On defense of gaming (and other things)

[bkilbour]

Maybe I ought to have put this in the Devotional section, but it's been burning in my head for quite a bit, and I'd like some help on the issue.

I have found that quite a few people here love games, anime, and other similar things. This may not be the case for the rest of the world, and it happens that a lot of times, individuals like us (whether we are nerds, geeks, otakus, or whatever) come under a certain level of fire for liking these things.
Take, for instance, Jack Chick or Jack Thompson. They hate gaming. Thomspon in particular has tried banning violent games to an almost obsessive level, and has not exactly shown any respect to those who have tried to defend such a hobby. I mean, come on - he regularly calls us "morons."

But then again, who, in defense of gaming, has shown any respect to him?

I have heard Jack Chick called a hatemonger and ignorant fool. I have heard people call Patricia Pullings, after her attempts to ban Dungeons and Dragons, a schizophrenic hag (okay, they used more foul language than that, but you get my point). I have seen even more in attacks against Jack Thompson.
And the big defenses? "You haven't tried it." "Times are changing." "Stop assuming it's evil." "It's not real." Several have accused Pullings and Thompson and Tipper Gore of having few of their facts straight, and pick needles at their arguments without ever really defending games in and of themselves.

Now, see, I don't agree with these individuals - personally, I love Dungeons and Dragons for all the wonderful memories, excellent stories, and hours of friendship it has brought about for me. However, I'm not so angry at attackers or dependent on the game that I have to lash out at those who see things differently.
Patricia Pulling had a son who killed himself. He felt like life was worthless, and committed suicide at home. Mrs. Pulling only knew that her son played D&D - and everythin else was hidden from her until it was too late. Thus, she started BADD (Bothered About Dungeons and Dragons), to fight what she honestly thought was the cause. After a few failed lawsuits, Jeff Freeman responded with this;

"Instead of becoming a left-wing gun-control nut, Pat Pulling became a right-wing game-control nut. Refusing to shoulder any of the blame for not noticing Bink's problems, or for keeping a loaded pistol where the child could access it, she blamed D&D for the death of her son."

So... is that how we should defend games? By attacking the people who attack them? I don't think that the woman really had much of a problem with DnD, but rather her broken heart over the death of her son. So, when Christ tells me "Love your enemies, bless those who curse you" (Mt. 5;44), and "Turn the other cheek," shouldn't I focus more on helping the grieving heal rather than making them bitter? And wouldn't it help to listen to them - if only so they feel listened to? Christ tells me to love them - not call them ignorant, stupid, bigoted, etc. If anything, I might learn some important things that would help prevent another suicide or murder related to the games I play; they do have some good points, even if I am okay with playing the games.

So, in the spirit of defending the games we have and love (and even Anime), what are some ways we can talk to these people without being just as hateful and offensive?

[bkilbour]

http://www.chick.com/articles/frpg.asp

One of the articles that kind of opened my eyes to how people are being treated here...

[uc pseudonym]

I do agree that most debates could use more mutual respect. People tend to want to win against people who disagree with them, not to convince them (much less hear them out), and that leads to aggressive arguments.

But having said that, sometimes there isn't even the possibility of open discussion. Your example of Jack Chick will work for this too. When he first started out, plenty of people responded with respectful concern or even-handed criticism. He has continued demonizing all of the same things that offended people, responding to their criticism by repeating endlessly that he was following the Bible (sorry about simplifying, but you know what I mean). When various Catholic organizations made serious critiques of his biblical interpretation, he basically ignored them. And so over time, everyone started to do the same thing with him.

This is what happens most of the time. I don't know my video game history as well, but I think that Jack Thompson has shown the same relentless hatred in the face of all reasonable argument. Though there will always be people who laugh at someone and dismiss them immediately, often times these people drive away everyone who tries to talk to them.

It's a common defensive mechanism to scoff at people, because that way we don't have to listen to them. Attempting to hear everyone out, to consider without belittling, is one of the things I find most difficult about Christianity. Treating everyone seriously and lovingly, even when they really are spewing an ignorant message of hate, is draining.

