust had been a good thing - then I'm sure as hell not going to buy any of his products.

But to not buy someone's book merely because they vote for a party (a totally democratic party) other than the one you vote for - that's not only daft, but actually distructive to democracy. You shouldn't find it offensive that someone votes for a party other than your own. That's democracy. Finding out that someone's a Democrat when you're a Republican (or vice versa) should *not* qualify as something that "offends you" or prevents you buying their book.


----------



## Belen (Jun 8, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> But to not buy someone's book merely because they vote for a party (a totally democratic party) other than the one you vote for - that's not only daft, but actually distructive to democracy. You shouldn't find it offensive that someone votes for a party other than your own. That's democracy. Finding out that someone's a Democrat when you're a Republican (or vice versa) should *not* qualify as something that "offends you" or prevents you buying their book.




That is not the point.  No one here has said that they would not buy a product just because someone either a member of a specific party.  People are saying that they will not buy a product from someone who has shown themselves to be a rabid extremist member of a political party.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 8, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> People are saying that they will not buy a product from someone who has shown themselves to be a rabid extremist member of a political party.




For sufficiently variable qualities of "rabid extremist".....


Unfortunately, it's gotten to the point in this country where the most moderate position of a party is viewed as "extreme" by proponents of the opposition.    Hardly surpising in a climate where people won't even consider non-political content from people who don't share their views.    Pathetic, even.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 8, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, it's gotten to the point in this country where the most moderate position of a party is viewed as "extreme" by proponents of the opposition.    Hardly surpising in a climate where people won't even consider non-political content from people who don't share their views.    Pathetic, even.




As long as gaming product doesn't become a platform for thinly-vieled political rants, I'll buy products from just about anyone.  Otherwise, I might miss out on good products just because I think someone is an ass in real life.

Kane


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Jun 8, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> That is not the point.  No one here has said that they would not buy a product just because someone either a member of a specific party.  People are saying that they will not buy a product from someone who has shown themselves to be a rabid extremist member of a political party.




But what is a "rabid extremist member" of a (presumably) non-extremist party?

I can see how someone can be a member of an extremist party (such as the Nazis). But I'm not sure how you can be extreme in your membership of a non-extremist party. I can see how you can be an enthusiastic member of a party, or a committed member, but not extemist.

The danger would seem to me to be that you might have a situation where it's okay for someone to say that they vote Democrat or Republican, and perhaps even admit to being a non-active member of one of those two parties - but where it's not okay for them to admit to being an active or enthusiastic member.

I'm not saying that's what you think, just that some people in the US appear to be drawing a pretty tight line as to how actively people can support non-extremist politics before those people become regarded as extremists.

And personally, I think enthusiasm in politics is good and to be applauded.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 8, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> In short, propriety is not a moral defense, and the use of "should" in this context is deeply mistaken. Private organizations and people *may* do anything they like, but this does not mean they *ought* to make any decision they like. In the US, you may put up idiotic racist content on your website, but it's still dumb. You may direct your corporation to use its leverage against certain points of view with its media properties, but your ownership does not magically translate into moral absolution.




Wrong. Private individuals _should_ do what they believe is appropriate in such a situation. Otherwise, there is no point in having freedom of speech. The right to put forward things that other people believe is wrong headed nonsense is a critical element of a free society,


----------



## John Morrow (Jun 8, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Wrong. Private individuals _should_ do what they believe is appropriate in such a situation. Otherwise, there is no point in having freedom of speech. The right to put forward things that other people believe is wrong headed nonsense is a critical element of a free society,




I get the impression that your enumerated list of things that are included in that claim was taken as a list of things that you thought should always be done.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 8, 2005)

John Morrow said:
			
		

> I get the impression that your enumerated list of things that are included in that claim was taken as a list of things that you thought should always be done.




I believe that private individuals should do such things if they believe it is appropriate. After all, what good is it having rights if you don't excercise them?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jun 8, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Then you must not have been exit polled. But even if you weren't polling still identifies trends in the general population, some of which are strong and some of which are not. Elementary social sciences, really.




You mean trends like, "Kerry won!"

Exit polling is a freakin' _joke_. A complete and utter failure.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 8, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> I can see how someone can be a member of an extremist party (such as the Nazis). But I'm not sure how you can be extreme in your membership of a non-extremist party. I can see how you can be an enthusiastic member of a party, or a committed member, but not extemist.




The major political parties in the US are far broader coallitions than are typically seen elsewhere (because the political system strongly encourages two major parties). To UK-ize things ... suppose the LibDems and Labour were both in the same party, and so were the Greens. Then figure any even remotely respectable party of the Right as part of the Tories. And then given them about equal membership nationally, with solid regional strongholds.

Does that help?


----------



## drothgery (Jun 8, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> You mean trends like, "Kerry won!"
> 
> Exit polling is a freakin' _joke_. A complete and utter failure.




No it's not. Using early exit polling to predict the results of a close race is a joke. But that's hardly the only use for exit polling.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jun 8, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> No it's not. Using early exit polling to predict the results of a close race is a joke. But that's hardly the only use for exit polling.




True; it's most often used to _affect_ the results of a close race.

My suspicion is that a large enough sampling of folks are so generally disgusted with exit polls that they'll deliberately skew the results until they are so obviously, ridiculously useless that they are simply no longer tolerated as "news."

My suspicion; my expectation; my sincere hope.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Jun 8, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> The major political parties in the US are far broader coallitions than are typically seen elsewhere (because the political system strongly encourages two major parties). To UK-ize things ... suppose the LibDems and Labour were both in the same party, and so were the Greens. Then figure any even remotely respectable party of the Right as part of the Tories. And then given them about equal membership nationally, with solid regional strongholds.
> 
> Does that help?




Yeah, right, I can see what you're saying, and that's a good explanation.

