The Game Stash: Show Some Respect
- Thread starter Steve Butts
- Start date
Lots of great comments here, and I appreciate Sikachu expanding his objections to what I said. I still stand by what I wrote, but I understand your criticisms better, which is a definite benefit for me.
I completely disagree with the opinion that respect is only worth giving if (or when) it's received in return. That's like children justifying bad behavior by claiming, "He started it." I think it's perfectly healthy to disagree with someone's beliefs and even to stop listening to people who distort reality purely for the sake of their own political or moral agenda. But if you choose to engage a person in a disrespectful way, you're just as responsible as they are for the downward trend of these discussions.
I completely disagree with the opinion that respect is only worth giving if (or when) it's received in return. That's like children justifying bad behavior by claiming, "He started it." I think it's perfectly healthy to disagree with someone's beliefs and even to stop listening to people who distort reality purely for the sake of their own political or moral agenda. But if you choose to engage a person in a disrespectful way, you're just as responsible as they are for the downward trend of these discussions.
Which is an own goal when you're playing the Public Perception game, which is a game that both gamers and the game industry have to play if they want wider public acceptance and/or support to help guard against gaming being kept as an available moral and political scapegoat.Steve Butts said:
For me the line is when they try and enforce their opinion on others.
Ebert is welcome to his opinion. It?s not doing anyone any harm.
People like Atkins (and Thompson if he were at all competent) are where I draw the line. While they?re also welcome to share their perspective with us, they abuse that right by trying to prevent people from playing the games they deem inappropriate. Atkins? spent a lot of time trying to stop the availability of some titles to the people he?s supposed to be working for. Some of those actions even caused some games to be edited for all countries. That?s not right.
Ebert is welcome to his opinion. It?s not doing anyone any harm.
People like Atkins (and Thompson if he were at all competent) are where I draw the line. While they?re also welcome to share their perspective with us, they abuse that right by trying to prevent people from playing the games they deem inappropriate. Atkins? spent a lot of time trying to stop the availability of some titles to the people he?s supposed to be working for. Some of those actions even caused some games to be edited for all countries. That?s not right.
Boy, do I have lots and lots to say on your article! I'm a little tied up right now though so for the mean time I'll just say I agree with most of it.
To be honest though, I don't even think most games are art. Especially when you consider that boyhood power fantasy. I'm a game developer myself, and I'd agree that CREATING them is an art. To clause this, I likewise do not think most movies are art. Is hot-tub time machine really art? Really?
Out of curiosity Steve, are you enjoying your time and the more... sophisticated discussions had on The Escapist?
To be honest though, I don't even think most games are art. Especially when you consider that boyhood power fantasy. I'm a game developer myself, and I'd agree that CREATING them is an art. To clause this, I likewise do not think most movies are art. Is hot-tub time machine really art? Really?
Out of curiosity Steve, are you enjoying your time and the more... sophisticated discussions had on The Escapist?
I apologise I accidentally reported you when I tried to see what your badge was. Again, sorry.therandombear said:A nice read and appearantly it's your birthday so congratulations.
PS: And I am still waiting for the escapist store to start selling Game Stash membership cards
And yet, if well played it can be the best weapon you have.Steve Butts said:
If you want to start a war, trick the other side in attacking first so you can claim the most sympathy. This has been successfully done like a million times.
Sacha Baron Cohen (Borat) gained fame and fortune by successfully flame-baiting a whole country.
Our own Yahtzee became so popular by disregarding normal etiquette and being as direct as possible. He doesn't trick people, but ironically his tactical lack of respect made him GAIN respect.
Penn and Teller did about the same with their show.
Happens, I'm sure, button is right beneath the badges, but no harm I'm sure they go through the reports and look for reasons to banGrinnbarr said:I apologise I accidentally reported you when I tried to see what your badge was. Again, sorry.therandombear said:A nice read and appearantly it's your birthday so congratulations.
PS: And I am still waiting for the escapist store to start selling Game Stash membership cards
Now this is just my opinion, but it seems to me that the biggest problem of all (and this can be said for most things such as politics, religion, etc.) is that neither side of an argument takes the time to look into the opposing viewpoint.
(I'm a Conservative, so in fairness to those with opposing philosophies, I'm going to take the piss out of myself and use myself as the butt of the argument. Although I have checked facts on them (and believe in these principles), for the sake of demonstration I'm saying I haven't.)
"Big government is bad." Why is big government bad? Well, I'm not going to look into it because I already know it is, I don't care if some social programs are actually doing good. I just want a smaller government. If you don't think this way you must be a socialist.
"Tax breaks actually bring in more revenue for the government and gain jobs for citizens" Am I going to look for numbers to support my theory? No. It just makes sense that if employers have more money they'll hire more workers which means more taxes paid and if you say otherwise you're a dirty, red commie!
It's one thing to stand by your principles, but it's something completely different to just attack those who hold principles different than yours. If you disagree with what people like Ebert and Thompson say, that's fine; just read or listen to what they say to try and get an idea of their viewpoint and attack them. Not physically, but attack them with facts.
