The Game Stash: Show Some Respect

[Callate]

All I'm suggesting is that we're blaming them for not understanding something that they have had no opportunity to understand.

Are we? Or are we blaming them for not understanding something they've taken no interest in understanding? I don't personally feel a need to abuse someone for feeling out of their element in the digital world that I grew up in, but is it really too much to ask that someone who's going to claim to speak from a vantage point of expertise actually try to engage with the medium they're judging? Or at the very least, with those who do?

 

[bobdevis]

The problem with people like Jack Thompson has nothing to do with (not) understanding games. They have a much more fundamental issue;

They believe that the "bad" aspects of human behaviour can best be dealt with by suppressing them and eliminating reference to them. This is ofcause a recipe for disaster and general unhappiness.

Intelligent people give their inner beast a (safe!) outlet ..... like games. There is no way to convince Jack of this though, as this would smut up his perfect, puritan, black/white view of the world.

See, the problem there is exactly what was discussed in the article. You assume that your opinion is correct and that his is ill-informed, and you are defending your opinion aggressively without leaving the option open for rational discussion and a goal of mutual understanding.

The problem is that the moral crusaders feel as though they are on a mission from God, so normal logic does not apply. If they don't care to defend their own opinion with anything better then an idealistic world view then there is no point to try to argue nicely, is there? Only ridicule remains.

Call me when someone can answer how it is possible that just in 2000 years, witnessing sex en violence by a minor went from 'normal' to 'causing irreversible damage'.

 

[RaphaelsRedemption]

snip for length (although it was such a good read I feel guilty aboiut doing so!)

Thanks for that. Now I don't have to do my lecture on mutual respect and understanding.

As far as I can tell, with the issue of gaming, there are actually THREE types of people involved:

Type #1. Gamers. These play games They are not homogenous, some are older than others, some are female, some are male. Whatever. They are united only in playing video games as a form of entertainment.

Type #2. Non-gamers. These, again, are not a homogenous group, having in common only their non-playing of video games.

And, Type #3. Those with an axe to grind. Stephen Conroy, Michael Atkins, everyone ever who has wanted to filter the internet.

Now, I fully agree with Steve here. Shouting and yelling at people who do not understand will never get gaming understood. However, the issue gets a little more muddled when we add Type #3 people to the mix. Gamers who otherwise might have been happy to meet others half-way, become understandably upset when they hear their chosen entertainment being denounced as wrong by people they strongly suspect are using them for their own political gain.

I still don't condone disrespectful reactions from gamers, but I do understand them feeling a little beseiged. It's never nice feeling like a political scapegoat.

 

[Asparagus Brown]

The problem with people like Jack Thompson has nothing to do with (not) understanding games. They have a much more fundamental issue;

They believe that the "bad" aspects of human behaviour can best be dealt with by suppressing them and eliminating reference to them. This is ofcause a recipe for disaster and general unhappiness.

Intelligent people give their inner beast a (safe!) outlet ..... like games. There is no way to convince Jack of this though, as this would smut up his perfect, puritan, black/white view of the world.

See, the problem there is exactly what was discussed in the article. You assume that your opinion is correct and that his is ill-informed, and you are defending your opinion aggressively without leaving the option open for rational discussion and a goal of mutual understanding.

The problem is that the moral crusaders feel as though they are on a mission from God, so normal logic does not apply. If they don't care to defend their own opinion with anything better then an idealistic world view then there is no point to try to argue nicely, is there? Only ridicule remains.

Call me when someone can answer how it is possible that just in 2000 years, witnessing sex en violence by a minor went from 'normal' to 'causing irreversible damage'.

Being aggressive in defending your opinion and not being open to rationality only serves to solidify the opinion that the people they are condemning are aggressive and irrational people.

Also, have you considered that these "moral crusaders" might actually be of the opinion that video games engender this behaviour, and that they have developed that opinion based on their own moral judgements of the content they have been exposed to and the context in which it has been exposed to them? Similar to the way you believe that they are unnecessarily aggressive and irrational because of the material you have been exposed to and the context in which it has been exposed to you?

As the article is titled, show some respect.