But I do think that people in general, but particularly in the US, draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable views too tightly, to the extent that they regard it as unacceptable to simply express political views. Someone earlier in this thread said something about how people shouldn't discuss politics on their blogs because it's a touchy subject that's liable to cause offence. That just seemed a bit strong to me.

Anyhow, this is such a fuzzy subject that there's no line that can be drawn.


----------



## Mokona (Jun 8, 2005)

Gaming figures should feel free to express themselves in their private space (such as Erik's blog).  Since as a whole most gaming professionals who've spoken up have elitist and crazy political opinions they should expect that some fans will react negatively.  If it gets annoying enough I just laugh and stop reading that person's blog.

What bothers me the most is when fringe political notions like Erik's get into printed games because then I have to weigh if that product is a good use of my money.  I don't expect everyone to write the politics in games to my tastes and they shouldn't expect me to buy games containing politically offensive junk.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jun 8, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> True; it's most often used to _affect_ the results of a close race.
> 
> My suspicion is that a large enough sampling of folks are so generally disgusted with exit polls that they'll deliberately skew the results until they are so obviously, ridiculously useless that they are simply no longer tolerated as "news."
> 
> My suspicion; my expectation; my sincere hope.




Living in South Florida, the last election in my county, the pollsters didn't seem interested in talking to anyone of my age. They basically restricted their polls to older voters.

There's also the element that some of us just don't take polls! 

That's besides the obvious problem of announcing the outcome of statewide elections, before the elections were actually over. (the panhandle is in a different time zone)

Nearly ever election, you can watch the news and see them telling you "candidate A is winning!" while the percentage of votes underneath the talking head, reads the exact opposite.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 8, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> True; it's most often used to _affect_ the results of a close race.
> 
> My suspicion is that a large enough sampling of folks are so generally disgusted with exit polls that they'll deliberately skew the results until they are so obviously, ridiculously useless that they are simply no longer tolerated as "news."
> 
> My suspicion; my expectation; my sincere hope.




Err... no. The real use of exit polling data is for post-election analysis (by news organizations, political scientists, and political parties) of who voted which way why.

(BTW, once the 2004 exit polls were finalized and correctly weighted, the strange results from the early exit polls which led to the incorrect early "Kerry won" buzz disappeared, or shrunk to within the margin of error. Don't dismiss exit polls based on some bad sampling and premature analysis.)


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jun 8, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> (BTW, once the 2004 exit polls were finalized and correctly weighted, the strange results from the early exit polls which led to the incorrect early "Kerry won" buzz disappeared, or shrunk to within the margin of error. Don't dismiss exit polls based on some bad sampling and premature analysis.)




I'm dismissing them precisely because the media performs bad sampling and premature analysis and attempts to use them to affect voter turnout.

That exit polls are incorrectly and unethically applied _doesn't_ warrant their dismissal? Err... ok.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 8, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> But what is a "rabid extremist member" of a (presumably) non-extremist party?
> 
> I can see how someone can be a member of an extremist party (such as the Nazis). But I'm not sure how you can be extreme in your membership of a non-extremist party. I can see how you can be an enthusiastic member of a party, or a committed member, but not extemist.
> 
> ...




You are right and it is sad that this is happening in the United States. I read a lot of poltical sites and it makes me sick the amount of name calling, labeling and just over all nastiness that has invaded poltical discussions. You got one side calling all liberals traitors snd the other calling all conservatives nazis. And then there are the morons who if you disagree with them tell you that you do not love your country so get out. 

It is not helped by the media or the pundits on both sides who spew there hate while complaining that it is the other side doing it. Ann Coulter gets hit in the face with a pie and is surprised that she has stirred people up. Look at the title of her books and how insutling they are if you consider yourself a liberal. And liberals are not above doing the same.

We should be working together not pulling apart. Neither side is 100% right nor does it have all the answers. Only with open and free communication can we hope to solve some of the crisis facing us right now.

I fear we won't be able to do it. Not with everyone so certain they are right and everyone else is wrong. And the I refuse to listen much less consider your point of view. Your views offend me so I will do everything I can do to make you shut up.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 8, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> You mean trends like, "Kerry won!"
> 
> Exit polling is a freakin' _joke_. A complete and utter failure.





Exit polling is, indeed, a 'freakin joke'...the political equivalent of chicken bones and tea leaves.

Actual polling, with large sample sizes, random sampling, non-loaded questions, universal answers, and accureately coded by staffs is freakishly accureate at reading the exact mood of any population...that's why politicos spend so much money on it.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 8, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I'm dismissing them precisely because the media performs bad sampling and premature analysis and attempts to use them to affect voter turnout.
> 
> That exit polls are incorrectly and unethically applied _doesn't_ warrant their dismissal? Err... ok.




Never ascribe to maliciousness what should better be ascribed to ignorance. Most reporters don't really understand how exit polls work, and so tend to take early exit poll results as fact (especially when it seems to conform with their political leanings). What this should argue for is exit polling services holding off on releasing results until after the polls have closed, and better education of those reporting exit poll results to the general public. But the data collected in exit polls is useful, and I don't see a reasonable case against collecting it.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 8, 2005)

> Living in South Florida, the last election in my county, the pollsters didn't seem interested in talking to anyone of my age. They basically restricted their polls to older voters. .




I wouldn't trust any pollster who actually showed an 'interest' in talking to one group over another.  It cannot be overstated that the ONLY accurate polls are those where people are sampled completely randomly.  So unless the poll was specifically designed to measure older voters, it's more likely that you and your peers simply missed the lottery (consider yourself lucky!)



> There's also the element that some of us just don't take polls!




Any poll that requires you to actively seek it out and 'take it' won't be worth the paper it's printed on.  To ensure random sampling, the pollsters have to pre-select and seek out you.



> That's besides the obvious problem of announcing the outcome of statewide elections, before the elections were actually over. (the panhandle is in a different time zone)




On that you are one hundred percent accurate.  It's a big problem in the continental democracies like Canada, the US or Austrailia.