Let's face it, if someone is in the media, nobody is going to change their viewpoints, but if you can bring enough facts to light that shows the opposite of what they say (and do it in a polite, non threatening manner) you have gone a long way to making their views irrelevant.
Also, Happy Birthday, Sir.
(I'm a Conservative, so in fairness to those with opposing philosophies, I'm going to take the piss out of myself and use myself as the butt of the argument. Although I have checked facts on them (and believe in these principles), for the sake of demonstration I'm saying I haven't.)
"Big government is bad." Why is big government bad? Well, I'm not going to look into it because I already know it is, I don't care if some social programs are actually doing good. I just want a smaller government. If you don't think this way you must be a socialist.
"Tax breaks actually bring in more revenue for the government and gain jobs for citizens" Am I going to look for numbers to support my theory? No. It just makes sense that if employers have more money they'll hire more workers which means more taxes paid and if you say otherwise you're a dirty, red commie!
It's one thing to stand by your principles, but it's something completely different to just attack those who hold principles different than yours. If you disagree with what people like Ebert and Thompson say, that's fine; just read or listen to what they say to try and get an idea of their viewpoint and attack them. Not physically, but attack them with facts.
Let's face it, if someone is in the media, nobody is going to change their viewpoints, but if you can bring enough facts to light that shows the opposite of what they say (and do it in a polite, non threatening manner) you have gone a long way to making their views irrelevant.
Also, Happy Birthday, Sir.
Yeah, it's the point at which "I have a different viewpoint" turns into "You are a horrible person" that seems to be the issue here. But the lack of understanding can lead people to warp the facts and even the meanings of words merely to attack a different position.
Of course, you can't separate people from opinions, which are the beginning of our notions of social and political health. Then we become desperate to find an objective proof to justify those opinions and ignoring or distorting anything that proves us wrong. We end up using labels in contexts where they clearly don't belong, or to justify as "rights" those things that are merely personal preferences.
I guess the good news is that the gaming industry is just like every other part of society. Wait, maybe that's the bad news.
Of course, you can't separate people from opinions, which are the beginning of our notions of social and political health. Then we become desperate to find an objective proof to justify those opinions and ignoring or distorting anything that proves us wrong. We end up using labels in contexts where they clearly don't belong, or to justify as "rights" those things that are merely personal preferences.
I guess the good news is that the gaming industry is just like every other part of society. Wait, maybe that's the bad news.
Not to mention sending such people hate mail and death threats only gives them more opportunities to get the media exposure they desire and play the victim (see: Michael Atkinson's "Gamers bigger threat to my family than Bikers" routine based on a 18 month old death threat).RowdyRodimus said:
That all leads back to what I was saying about playing the Public Perception game, a game which the Industry needs to take a more active hand in playing and not just a reactive one.
This article contradicts itself.....
At the start Steve says..... "the desire to seek out other opinions that support, challenge or enlarge our own points of view is part of what makes us human"
Then at the end he states he "couldn't care less" what other people think.
So you seek out other opinions but don't care about them?
At the start Steve says..... "the desire to seek out other opinions that support, challenge or enlarge our own points of view is part of what makes us human"
Then at the end he states he "couldn't care less" what other people think.
So you seek out other opinions but don't care about them?
Read again. I said I didn't care what people who don't know anything about videogames say about them. There's no contradiction there.Beach_Sided said:
As far as society at large, I definitely think we have an obligation to protect gaming but we're just as responsible as the detractors for the negative tone of the debate.
at the risk of sounding like The Lowest Common Denominator, ah...well...I tend to treat anything that comes out of Thompson's mouth like a bad internet meme. Annoying, bland and unfunny, and like those memes; i pray it goes away quickly.
The guy is on a jihad against gaming as a whole, so anything he says (IMO) cannot be treated as 'disinterested 3rd party information'.
The guy is on a jihad against gaming as a whole, so anything he says (IMO) cannot be treated as 'disinterested 3rd party information'.
Steve Butts said:
It sounds like you are wanting to create a barrier from the very beginning though.
The only way you can fairly assess someones knowledge of something is by discussing it with them. So with your process that means you either completely dismiss their opinions from the start and refuse to enter a discussion, or you agree to enter into a conversation and then listen right up until the point where you disagree with them.
In which case you then dismiss their opinion immediately and so the whole thing has been pointless on both sides.
If you want to protect gaming surely you need to assist in the education of people currently outside of that circle. And surely the only way to educate is by providing accessible and non-judgmental avenues for people to start experiencing gaming. Not by laying down rules and measurements by which to decide if certain people are worthy of gaming in the first place.
Everyone has to start somewhere.
Cultural phenomena are NEVER very well defined, so the way you classify them is always subjective. In fact, ALL definitions of things created by humans are subjective. This is part of the fun of being humanNoelveiga said:
I could have debate with you about what is and what is not a chair.
-- "Something you can sit on."
Too vague.
-- "An inanimate object with 4 legs that is meant to seat a person."
So a taxidermy elephant with a saddle counts? And how about those chairs with only 1, or 3 legs? Does a throne count?
Any btw, do natural rock formations that look exactly like chairs count?
Now if we can't readily agree on what a chair is, how can ever claim that something as illusive and metaphysical as art has a clear definition?