 

[pneuma08]

I could not agree more. Any argument should be about understanding the other side - even if you do not or cannot agree, seeing why a different opinion formed gives new thought to the subject. In fact, that's the whole point of argument, not to sway others to your point of view. After all, this is impossible if both sides refuse to admit that their view may be faulty, and furthermore merely because a rational defense to an argument was not mounted does not mean there is no rational defense that can be mounted, and even if one's view is unchallenged in an argument that does not mean that they are accurate.

In short, I believe that all arguments are really just fodder for use in the search for the truth.

(Note that this does not include convincing another person of anything. It is up to them to decide what they want to take away from an argument, and some people are unwilling or unable to understand another point of view.)

Also, as far as Ebert is concerned, I believe he reached the same conclusion, that he cannot truly understand games without first truly experiencing them, which is something he is unwilling to do - and as such his statements have no authority and probably shouldn't have been made in the first place.

 

[snave]

See, these are the types of articles that I read the Escapist for! As an aside, it's rather nice to see your column has deviated from Mr. Young's topic this week. It was kinda unfortunate when you two were hitting the same topic by coincidence. Nice to have some breadth in editorials.

From my perspective, when the mass media, or for that matter, government policies, or what-have-you attacks anything and everything in sight (as they most certainy do) people tend to react to what affects them as a personal blow. Call it selective listening or selective reading if you'd like. In the absense of strong opinions that agree with one's points of view, its only natural to flock to the other end of the spectrum in lieu and react to the strong opposition to your standpoint. And the media knows this. Even outspoken persons who don't know this explictly are aware of it on some level based on fame and reactional feedback.

I think the thing we often miss is that as gamers, or , or just about anything, we forget that much of the mainstream media aren't intentionally being jerks to us. They're just being intentionally jerks, full stop.

 

[bobdevis]

As the article is titled, show some respect.

I would if I felt the other side was intellectually honest. But I am afraid this is not the case with Jack Thompson.

I'll drag in a more ridiculous example to be able to explain myself better;
Ever heard of the Young Earthers? Basically they believe the earth is only 6000 years old (just as the Bible suggests) and are willing to debate this with geologists to no end.

Now, by your logic, it would be possible to reach a mutual understanding with them though respect and somehow find a middle-ground.
However, since they are grown up people with a (not so) hidden agenda it s obvious you aren't going to get anywhere. Any kind of compromise would be a total loss of common sense.

 

[snave]

I'll drag in a more ridiculous example to be able to explain myself better;
Ever heard of the Young Earthers? Basically they believe the earth is only 6000 years old (just as the Bible suggests) and are willing to debate this with geologists to no end.

I'd say that ones even worse because said protests sometimes actually argue for "retaliation" against their opponents. I saw a bunch ironically in Sydney in 2008 on a church trip where most of the funding for their trip came from federal taxation. In turn primarily derived from the west coast's mining industry. ie: Geologists.

The worst parts of these scenarios is the negative reflection it can place upon the arguer's peers. In all such conflicts, respect has to be levelled at both sides, not just your ideological opponents.

Where a mutual middle ground can't be reached, its probably best just to agree to disagree. The only people who readily change to match your opinions are those with a weak or lack of a pre-existing stance.

 

[Asparagus Brown]

As the article is titled, show some respect.

I would if I felt the other side was intellectually honest. But I am afraid this is not the case with Jack Thompson.

I'll drag in a more ridiculous example to be able to explain myself better;
Ever heard of the Young Earthers? Basically they believe the earth is only 6000 years old (just as the Bible suggests) and are willing to debate this with geologists to no end.

Now, by your logic, it would be possible to reach a mutual understanding with them though respect and somehow find a middle-ground.
However, since they are grown up people with a (not so) hidden agenda it s obvious you aren't going to get anywhere. Any kind of compromise would be a total loss of common sense.

Actually, I'm suggesting mutual respect, not mutual understanding. I'm suggesting that geologists aren't going to improve the situation by claiming that God doesn't exist and repeatedly calling the Young Earthers idiots, which may make the Young Earthers' even more adamant and aggressive in their beliefs.

 

[Vault Citizen]

When it comes to whether or not games are art I have one question, does it really matter? When I play a game I play it to have fun and enjoy the experience, if the experience I am enjoying counts as art or not is beside the point.

 

[Sikachu]

All I'm suggesting is that we're blaming them for not understanding something that they have had no opportunity to understand.