> Nearly ever election, you can watch the news and see them telling you "candidate A is winning!" while the percentage of votes underneath the talking head, reads the exact opposite.




I don't know if it happens THAT often.  When it does, it's often because the aggregate numbers don't break down where the votes are coming from.  Some areas mean more than others.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 8, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Never ascribe to maliciousness what should better be ascribed to ignorance. Most reporters don't really understand how exit polls work, and so tend to take early exit poll results as fact (especially when it seems to conform with their political leanings). What this should argue for is exit polling services holding off on releasing results until after the polls have closed, and better education of those reporting exit poll results to the general public. But the data collected in exit polls is useful, and I don't see a reasonable case against collecting it.




You're right. I was a little harsh on exit polls before.  They do have uses, particularly in post election research.  As a predictor of results, however, they just plan suck.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 9, 2005)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> I wouldn't trust any pollster who actually showed an 'interest' in talking to one group over another.  It cannot be overstated that the ONLY accurate polls are those where people are sampled completely randomly.  So unless the poll was specifically designed to measure older voters, it's more likely that you and your peers simply missed the lottery (consider yourself lucky!)



It could also be that they had a pre-determined quota of people in various categories, designed so they'd make sure the people they polled were representative of the larger population. And then they had filled their quota of young'uns, and were looking for older folks to fill that quota.


> To ensure random sampling, the pollsters have to pre-select and seek out you.



And in most cases (at least most good cases), they have selected X number of people in a number of different categories.

For example, a couple of years ago, we got called by a pollster of some sort. They asked to speak to my dad, who wasn't at home at the time. I offered to answer instead, and they said that wouldn't work because I wasn't part of the same demographic as my dad.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jun 9, 2005)

John Morrow said:
			
		

> By the way, dismissing the Laffer Curve as just "Voodoo Economics" hardly suggests an open mind and illustrates the attitude that I'm talking about.



My "dismissal" of the Laffer Curve was actually a fairly famous quote from a very famous movie spoken by a fairly famous conservative speechwriter.



> I personally don't care if they have a better ability to evaluate other opinions if, in practice, they never really do.



Well, that's super.  But I wasn't aware that we'd been talking about your personal definition of open-minded and reasonable people as "people that change their minds and let me know."  If I'd known that, I wouldn't have bothered.  I just kinda wish you'd let me know earlier, so I'd not have wasted my time.

There are a hundred reasons that people _express_ opinions they know to be wrong, or unfair, or whatever, ranging from greed to fear of reprisal.



> I ask because you also seem somewhat reluctant to question your own assumptions and conclusion.



Right, and you conclude that ... because I don't agree with you.  And that's exactly what your position comes down to:

It doesn't matter if someone absorbs, understands, and collates your arguments ... if your argument doesn't have that someone recanting his argument and embracing yours, well ... he's clearly "reluctant to question [his] own assumptions and conclusions."

And that's the difference between us.  Despite the fact that you have given _no_ indication that my argument has made any impact upon you, whatsoever, I have not, until now, assumed that your failure to agree was a matter of close-mindedness.

But on that, at least, you've convinced me.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jun 9, 2005)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> Any poll that requires you to actively seek it out and 'take it' won't be worth the paper it's printed on.  To ensure random sampling, the pollsters have to pre-select and seek out you.



I meant as "would you like to take a poll today?" "no, leave me alone!" way.



> I don't know if it happens THAT often.  When it does, it's often because the aggregate numbers don't break down where the votes are coming from.  Some areas mean more than others.



It happens nearly every election, but not in a significant proportion of the races at that time. So yeah, if there's 500 elections and it only happens in one of them, it's not really signifcant, but it sure is funny!


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Jun 9, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> The trouble is that it is not really an objective truth that evolution is the best explanation of the origin of species.




That is correct.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Jun 9, 2005)

When I encounter tin-foil-hat conspiracy rants about stolen elections and what not I have to say it makes me less likely to purchase products from the ranter.


----------



## John Morrow (Jun 9, 2005)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> My "dismissal" of the Laffer Curve was actually a fairly famous quote from a very famous movie spoken by a fairly famous conservative speechwriter.




And which famous movie and famous speechwriter was that?  I'm sorry but while it's quite possible I'd recognize your reference if I heard you speak it, I think it's a stretch to expect me to recognize a three word quote like that distinguished only by a pair of elipses.



			
				Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Well, that's super.  But I wasn't aware that we'd been talking about your personal definition of open-minded and reasonable people as "people that change their minds and let me know."  If I'd known that, I wouldn't have bothered.  I just kinda wish you'd let me know earlier, so I'd not have wasted my time.




I'm not talking about my personal definition of open-minded and reasonable people, nor am I using the straw man definition that you keep trying to foist on me. 

Being open-minded has nothing to do with people actually changing their mind nor does it have anything to do with how they express their beliefs.  It has to do with their ability to actually _listen_ and _consider_ opposing points of view rather than lecturing, dismissing, or playing games.  If a person isn't willing to actually listen and consider opposing opinions, I think it's a stretch to call them "open-minded".  And if they lack the ability to really understand opposing opinions, that'll cause problems, too.



			
				Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> There are a hundred reasons that people _express_ opinions they know to be wrong, or unfair, or whatever, ranging from greed to fear of reprisal.




...or playing games with other people.  I'm not talking about the opinions that people express, though.



			
				Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Right, and you conclude that ... because I don't agree with you.  And that's exactly what your position comes down to:




I'm concluding that because I honestly see very little substance to your arguments.  You've now entered the realm of trying to define my position as a straw man so you can knock it down.  That's a really good way to demonstrate that you aren't understanding an argument, though.