[Radical Dreamer]

I know your title says "gaming (and other things)," but since this is pretty much more focused on video games than not, I went ahead and moved this to Gamer's Galore.

[Atria35]

I have to say, after reading that article, I have things to say about both sides.

Like, it's never cool to defend a love of a game with nasty language and rude tones. In many ways I can understand why- people being people, and having had to deal with so much bad press over the years, it can be easy to boil over and let your emotions get the best of you. And in these days of email and texting, it's easy to just shoot off a message at the spur of the moment, whereas writing a letter makes you sit and think about what you're putting down on paper.

It can be doubly frustrating when people like Thompson, who otherwise have common sense and normal thinking skills, go wildly off the handle and accuse games of being the downfall of mankind. Pullings is a special case- she made the first connection that occured to her in her grief. Even so, after learning more about the game, and uncovering the other reasons that led to his suicide, it seems like it should have become clear that, while she has every right to not approve of D&D, it wasn't the cause of her son's death. For these other people, it seems like so often, they aren't willing to sit down with those who actually play and talk with them- they just look at the contents of the games and assume it's evil and that Satan's trying to get people to join his legions through them.

[mechana2015]

Thomspon in particular has tried banning violent games to an almost obsessive level, and has not exactly shown any respect to those who have tried to defend such a hobby. I mean, come on - he regularly calls us "morons."

But then again, who, in defense of gaming, has shown any respect to him?

Actually, when he issued a challange to any company to make a game to his specifications, after which he would make a donation to a charity of their choice, a game company actually stepped up and did so. Instead of coughing up the money, he told them off and backed out of the deal. The game company or community, I forget which, went on to make the donation themselves.

His responses when treated with respect are nothing short of shameful usually, and have resulted in him being disbarred. He recieved plenty of court time to be a reasonable individual, and by virtue of the way courts work, had his views seen by an impartial judicator, but instead of making his case, has been thrown out of the legal system for his shenanigans. I would say that most of the criticism against him at this point is bordering on mere observation. I personally think he need some sort of counseling.

I'll take the D&D section in a secondary post, later.

[Rusty Claymore]

Maybe we only see the whackos. Like with the enviromental debate, we only see the extreme sides, not the everyday people doing it the right way. I personally deal with people who don't like games by not playing them when they are around.
I've always found the phrase, "I understand how you feel." helpful as well.
This isn't a subject that can be dealt with by a blanket solution since every case is individual.
One interesting thing is that although games and anime get a lot of heat, where is the heat on the same offenses in standard american television? There are shows like Gilmore Girls, How I met you Mother, and such with blatant and disturbing(to me) subjects and actions. There are shows glorifying gang violence and serial killers. Rather than attack the medium(which is simply material, and can be equally used for both virtue and evil), why not try to build individual maturity and morality, so that people are not negatively affected by fantasy worlds.(fantasy includeing "reality" TV)
Am I right?
(On a side note I've learned a lot of good stuff on how to treat others from various animes, and a lot of the characters are better people at their cores than us church people! Yes, they are fake, but is Vash the Stampede's rules for treating others a great distance from Christ's? It's still something that can help us learn.)

[Atria35]

Maybe we only see the whackos. Like with the enviromental debate, we only see the extreme sides, not the everyday people doing it the right way.

I'll agree with you there. It always seems to be the crazies that get the most press. I'm sure that there are plenty out of people (incl. Christians) that don't agree with these people.

One interesting thing is that although games and anime get a lot of heat, where is the heat on the same offenses in standard american television? There are shows like Gilmore Girls, How I met you Mother, and such with blatant and disturbing(to me) subjects and actions. There are shows glorifying gang violence and serial killers.