Wrong.

Maybe that's getting a little overly philosophical, but I think the same is true of gamers.

Bit of a big word for what is a rather juvenile point.

Other than those two niggles, good article and I particularly agree with the notion that those who push for outside recognition the hardest tend to be the least secure about playing games in the first place.

Thanks for the compliment. Seriously.

Unfortunately, your initial two reponses illustrate my point. The extent of your first argument goes no further than saying I'm "wrong" while your second merely insults my delivery.

Allow me to expand (I would have, but I don't always get responses and have learned to economise with my comments).

When I say 'wrong', I'm contesting the notion that they've had no opportunity to understand videogames. They have just as much opportunity to play them and test them out before they start expressing their opinions as anyone else. I don't think that excusing their wilful ignorance by saying they have/had no opportunity to understand is correct or productive.

As for the 'philosophy' point, I didn't mean to insult you, merely to point out that 'philosophy' is kind of grand a term for what I'm sure you'll admit is an abrupt and incomplete thought. What I meant by 'juvenile' is that your idea is undeveloped and not extensively analysed (at least in the text), and in this sense has more in common with ideas shared over a pint than it does with Nietzsche or Wittgenstein.

 

[bobdevis]

Actually, I'm suggesting mutual respect, not mutual understanding. I'm suggesting that geologists aren't going to improve the situation by claiming that God doesn't exist and repeatedly calling the Young Earthers idiots, which may make the Young Earthers' even more adamant and aggressive in their beliefs.

The assumption I am making is that in a debate, you are trying to be convincing above all else. Being nice is fine as long as it helps to be convincing.

When the other side is claiming that you must be possessed by demons, or can't have any morals anyway as a non-believer then the ship of mutual respect has usually long sailed.
The best strategy then becomes flaming your opponent in just the right way to force a weak answer.
Calling someone an idiot or claiming that God does not exist is not going to get you anywhere. Aggressively attacking the link between an unprovable belief and an opinion however, is a good strategy.
You are not going to convince Jack Thompson or the young earthers themselves, but hopefully you still can convince neutral bystanders.


You can ofcause take the high road, refuse to play that game and walk away. However in a public arena that will be seen as defeat.

 

[elricik]

When I debate whether or not games are art I do so not trying to validate the many hours I have spent in my room playing them, but to protect the gaming. In America if video games are not considered art, then they lose a lot of political barriers and can be censored rather easily. I'm not saying that if we don't get gaming classified as art soon then it'll be outright banned, but I don't want to see any company EVER have to appeal to the mainstream media just because their product might do something they disagree with. Much in the vain of Manhunt 2 on the wii.

 

[DTWolfwood]

Politicians (like this raging imbecile Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/102204-Eleven-States-Join-California-at-the-Supreme-Court])shouting anti gaming slur and not doing any research before actually speaking is where i draw my line. Roger Ebert rant on gaming i really could care less about, not like i agree with a lot with his views on artsy fartsy films and movies. (i found at least half of what he likes boring) But still he is the Movie guy so i value his opinion on them. Not so much when its on games.

Generally i just dont respect politicians (tho i do respect cunning). I give respect to people and their opinions when its based on their field of expertise. I just pay no heed to them when they talk out of bounds.

Plus its also human nature to hate anything or anyone that doesnt think or like what u think/like. Just look at religion (namely the western ones, i find the far eastern ones to be more nonchalant about it, at least the ones that dont have active conversion regiments)

 

[Cuppa Tetleys]

I completely agree, why should we value the opinion's of those who don't know what gaming's like? I just pity them for missing out.
And the very sentence before the one mentioning the degree in Latin, I thought; 'hmm, not sure how useful this Latin is proving'.
Great article, Steve, keep 'em comin'.

 

[Jenx]

Ya know, it's kind of funny. Whenever I suggest that maybe people who have no knowledge or experience in something shouldn't really count as valid authority on it, people tell me to shut up and that I don't "get it", yet when someone else points it out everyone agrees...


You...you don't think I could be the problem?

On a less joking note - I really enjoy your column - keep up the good work!

 

[JEBWrench]

And Captain Mustache continues to single-handedly keep the Escapist afloat once again.

How does he do it?