Let me spell out what I'm looking for as clearly as I can for you.  Do you have any _specific_ facts, examples, or arguments to actually prove your original claim ("That is, highly educated people are more open to examining all viewpoints (including their own) critically and logically. (Not to mention more capable of doing so.)") or is it simply an assertion that you can't or won't support?  And please note that you didn't originally claim that they were better equipped to assess or evaluate other viewpoints.  You actually asserted that they are "more open to examining all viewpoints".  

It would also be nice if you actually tried to answer the questions I asked.

My assertion is that highly educated people are often not more open to examinging all viewpoints and have offered some specific examples and specific reasoning to support my assertion.  Is there anything that I've said that you have a specific objection about or evidence to the contrary?  At one point, it looked like you were trying to claim that such examples are exceptional or unusual but I've given you specific examples that consume entire departments and fields of study in institutions of higher learning.



			
				Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter if someone absorbs, understands, and collates your arguments ... if your argument doesn't have that someone recanting his argument and embracing yours, well ... he's clearly "reluctant to question [his] own assumptions and conclusions."




It doesn't have anything to do with whether you agree with me or not.  You could raise specific objections to my argument.  You could provide examples and facts to strengthen your own argument.  Anything but the equivalent of, "Yeah... but I still think I'm right just because."



			
				Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> And that's the difference between us.  Despite the fact that you have given _no_ indication that my argument has made any impact upon you, whatsoever, I have not, until now, assumed that your failure to agree was a matter of close-mindedness.




My problem is that you haven't really made any arguments.  You made some assertions, provided some vague anecdotal evidence, and told me how much Rawls' theory impressed you.  As a result, I actually did some web research on Rawls' Veil of Ignorance since that's the most specific bit of information you've offered and, frankly, I didn't find it the profoundly insightful experience you seem to have found it.  But since you weren't very specific even there, I can't really tell what you think I should be getting out of it.  I've considered several of your assertions against what I know and they simply don't make sense to me.  In fact, I think a few of them sound laughably naive and I'm really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't.



			
				Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> But on that, at least, you've convinced me.




"I know you are but what am I."  Can we really leave that sort of argument on the playground where it belongs?

Your straw man characterization of my position suggests that you don't understand my argument.  Your lack of responses that engage specifics or details leave me wondering if you are even reading my arguments.  As I tell my wife, "I don't read minds."  

Communication requires that you give me some clue what you are thinking.  I'm not really sure what you think you're going to get out of playing your cards close to your vest and not expressing what you are thinking (if that's what you are doing) but I can tell you that it makes it impossible to distinguish you from someone who isn't absorbing, understanding, or paying any attention to what I'm saying.  That, combined with some of your statements that fit the profile of naive academic (unless you are purposely trying to act like one) leave me guessing that perhaps you really are just a naive academic.  I'm not saying that to insult you but to honestly tell you what this really looks like to me.

Perhaps that's not true and I'm sure you don't think it's fair but if you want me to draw a diffent conclusion, toss me something that will make me think otherwise.  I'll happily revise my opinion.  That doesn't mean that I want you to just roll over and agree with me.  It means that if you don't, I'd like to see something that actually supports your assertion (better than the claim that it's a tautology) or refutes mine.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 9, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Really? _Clearly_ there is a correlation? Clearly?




Er, yeah.  No political pollster disputes this AFAIK.  Education, wealth, race, gender etc all influence voting patterns.  Of course no particular individual's voting is determined by their wealth, education etc.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 9, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> My main point, is that if you work in an environment of stagnant ideas or stratified social structure, then the people you meet will only reinforce your beliefs and not challenge them.
> 
> IMO, universities no longer participate in rational debate or discourse.  They have their own methods for discussion that does not include normal people.  Tenure and difficulty in getting rid of government employees result in less turnover, fewer differences in viewpoint. and stagnation.  It can take years to fire someone who is incompetent etc.  This gives them a security that most normal people can never enjoy and so they feel free to say things that would be unconscionable in other arenas where actual consequences exist or someone has the power to effectively disagree with you.




That should make their opinions _more_ diverse not less, then?


----------



## S'mon (Jun 9, 2005)

John Morrow said:
			
		

> Let me see if I understand you correctly.  You don't think that a state authority should censor a web site but you do think that web sites should comply with state authorities when they do censor websites without batting an eyelash?




No, you misunderstand me.  I was talking about web site moderators enforcing the web site's own policies re eg no political speech.  Not that I'm in favour of bans on political speech but I can see why it is considered necessary on ENW.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 9, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> The major political parties in the US are far broader coallitions than are typically seen elsewhere (because the political system strongly encourages two major parties). To UK-ize things ... suppose the LibDems and Labour were both in the same party, and so were the Greens. Then figure any even remotely respectable party of the Right as part of the Tories. And then given them about equal membership nationally, with solid regional strongholds.
> 
> Does that help?




Labour & Conservative in the UK are "broad church" parties.  Labour includes people who are to the left of any US Democrats.  US Republicans include people whose views might not be acceptable in the Conservatives, but I'm not sure about that.  Overall I'd say Labour & Conservative were about as broad as Democrat & Republican, although most UK Conservatives would fit comfortably into the US Democratic party.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 9, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> But I do think that people in general, but particularly in the US, draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable views too tightly, to the extent that they regard it as unacceptable to simply express political views.




That's my impression. This seems to be a relatively recent phenomenon AFAIK.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 9, 2005)

>>Originally Posted by billd91
The trouble is that it is not really an objective truth that evolution is the best explanation of the origin of species.<<

The theory of evolution through natural selection is the best available scientific explanation for the origin of species, though.

Is that considered a religious or political statement?


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 9, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> >>Originally Posted by billd91
> The trouble is that it is not really an objective truth that evolution is the best explanation of the origin of species.<<
> 
> The theory of evolution through natural selection is the best available scientific explanation for the origin of species, though.
> ...