Erm... I thought that this was the reason the FCC existed? They can't censor everything, of course, as they have to try to accomodate various viewpoints without taking away freedom of speech. After all, the majority of America might be Christian, but not all of it is, and even among denominations and individuals, what is acceptable viewing programming differs. Even so, there was that whole Janet Jackson debale a few years ago.... In any case, it seems like video games are an easier target, because gaming systems aren't everywhere- most people have a tv, but only some of them have a gaming system. They're luxuries, usually in houses with teens or children. And so companies don't have to make games for those systems. They can, they can choose to make ones that present certain morals and values, but most choose to make ones that are fantastical in nature, which are then sold to.... mostly teens and children.

Rather than attack the medium(which is simply material, and can be equally used for both virtue and evil), why not try to build individual maturity and morality, so that people are not negatively affected by fantasy worlds.(fantasy includeing "reality" TV)
Am I right?

But who takes charge of building invididual maturity and morality? There are parents out there that don't care, and won't impress upon their kids maturity and morality. How do you get the kids to care?.... Perhaps a moot point. After all, there's little way to judge if someone's been negatively affected, or is suceptable to being negatively affected by fantasy worlds.

[Mr. Hat'n'Clogs]

Actually, when he issued a challange to any company to make a game to his specifications, after which he would make a donation to a charity of their choice, a game company actually stepped up and did so. Instead of coughing up the money, he told them off and backed out of the deal. The game company or community, I forget which, went on to make the donation themselves.

If my sources are correct, it was actually Penny Arcade who did it. They sent it as something like "For Thompson, because he won't do it himself" or something.

[blkmage]

They are irrationally angry people who don't like things I like. Why do I care about what they say?

[Hohenheim]

Actually, I read a book not too long ago that talks about the theological possibilities of video games.

It's called Halos and Avatars: Playing Video Games with God, by Craig Detweiler. It speaks about how gaming can help reflect where we are in our semi-postmodern culture. For example, in the game series of Bioshock (which I have not played myself but have researched), the first game contains a criticism against the philosophical system of objectivism proposed by Ayn Rand (she is referenced in the game by the main antagonist of Bioshock, Andrew Ryan). The author and the other contributors to the book are Christian, but not anti-video games. They simply state that they think video games can help introduce important themes for life while at the same time entertaining us. They fully acknowledge that video games have their bad points in excessively bloody violence, language, and other areas, but want to look at the great possibilities. In any case, I enjoyed the book.

Maybe those who are rather against video games can take a look at some of the benefits that video games have brought, instead of looking solely at negative points. At the very least, maybe they could understand that video games aren't a clear-cut black and white issue.

[bkilbour]

I agree with Hoenheim on most of what he wrote, and Atria35, I understand your frustration - when we treat an offended individual with respec after their attack, yet they don't respond in kind, I suppose the only response is to ignore them, yeah?

But being nice to them even in outside situations might also help - "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for in doing so you will heap coals of fire on his head." (Romans 12;20)

[mechana2015]

I agree with Hoenheim on most of what he wrote, and Atria35, I understand your frustration - when we treat an offended individual with respect after their attack, yet they don't respond in kind, I suppose the only response is to ignore them, yeah?

This would be the case if some of these people didn't have powerful people listening to them, or if they themselves wern't powerful. If Jack Thompson had been able to get any of his cases through properly, he could have severely crippled the game industry.

When the people have the power to actually take their views and impress them on others by law, is when responses are in order, no matter how off their ideas may seem to be. Unfortunately some of the responses (mind you most of those violent, cruel responses were probably NOT from professed Christians) are going to be out of line, but this is why well reasoned statements need to get more prominent so they can drown out the fringe aggression.

A localized example of this is the Fine Arts major at the university I attend. Due to the actions of a single tenured professor, the whole major is most likely going to be dissolved, and the remaining students will be absorbed into another major.
Why?
Because nobody spoke up loud enough when they thought the person was saying and doing things that could damage the department to counteract the effects. As a result, this one powerful individual has played a key role in most likely destroying the major that she is employed to teach

[Nate]

Erm... I thought that this was the reason the FCC existed? They can't censor everything, of course, as they have to try to accomodate various viewpoints without taking away freedom of speech.

