Fox News Attacks NEA for Classifying Games as Art
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Oops, sorry! Your arguments are much better articulated than mine too.Emergent said:Damn you, I was getting to that. lolWitwoud said:
That was for me the funniest part of the entire segment though.
How is it wasteful? It's wasteful because right now America is collecting more tax money than they have at any other point in time. However, even though we are collecting massive amounts of money we are still spiraling further and further into debt as a country. The NEA is small when you consider the much larger waste from things like military spending and foreign aid but it is still part of the problem none-the-less.Witwoud said:
It shouldn't be the government's place to force people into supporting the arts. I for one, don't want to support the arts, however, I am forced to against my will when my taxes go to organizations like the NEA. The people who wish to support the arts should do so with private donations or other such funding while the government stays out of it.
This is so aggravating because of the point the article makes at the end. Normally, groups like the Westboro Baptist Church or annoying YouTube vloggers can be ignored because, at the end of the day, no one cares about their cries for attention. But people listen to Fox News (and CNN and other news sites) and don't ask for more information. They believe everything they are told...and then lies like this get propagated.
Its infuriating (also, its my birthday...come on, Fox, you couldn't say something nice in honor of this special occasion?).
Its infuriating (also, its my birthday...come on, Fox, you couldn't say something nice in honor of this special occasion?).
Yes, there are games I would not say are art. But that is true of every medium. Would you say pornography is art because it is a subset of film? Or that trashy romance novels are art because they are a subset of literature? Of course not. That doesn't mean that you can disregard an entire medium. Sturgeon's Law always applies.Space Jawa said:
If you bring in a person to debate, the expectation is that he is an expert, or at least somewhat well versed, in what is being discussed. Otherwise, that is deceitful, as viewers will give his words the same weight as an actual expert. Remember the whole thing with Cooper Lawrence during the Mass Effect fiasco on fox?Ace IV said:
Normal people ignoring them isn't going to do anythingNoDamnNames said:once again fox news gets the equivalent of thousands in free advertising by running offensive material and having angry people post their nonsensical dribble all over the web
with fox "news" mediums the best thing to do is ignore them, and they will literally die.
It's the fucktards that need to ignore
That isn't a coherent argument. I don't even know what "It's a non-quote" means (and I bet neither does anyone else), and other than the fact that the sentence can be structured in a way as to appear to refute something I didn't actually claim it's pretty irrelevant to the discussion. No one claimed he was an expert. That's the point. That's why I put it the word "expert" in quotes (to do otherwise would be disingenuous).Ace IV said:
All you've succeeded to do so far is point out that it was, indeed, accurate of me to only refer to him as an expert ironically.
The issue isn't whether or not he is or is not an expert (that one's self-evident), the issue is why he was chosen to represent his side of the argument. If he isn't some sort of authority on the issue, well, why is he talking again? On national television? About something no one will admit he knows anything substantial about? In a debate with an actual expert on the subject matter?
The most likely conclusion is that it's because his opinions support those of the network's leadership.
Thing is, it's an economic argument that has absolutely nothing to do with the debate at hand. They were ostentatiously there to discuss the merits of including videogames to the list of projects the NEA will consider funding with the money they are already allotted by a Republican-dominated Congress.Ace IV said:
The erroneous conclusion his argument is intended to draw the viewer to is that including videogames into the list of NEA applications will somehow cost tax payers more money, and that is blatantly false and purposely misleading.
Are you kidding me? This is not the first time Fox has done this, they have repeatedly manipulated news segments in the past to spread an entirely different message than what was the original content. I can't count how many times they splice certain parts of speeches and then make a segment on those 20 seconds alone. It's disgusting. Above all, IT'S NOT JOURNALISM. Can you honestly tell me that this Asbury made an intelligent argument? No, all he did was act incredibly eccentric to get people's attention and then shout generic points on the state of the economy. Then, when countered with the comment on how the video game industry helps create jobs, he didn't respond to that point at all and reiterated his statement from earlier. That's not a debate. That's getting up on a platform and shouting at whoever hears. The best part of all is how he didn't reflect how the NEA gives thousands of dollars to artistic endavors while the "Republican Fox Agenda" spends BILLIONS on military. Cut that and maybe we can have a reasonable discussion on saving money.Ace IV said:
First, if your argument is "funding arts is wasteful. Always." then there's no need for that first paragraph, is there?Xanthious said:
Second, so you disagree with the NEA's goals, as opposed to some of the other arguments. Ok. Now we can get somewhere.
Alright, so are you libertarian? This idea that people should only pay the taxes that they personally approve of seems to indicate this. If so, there's going to be a conflict of values here that I doubt can actually be resolved. You see, I don't believe that people will always understand what is in their own rational self-interest, let alone act on it, which is why I doubt the usefulness of people only paying taxes for what they want, or at least think they want.
There's also a conflict of values in that I find maintaining the culture of a community, even (or perhaps especially) an imaginary one such as a nation-state, to be quite important (mostly in terms of creating and maintaining a rich, diverse heritage that encourages critical appreciation of, and response to, the world by the citizenry, which is particularly important to democracies). In that case, it's especially helpful for there to be public access to the arts (both in experiencing and creating it), just as there should be public access to education (not to mention public education in the arts). Otherwise, it is left simply to the very rich or corporations, and I don't believe that the only art should be commercially funded, for-profit art (as it lowers the innovation and diversity of the art, and essentially demands that the art be created for different goals (to make money*) than a publicly funded artwork (to serve the public good), or that experiencing it should be restricted to a very few. You may disagree; it seems that you do. You can see where this may set up some irreconcilable value differences.
I think it's also worth noting that people do choose to fund the arts aside from taxes, and that the NEA exists to facilitate that, rather than replace it, as can be seen in the fact that NEA grants match the money raised by non-profits (it seems to exist in many ways more as a stamp of approval for various projects than sole funder, which makes it especially important to the games-are-art crowd).
In short, I believe that arts and culture are a public good, and therefore require public funding. Again, there are so many belief systems that you may adhere to that would create a sufficient gap between our values that such a debate between the two of us may not have much point (as we'll be arguing the effects of our beliefs, rather than the beliefs themselves).
And more on the topic, just because you agree with the opinion of the radio host, that doesn't mean the arguments he made to justify this opinion were actually valid, as seen by the way he used video games in the segment.
*Of course such a work can also be made for the public good, but it also MUST have the other goal as well.
Some people want to make more of something cause they like it and want to impose their activity's on other's, while at the same time looking like something better than what they are.
Game's are game's people art is art.
Artwork from game's can be art, not the game itself.
Game's are game's people art is art.
Artwork from game's can be art, not the game itself.