Nope, it's called an informed statement. Evolution via natural selection is a 'theory' about in the same way that gravity is. If you don't have scientific training and dispute the validity of evolution, I suggest you jump off a building and test out the 'theory' of gravity at the same time you test out evolution and spare the gene pool your contribution. But, that's just my opinion.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 9, 2005)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Nope, it's called an informed statement. Evolution via natural selection is a 'theory' about in the same way that gravity is. If you don't have scientific training and dispute the validity of evolution, I suggest you jump off a building and test out the 'theory' of gravity at the same time you test out evolution and spare the gene pool your contribution. But, that's just my opinion.




As I understand it evolution & gravity are both observable facts, whereas the theories behind them (eg natural selection & Newtonian mechanics) are explanations of how and why they work.  Theories are not directly observable, as I understand it a good theory is one that fits the facts, is open to experiments that attempt to disprove it (is disprovable), and overcomes those attempts - ie is not disproved.  A 'bad' or unscientific theory is one that is inherently undisprovable, like "the universe only came into existence 5 minutes ago" or "the universe is just the dream of a giant ant in another universe".


----------



## Belen (Jun 9, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> That should make their opinions _more_ diverse not less, then?




Not at all.  There is a reason that the term "hidebound" has been applied to professors and admins.  IME, university professors and admin has settled on a set pattern of socio-political ideals.  They allow nothing to challenge those ideals and go so far as to threaten, harass or defame people who do not share their beliefs.

For example, look how John Bean has been treated by his own colleagues at Southern Illinois: http://www.southernillinoisan.com/articles/2005/04/27/top/102503.txt

Another good place to see problems with universities is http://www.thefire.org/


----------



## Belen (Jun 9, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> But I do think that people in general, but particularly in the US, draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable views too tightly, to the extent that they regard it as unacceptable to simply express political views. Someone earlier in this thread said something about how people shouldn't discuss politics on their blogs because it's a touchy subject that's liable to cause offence. That just seemed a bit strong to me.




Well, I think people such as Michael Moore, Ted Rall, or Ann Coulter can be labeled as extremist.  If I visit a site and see links to lunatic ravings from those people, then I am safe in saying that their views are unacceptable.  Those people do not HAVE political views.  They have disgusting rants meant to inflame an libel people.  That is not politics.  That is like getting on ENWorld and saying "d20 is the suxor" and never returning.

We call them trolls.


----------



## Belen (Jun 9, 2005)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Nope, it's called an informed statement. Evolution via natural selection is a 'theory' about in the same way that gravity is. If you don't have scientific training and dispute the validity of evolution, I suggest you jump off a building and test out the 'theory' of gravity at the same time you test out evolution and spare the gene pool your contribution. But, that's just my opinion.




Ah..the darwin awards. I read them every time I get frustrating and need to see that some people will never reproduce.


----------



## John Morrow (Jun 9, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> No, you misunderstand me.  I was talking about web site moderators enforcing the web site's own policies re eg no political speech.  Not that I'm in favour of bans on political speech but I can see why it is considered necessary on ENW.




OK.  Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 9, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> As I understand it evolution & gravity are both observable facts, whereas the theories behind them (eg natural selection & Newtonian mechanics) are explanations of how and why they work.




Um, Newtonian mechanics does not even attempt to explain how or why gravity works.  It merely describes the results of gravity in a useful way.  Newton tells you what's going to happen, but it does not make any claims about the underlying mechanic that makes it happen.

You don't get into suggestions of the how and why until you hit Einstein's General Relativity.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 9, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Wrong. Private individuals _should_ do what they believe is appropriate in such a situation.




Yes, but private individuals also _should_ carefully consider what is appropriate before acting.  Frequently, folks miss this step, or perform it haphazardly.  While you are free to speak your mind, it does nobody any good if you speak your mind poorly.


----------



## John Morrow (Jun 9, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> That should make their opinions _more_ diverse not less, then?




The problem is that college faculty has input on the college faculty that's hired and, in practice, they self-select for more people who think just like they do.  If professors were interviewed and hired by people who had an interest in giving the faculty a diversity of opinions, it might be a good thing but that's not how it works.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 9, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Not at all.  There is a reason that the term "hidebound" has been applied to professors and admins.  IME, university professors and admin has settled on a set pattern of socio-political ideals.  They allow nothing to challenge those ideals and go so far as to threaten, harass or defame people who do not share their beliefs.




In this, I'm not at all convinced that they're being any different from anyone else.  IME, very few people actually accept challenges to their basic ideas and ideals.  This isn't so much a quality of university professors as it is of humanity.

Before you answer, think for a second - at the moment, you do seem to be busy defaming university professors as a class, for not holding to your ideals.  

Which, of course, puts me in a wonderful position, rhetorically speaking


----------



## Belen (Jun 9, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> In this, I'm not at all convinced that they're being any different from anyone else.  IME, very few people actually accept challenges to their basic ideas and ideals.  This isn't so much a quality of university professors as it is of humanity.
> 
> Before you answer, think for a second - at the moment, you do seem to be busy defaming university professors as a class, for not holding to your ideals.




No, because I do not consider calling someone "hidebound" defamation.  I agree with your general premise though about human nature.  However, I do not require professors to hold to my ideals.  Whatever path they choose to follow should be the one with which they are comfortable.  My problem is that many professors and institutions are choosing to eliminate those ideas with which they do not agree in order to create their own brave new world.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 9, 2005)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> 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.





yes, i think people should have a place to post their opinions like blogs. i think when they go to other sites and link to their blogs they should put a warning in there though to give people a head's up. courtesy to the site you've placed the link and all.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Jun 9, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Well, I think people such as Michael Moore, Ted Rall, or Ann Coulter can be labeled as extremist.  If I visit a site and see links to lunatic ravings from those people, then I am safe in saying that their views are unacceptable.  Those people do not HAVE political views.  They have disgusting rants meant to inflame an libel people.  That is not politics.  That is like getting on ENWorld and saying "d20 is the suxor" and never returning.
> 
> We call them trolls.