Well, the FCC is more or less a government body created with the sole purpose of restricting free speech, so that the kiddies won't hear the f-word at three in the afternoon.

They are allowed to do this because television and radio airwaves aren't public forums (they are privately owned), and because of the narrow scope of these mediums. The FCC has no power over cable, however, which is why Comedy Central is able to show the South Park movie unedited and uncensored. The only regulation on cable channels is that hardcore pornography isn't allowed to be shown (unless it's a pay channel, and that's because in order to pay for the channel you must have a credit card, which is a legal verification of age).

Other than that, they don't have to accommodate free speech because again, television networks are privately owned, and private corporations do have the right to restrict speech.

In any case, it seems like video games are an easier target, because gaming systems aren't everywhere

Actually the reason video games are an easy target is because they're new. Every new form of speech and entertainment goes through the exact same hoops. Old people don't understand it, say it's evil and will corrupt and destroy our nation, they die off because they're old, and the younger people who were accepting of it get into power and it becomes commonplace. Then the next new form of expression comes around, and the cycle repeats.

It happened with television, comic books, rock music, and Dungeons and Dragons. Video games are just next in line. I'm sure when you and I are 50 or 60 years old and video games are as common as televisions, something new will come out, we'll say it's evil and will try to regulate it, and then we'll die off and it will become accepted, and life will go on as it always has.

After all, there's little way to judge if someone's been negatively affected, or is suceptable to being negatively affected by fantasy worlds.

True, but we can't ban things just because some people might be affected by it and cause harm. Otherwise we'd have to ban guns and books.

If my sources are correct, it was actually Penny Arcade who did it. They sent it as something like "For Thompson, because he won't do it himself" or something.

When Thompson refused to live up to his promise, claiming it was satire, Penny Arcade gathered the money through their Child's Play charity. When they donated the money, they put on the check "For Jack Thompson, Because Jack Thompson Won't." Of course, once they did that, Thompson immediately called the FBI and the Seattle police and tried to have the Penny Arcade guys arrested for "criminal harassment."
[quote]But being nice to them even in outside situations might also help - "If your enemy is hungry, feed him]
This was tried too.

In 2006, two Michigan gamers began a project dubbed "Flowers for Jack", soliciting donations to deliver a massive floral arrangement to Thompson’s office. The flowers were delivered in February along with a letter aimed at opening a dialogue between Thompson and the video gaming community. Thompson rejected this overture and forwarded the flowers to some of his industry foes, with such comments as "Discard them along with the decency you discarded long ago. I really don't care. Grind them up and smoke them if you like."

So yeah. It's not for lack of trying on the part of gamers.

Also I echo what mech said. Ignoring people can be very dangerous. In fact, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Or something like that. Dunno the exact quote or who said it.

[bkilbour]

I agree that it's necessary to oppose those that would take away the freedoms we enjoy. However, it's not a good thing to do it in such a savage and attacking way that their point is proven, and we end up looking severely dependent on the games themselves.

If they refuse to listen, please don't resort to personal attacks or cold-hearted responses to their losses.

[TheSubtleDoctor]

Thompson immediately called the FBI and the Seattle police and tried to have the Penny Arcade guys arrested for "criminal harassment."

Thompson rejected this overture and forwarded the flowers to some of his industry foes, with such comments as "Discard them along with the decency you discarded long ago. I really don't care. Grind them up and smoke them if you like."

:wow!:This can't be true. Can someone really be that childish?

[bkilbour]

Unfortunately, yes - Thompson came to view everything that the gamer community did as a sick kind of sarcastic attack on him; honestly, I can see where he comes from (especially if you see the "I'M OK" game that penny arcade came out with).

I don't think it's out of a malevolence or hypocrisy on his part, but rather that he had been fighting to the poin where civility was unthinkable. It looked like another joke.

[Atria35]

Well, the FCC is more or less a government body created with the sole purpose of restricting free speech, so that the kiddies won't hear the f-word at three in the afternoon.