Well I would draw a distinction between strong ranting and extremism.

Speaking very carefully to avoid a discussion of actual politics...

If a person rants and raves about how evil politician A is and how the things they do are absolutely sickening - I'd call that person a ranter.

But if a person says that certain groups of people (people who practice a particular religion) should be forced (i.e. through violence) to recant their beliefs with those who refuse being executed - now that person I'd call an extremist.

Of the three people on your list, one I'd put in the former category, one I'd put in the latter category, and the other one I confess I've never heard of.


----------



## John Morrow (Jun 9, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> In this, I'm not at all convinced that they're being any different from anyone else.  IME, very few people actually accept challenges to their basic ideas and ideals.  This isn't so much a quality of university professors as it is of humanity.




What makes it different is the uniformity of the basic ideas and ideals.  What happens when you get a uniformity of ideas and ideals that isn't challenged is radicalization because the radicals stop being challenged and start feeling free to say or do whatever they want without fear of being challenged.  And in the university setting, this also means that they feel free to politicize their classes.  I've heard more than one story while I was an undergrad of professors telling students on the first day of class that their class was going to be political and if the students didn't like that, they should drop the class.  And in some cases, those classes dealt with issues that weren't even political in nature and the politics they introduced had nothing to do with the subject of the class.



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> Before you answer, think for a second - at the moment, you do seem to be busy defaming university professors as a class, for not holding to your ideals.




That's a straw man.  The complaints being aimed at university professers here are because of (A) the lack of diversity in their politics, (B) their use of their classes as political soapboxes, and (C) their closed-mindedness despite their education (which was why this topic was introduced into this thread).  I'm sure there are some people who would like to see university professors become as biased in the other direction but I don't see any evidence that anyone in this thread is arguing for that.



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> Which, of course, puts me in a wonderful position, rhetorically speaking




Being a straw man, it's mighty easy to knock down, isn't it?

Complaining about a bias in one direction does not automatically mean that a person desires a bias in the other direction.  And if you want to look for a source of political polarization, you might want to consider the effect that excluded middle arguments (e.g., "If you oppose the left-wing bias of university professors, you must support replacing it with a right-wing bias.") have on political discourse.  It becomes impossible to advocate a moderate position or criticize a radical position if you exclude the possibility of any middle position between the extremes.  Right?


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 9, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> Of the three people on your list, one I'd put in the former category, one I'd put in the latter category, and the other one I confess I've never heard of.




The funny thing is the vast majority of partisans (of all stripes) could say the exact same thing about those particular three names.  However who get's put in what category would greatly differ indeed.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 9, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Well, I think people such as Michael Moore, Ted Rall, or Ann Coulter can be labeled as extremist.  If I visit a site and see links to lunatic ravings from those people, then I am safe in saying that their views are unacceptable.  Those people do not HAVE political views.  They have disgusting rants meant to inflame an libel people.  That is not politics.  That is like getting on ENWorld and saying "d20 is the suxor" and never returning.
> 
> We call them trolls.




Great point.  Trolls are more than just a product of Internet message boards or blogs.  They are also a product of talk radio, pseudo-documentaries, 24 hour news cable TV, and other 'new media'.

By democratizing access to mass audiences, new media has done an end-run around the brokerage ('elitist') environments of traditional mass communications.  Anybody can start a blog or post to a message board...with putting together a fakeumentary, getting your face on news TV, or or voice on talk radio, more difficult but still attainable goals.  Compare that to what fringe personalities had to do 25 years ago, when media was top heavy, and therefore, as an extension, somewhat better moderated.

Democratizing access to mass media is a good thing, don't get me wrong.   It is however NOT a universally good thing.  It's great that I COULD start a blog (I'll be damned if I can figure out why I'd ever want to), however at the same time, whether by accident or design,  this democratization has ripped away many of the filters that prevented 'trolls' from spreading their intentionally inflamatory politics.

When you break access to the system down to the lowet common denominator, do not be surprised if the content in the system breaks down with it.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Jun 9, 2005)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Nope, it's called an informed statement. Evolution via natural selection is a 'theory' about in the same way that gravity is. If you don't have scientific training and dispute the validity of evolution, I suggest you jump off a building and test out the 'theory' of gravity at the same time you test out evolution and spare the gene pool your contribution. But, that's just my opinion.




And what an ill-informed opinion it is. The life sciences have an inferior evidentiary threshold and are not even remotely on the same epistemological footing as the physical and mathematical sciences. Indeed, examining skulls and physiology for clues used to be called phrenology and haruspicy, respectively, in another time and place.


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 9, 2005)

Brennin Magalus said:
			
		

> And what an ill-informed opinion it is. The life sciences have an inferior evidentiary threshold and are not even remotely on the same epistemological footing as the physical and mathematical sciences. Indeed, examining skulls and physiology for clues used to be called phrenology and haruspicy, respectively, in another time and place.




And your credentials are....? I don't study skulls. Technically I'm a molecular virologist if you wanted to get picky. Evolution as an idea is inseperable from modern biology. And I'm hardly the most qualified person here who could expound on that. There's a number of bio PhDs here on enworld last I checked.

And phrenology was an attempt to ascribe gross personality attributes to subtle shapes of the cranium, not to use actual physical trends in the skeleton to differentiate between populations of humans and actual subspecies of the genus homo. Nice strawman.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 9, 2005)

John Morrow said:
			
		

> And which famous movie and famous speechwriter was that?  I'm sorry but while it's quite possible I'd recognize your reference if I heard you speak it, I think it's a stretch to expect me to recognize a three word quote like that distinguished only by a pair of elipses.




It is a quote spoken by Ben Stiller in the movie _Ferris Bueller's Day Off_. I note that it is not Ben Stiller's statement, or even Ben Stiller's character's statement, he is quoting someone else (actually George H.W. Bush) in a histroy class as part of his lecture. It isn't clear from the context whether Ben Stiller's character endorses the statment or not.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jun 9, 2005)

John Morrow said:
			
		

> And which famous movie and famous speechwriter was that?  I'm sorry but while it's quite possible I'd recognize your reference if I heard you speak it, I think it's a stretch to expect me to recognize a three word quote like that distinguished only by a pair of elipses.




_Ferris Buler's Day Off_

Ben Stein used to write speeches for the Republican party.  He's been in some movies and TV shows.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 9, 2005)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> Actual polling, with large sample sizes, random sampling, non-loaded questions, universal answers, and accureately coded by staffs is freakishly accureate at reading the exact mood of any population...that's why politicos spend so much money on it.




Having taken several statistics courses and the like, this is the reason I don't beleive any poll produced by 'friends of so-and-so'. I do not think any politico will risk using or funding an unbiased poll on the off chance that the unbiased staff comes back with 'Well, 80% think you're a loon and the other 20% think you're a county in Wyoming'.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 9, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> You mean trends like, "Kerry won!"
> 
> Exit polling is a freakin' _joke_. A complete and utter failure.




Not at all. You just have to remember that there is a margin of error. Besides, exit polls earlier in the day suggested Kerry would trend ahead in Ohio. Later in the day, things were starting to shift.

And exit polling won't catch election fraud... if there is any.


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 9, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> It is a quote spoken by Ben Stiller in the movie _Ferris Bueller's Day Off_. I note that it is not Ben Stiller's statement, or even Ben Stiller's character's statement, he is quoting someone else (actually George H.W. Bush) in a histroy class as part of his lecture. It isn't clear from the context whether Ben Stiller's character endorses the statment or not.




It was Ben Stein actually. And in the quote in that movie, he's not dismissing the Laffer curve, he's just pointing out that it's controversial, though it has historical analogs in tarrifs that give it relevance on some level. How much, and how far you can lower taxes before reducing overall income is the question, not that reducing taxes can have a positive effect on the economy that can at times outweigh the reduction in income from those taxes.

"In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the... Anyone? Anyone?... the Great Depression, passed the... Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which, anyone? Raised or lowered?... raised tariffs, in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone know the effects? It did not work, and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression. Today we have a similar debate over this. Anyone know what this is? Class? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone seen this before? The Laffer Curve. Anyone know what this says? It says that at this point on the revenue curve, you will get exactly the same amount of revenue as at this point. This is very controversial. Does anyone know what Vice President Bush called this in 1980? Anyone? Something-d-o-o economics. "Voodoo" economics."


----------



## Mokona (Jun 9, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> The theory of evolution through natural selection is the best available scientific explanation for the origin of species, though.
> 
> Is that considered a religious or political statement?




Yes it is both since evolution is a theory and not a law (such as the law of gravity).  There is no law of evolution.  Even highly educated people (including many scientists, if that matters) have looked at the claims for evolution and found the proof lacking.



			
				Shemeska said:
			
		

> If you don't have scientific training and dispute the validity of evolution, I suggest you jump off a building and test out the 'theory' of gravity at the same time you test out evolution and spare the gene pool your contribution.




This comment is blatantly offensive and I hope everyone here can recognize that fact.

It just isn't true that because you disagree with a notion (such as evolution) that you are genetically or intellectually inferior.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 9, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Labour & Conservative in the UK are "broad church" parties.  Labour includes people who are to the left of any US Democrats.  US Republicans include people whose views might not be acceptable in the Conservatives, but I'm not sure about that.  Overall I'd say Labour & Conservative were about as broad as Democrat & Republican, although most UK Conservatives would fit comfortably into the US Democratic party.




The UK election system has many, but not all, of the same pressures to two parties that the US has, so you've still got the two big parties, but it's not to the same degree. In the last UK parlaimentary elections, Labour & the Conservatives got about 70% of the vote. In the last US congressional elections, Democrats & Republicans got about 95% of the vote. There's only one Senator who's not a Republican or Democrat (out of 100) and only one Representative (out of 435). The minor parties in the UK manage a few MPs, I think.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 9, 2005)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Having taken several statistics courses and the like, this is the reason I don't beleive any poll produced by 'friends of so-and-so'. I do not think any politico will risk using or funding an unbiased poll on the off chance that the unbiased staff comes back with 'Well, 80% think you're a loon and the other 20% think you're a county in Wyoming'.




Political Parties do fund very unbiased, highly rigorous, internal polls -- often with less than encouraging results...these polls never see the light of day in public, however.  If you are crafting a long term strategy, you want to base it on accureate facts, and not your own spin.  If 80% of peole actually think you're a loon, it's better you base your long term strategy on correcting this fact, than erroneously  cruising along believing that everybody likes you.

However should a poll go public, it goes public for a reason...mainly to put content in the news cycle and tilt the political debate.  There are three kinds of polls that make it to the public.

1) Unbiased internal polls that, as luck would have it, give you encouraging results (these 'secret' poll results are what find there way into the brown envelopes that sustain so many political commentators out there).

2) Polls conducted by reputable third party polling companies where reflecting, not influencing, the debate is the point of the survey.

3) Intentionally loaded polls, usually from special interest groups, looking to overstate the public's preferences in order to influence the debate.

There are a lot of #3's out there...and they are often impossible to differentiate from the #1's...so your caution is well advised...check the source.  A surprising number of polls, however, do make an accureate reflection of the public mood.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Jun 9, 2005)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> And your credentials are....?




Currently, I am a graduate student in mathematics (formerly statistics) who plans on doing work in quantum chemistry, among other things.


----------



## Uller (Jun 9, 2005)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> When you break access to the system down to the lowet common denominator, do not be surprised if the content in the system breaks down with it.