They are allowed to do this because television and radio airwaves aren't public forums (they are privately owned), and because of the narrow scope of these mediums. The FCC has no power over cable, however, which is why Comedy Central is able to show the South Park movie unedited and uncensored. The only regulation on cable channels is that hardcore pornography isn't allowed to be shown (unless it's a pay channel, and that's because in order to pay for the channel you must have a credit card, which is a legal verification of age).

So wait- Comedy Central has shown the unedited, incensored version of the South Park movie, but censors John Stewart? (Not that I mind that they bleep out the swearing, but that's still wierd...)

Actually the reason video games are an easy target is because they're new. Every new form of speech and entertainment goes through the exact same hoops. Old people don't understand it, say it's evil and will corrupt and destroy our nation, they die off because they're old, and the younger people who were accepting of it get into power and it becomes commonplace. Then the next new form of expression comes around, and the cycle repeats.

It happened with television, comic books, rock music, and Dungeons and Dragons. Video games are just next in line. I'm sure when you and I are 50 or 60 years old and video games are as common as televisions, something new will come out, we'll say it's evil and will try to regulate it, and then we'll die off and it will become accepted, and life will go on as it always has.

Yeah, this occured to me after I'd written what I said, when I'd gone back to my history book supplement on Richard Nixon, and was reading about what he thought/did about rock music

True, but we can't ban things just because some people might be affected by it and cause harm. Otherwise we'd have to ban guns and books.

I regret not expounding upon my statement- that's exactly what I meant.

[Nate]

If they refuse to listen, please don't resort to personal attacks or cold-hearted responses to their losses.

That's always a good idea. I know GamePolitics was straight up banning people on the Thompson articles on their site (back when he was big) if they said anything about his wife or son. If nothing else, it makes the opposition look bad.

(especially if you see the "I'M OK" game that penny arcade came out with).

Penny Arcade didn't come out with the game. The game was made by, in the words of the creators, "3 alcoholics and a foreign exchange student." Just a few guys who wanted to see Thompson do some good by donating money to charity. Penny Arcade only got involved after Thompson said "My proposal was satire, I'm not donating anything!" They decided that to deny money to charity, for any reason, was intolerable, hence why they raised the money themselves to donate for Thompson (since Thompson wouldn't).

But yeah, they didn't make the game.

So wait- Comedy Central has shown the unedited, incensored version of the South Park movie, but censors John Stewart? (Not that I mind that they bleep out the swearing, but that's still wierd...)

Yep, they've shown the unedited/uncensored South Park movie on Comedy Central. However, they still bleep other shows, I'm assuming just out of either habit or courtesy. Actually it's probably to avoid a bad reputation; they can get away with showing something like that once in a while, but if they kept the language in all the time there'd probably be a public backlash against the network for being too foul. That's my assumption anyway. *shrug*

[ShiroiHikari]

Cable networks often censor themselves to appease their sponsors.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

I agree that it's necessary to oppose those that would take away the freedoms we enjoy. However, it's not a good thing to do it in such a savage and attacking way that their point is proven, and we end up looking severely dependent on the games themselves.

If they refuse to listen, please don't resort to personal attacks or cold-hearted responses to their losses.

I absolutely agree with you. Honestly, though, arguing with the individuals at this point is a fruitless endeavor. They're very cemented in their ways. At the same time, as are we.

Still, the moment personal attacks commence, one has lost all claim to their argument, I feel. When you are the one responsible for the breakdown in the dialogue it really just almost invalidates the things you've said.

[Whitefang]

The article is ridiculous. Last time I tried to cast a fireball my bed caught on fire, so the D&D manual must be leaving something out! (I wish I could find the article where the author attempts to cast various Harry Potter spells.)

Seriously, though, the answer to making sure that children understand that the game is not real is to make sure that they are spending time in the real world. Is it moral to force a child to believe in the Truth of the Bible? Shouldn't everyone make this important life changing decision on his or her own? Also keep in mind that just because a person uses personal attacks does not negate their argument. Do not fall to fallacies!