Sure, but it also creates better breaks on the traditional filters.  Take the "Rathergate" memos.  If it wasn't for the blogs and talk radio, the world would have taken the memos presented by CBS as a matter of fact.  Only after bloggers detected the fraud (and that was picked up by talk radio) was CBS forced to retract the story.  Same with the torturing of the Koran at Gitmo.  No longer and the Mainstream Media say whatever it wants and not get challenged on it.  We have other sources of info and that's a good thing.  

I check the Drudgereport every day or so.  Drudge's schtick is basically to link to other news sources, including ones outside the US.   I can't read 500 newspapers a day, but drudge at least points to interesting stories in some of them that the MSM doesn't always pickup (and sometimes this forces the MSM to pick those stories up).  I also get to read a lot of news from outside the US that way...again, a good thing.

What you are failing to recognize is that the responsibility for filtering media is no on the consumer.  That is exactly where it should be.  Just like choosing what kind of car you want to drive, what RPG you want to play or whatever.   There are a lot of crappy D20 products out there, but that doesn't mean the OGL concept has lead to an overall degradation of gaming available.  It's lead to quite the opposite.

As a reader of the drudge, you have to realize he is a sensationalist.   If he sees a story predicting disaster, he links to it, especially if it concerns global warming or meteors falling from the sky.   You have to keep that in mind when you follow his links.   Almost never will he link to a news story that refutes global warming disasters or any other potential disasters.


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 9, 2005)

Mokona said:
			
		

> Yes it is both since evolution is a theory and not a law (such as the law of gravity).  There is no law of evolution.  Even highly educated people (including many scientists, if that matters) have looked at the claims for evolution and found the proof lacking.




Some scientists are kooks, but it doesn't mean that they are right, or that the majority of legit scientists believe them, or even pay attention to them. Find me anti-evolution research that has gotten publication in a mainstream scientific journal.





> This comment is blatantly offensive and I hope everyone here can recognize that fact.
> 
> It just isn't true that because you disagree with a notion (such as evolution) that you are genetically or intellectually inferior.




Read into it what you like. I never said anyone was genetically or intellectually inferior, nor did I mean that. However, I'd say it suggests that a person is ignorant, not stupid, just ignorant or uninformed.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 9, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> >>Originally Posted by billd91
> The trouble is that it is not really an objective truth that evolution is the best explanation of the origin of species.<<
> 
> The theory of evolution through natural selection is the best available scientific explanation for the origin of species, though.




Yes, I agree with that. It is an entirely reasonable, best use of the evidence at hand and, as I said, the best thing going on the subject. But, assuming corrigibility is there, potentially even radical corrigibility, not an objective truth.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 9, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Not at all. You just have to remember that there is a margin of error. Besides, exit polls earlier in the day suggested Kerry would trend ahead in Ohio. Later in the day, things were starting to shift.
> 
> And exit polling won't catch election fraud... if there is any.




Accusations of election fraud -- no matter how toungue in cheeck -- are the kind of things that light flamewars.  And considering where creeping towards four hundred posts on a political topic, on a non-political board, I'd hate to see this positive momentum stop now.

As for exit polling...Their confidence interval's are very, very different than actual scientific polling.  There are no excuses...exit polls in the last two US presidential elections got it wrong...plain and simple.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 9, 2005)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Read into it what you like. I never said anyone was genetically or intellectually inferior. I'd say it suggests that a person is ignorant, not stupid, just ignorant or uninformed.




Faith in science is still a kind of faith.  And like all faiths, faith in science can be blind.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 9, 2005)

Uller said:
			
		

> Sure, but it also creates better breaks on the traditional filters.  Take the "Rathergate" memos.  If it wasn't for the blogs and talk radio, the world would have taken the memos presented by CBS as a matter of fact.  Only after bloggers detected the fraud (and that was picked up by talk radio) was CBS forced to retract the story.  Same with the torturing of the Koran at Gitmo.  No longer and the Mainstream Media say whatever it wants and not get challenged on it.  We have other sources of info and that's a good thing.
> 
> I check the Drudgereport every day or so.  Drudge's schtick is basically to link to other news sources, including ones outside the US.   I can't read 500 newspapers a day, but drudge at least points to interesting stories in some of them that the MSM doesn't always pickup (and sometimes this forces the MSM to pick those stories up).  I also get to read a lot of news from outside the US that way...again, a good thing.
> 
> ...




Just to clarify...I agree with basically 100% of what you are saying.  The information revolution has been, on the balance, an overwhelmingly positive and empowering phenomenon.

However I still recognize that, with all the good, also comes some bad.  And to be pragmatic, we should work to addressing the problems, as well as the opportunities, that came with this wonderful democratization.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Jun 9, 2005)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Some scientists are kooks, but it doesn't mean that they are right, or that the majority of legit scientists believe them, or even pay attention to them. Find me anti-evolution research that has gotten publication in a mainstream scientific journal.




The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories


----------



## billd91 (Jun 9, 2005)

Mokona said:
			
		

> Yes it is both since evolution is a theory and not a law (such as the law of gravity).  There is no law of evolution.  Even highly educated people (including many scientists, if that matters) have looked at the claims for evolution and found the proof lacking.
> .




Actually, no it isn't. Simply because it isn't a scientific law doesn't mean it isn't the best scientific explanation for the origin of the species so far.
The statement made no claim as to be the best metaphoric or religious-based explanation, hence it is not a religious statement at all.


----------



## Henry (Jun 9, 2005)

I appreciate those who have been respectful towards one another the whole time, as well as the well-reasoned paths the thread's been taking. However, not only have I seen occasionaly hurled insults here and there, this thread has gone WAAAY past the skirting of the line of "generalizations on politics" into full discussion of the whys and wherefores behind certain political theory and mention of political events. It's gone well past its scope of "game publishers sharing political opinions" for certain.

However, the fact that it's gone on for 350+ posts is nothing to sneeze at, either.

Thread Closed.


----------