I'll look specifically at the article that was cited.

Look at this argument that is made, "Now this is not to say that every serious D&D gamer is going to become a Satanist or demonized. But the odds are good that they might." Note that there is no source or statistics for this information, and his definition for becoming "demonized" is simply to not profess Christ as Lord. Well, yeah, I'd say that's most of the world. How very observant.

Almost immediately after, he himself chides his opponents in not citing any information, "No footnotes, no names of schools, no way to check out hardly any this information to see if it is accurate." Well, maybe if you would check some facts I would believe what you are saying.

The counter argument is simple. The wizardry present in games is not the same as in the real world. In the real world people who look to spells and sorcery are people who have some psychological issues to work out. Maybe their Christian parents didn't pay enough attention to them. In the gaming world, people who look to spells just want to deal more damage.

Honestly I don't even understand why there is any debate.

You know what, I'm going to go a bit further. In school, I had a friend who was into voodoo or Wicca or something. Actually, a few were into that stuff. One specifically claimed that he could cast spells and that their effects would occur. Well, I never believed a word of it, because I knew better! There are no supernatural forces at play in this world which we can control. The best we can do is pray to God for healing and the opening of hearts. Question seriously any Christian who believes in the supernatural power of pagan religions and rituals. They will certainly have a psychological impact if they involve questionable morals, but if someone has already gone down this path then something is already wrong, and D&D or game playing may be just the first method of escape.

Since I have mentioned escape, I should mention that video game playing to escape the real world is not a healthy habit to get into, so it's not as though the anti-game argument has no legs on which to stand. It just happens that recreational gaming, like any hobby*, can be very healthy.

Hobby: an auxiliary activity (i.e. something to keep us entertained. Will we need entertainment in heaven? Beats me, but I'd like to make the time on earth be more enjoyable so I can find out. The easiest way to fluster a Christian anti-gamer is to naturally expand their argument against all hobbies. Don't do this, it's rude.)

All in all I hope this helped form some arguments that you can use. In the end, most people won't change their minds, but at least you can defend your interests intelligently.

[blkmage]

People often make the mistake of responding to the person making the claims. This is a mistake because those people are often not interested in conducting a dialogue and when they're forced into one, they do not argue or debate in good faith. The thing you need to do is to disarm the person's claims without dealing with the person behind them.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

People often make the mistake of responding to the person making the claims. This is a mistake because those people are often not interested in conducting a dialogue and when they're forced into one, they do not argue or debate in good faith. The thing you need to do is to disarm the person's claims without dealing with the person behind them.

Ala Roger Ebert's recent response to that woman's old speech about games as art.

[bkilbour]

Whitefang, I don't think that the point is necessarily to prove them wrong. No matter how many facts you show certain people in favor of gaming, it probably won't convince them of anything, you know?

And I will admit to not knowing everything, so I have no qualms about listening to their arguments - and you know, they do make some good points. When I was into alchemy and other occult activities, there were a few similarities that I found in the alchemy represented in DnD. There are a lot of real-life influences in the game, and that is true, but I also like to point out that these are optional influences... it just so happens that many players forget that they are optional!

So I also learn from the article that I should take care when I'm playing D&D to 1) not get too wrapped up in it, that it becomes an obsession (the examples they showed of the murderers and whatnot serve as warnings against bad play rather than warnings agains playing period), 2) make the campaign setting my own, not relying on outside sources for my creativity in dungeonmaking. It's okay to play, but listening to others may have ended up helping keep me from some bad mistakes.

[mechana2015]

Whitefang, I don't think that the point is necessarily to prove them wrong. No matter how many facts you show certain people in favor of gaming, it probably won't convince them of anything, you know?

Sometimes it's not about persuading the person who said the words, but neutralizing the words themselves by providing the counterargument. This would be done for the purpose of preventing people from thinking that the attacking statements are the only things that have been said about the game, and therefore are the correct way of thinking about it. By providing a counter argument, one protects themselves against the statements of a lone individual SPREADING to a larger group.