Why are most gamers liberal?

[tabzer]

You asking me to quote your scripture now? "The god question" is all about you, and I said it was pretentious. You are pretentious. The way you talk is like somebody who loves to hear themselves talk. You are free to tell everyone how to approach the subject, but you won't give an iota of insight to an inconvenient claim. Almost as if you were a reflection of the typical Christian hypocrite. Everything you say is built on distinguishing yourself, but you are just doing the same kind of pseudo-intellectualism your "religion" is built against. Ironic and then some.

 

[FAST6191]

You asking me to quote your scripture now? "The god question" is all about you, and I said it was pretentious. You are pretentious. The way you talk is like somebody who loves to hear themselves talk. You are free to tell everyone how to approach the subject, but you won't give an iota of insight to an inconvenient claim. Almost as if you were a reflection of the typical Christian hypocrite. Everything you say is built on distinguishing yourself, but you are just doing the same kind of pseudo-intellectualism your "religion" is built against. Ironic and then some.

I was at a loss as to what you found so upsetting about my phrasing, word choice or whatever else. Now I have some idea of the objections I can address them. Feels odd that I would have to try to justify such things but I am OK with that.

The god question is a fairly standard philosophical phrase and category of philosophy on both major sides of the debate ( https://www.amazon.com/God-Question-Invitation-Life-Meaning/dp/0736924884 for an example of someone using it as a framework to plump for the Christian god, I am presuming I don't need to demonstrate the opposite) and I would contend was used neutrally (I would have gone with the god delusion were I intending to speak down to people).
As far as distinguishing myself I don't see it. I tried to respond to the questions posed by the person I quoted/was discussing with, in this case with a few questions that I would hold as troubling the foundation of the arguments put forth, something that rather goes against your narrative of not giving an "iota of insight to an inconvenient claim". I probably did not need to go too much into the further contemplations part there but was kind of hoping if you were intending on debate that we could skip the basics and get to the juicy stuff if we first don't have to dismiss such triteness as Pascal's Wager/gambit.
On the charge of pseudo intellectualism then I would contend it is straight intellectualism, nothing pseudo about it. I am maybe not the best at philosophy of this nature (spent far more time contemplating the nature of metals instead) but I reckon I can give it a fair shake. Once more I don't have a religion, though if you are going to deem atheism a religion despite words meaning the opposite of that then it has no tenets beyond the lack of a god as religions have defined the concept controlling everything/being responsible for everything, everything as far as morals go after that is up to the individual.

Now if you want a trite phrase then you are attacking the man* rather than the arguments put forth. Is that really a way to win an argument, much less one you would care to use?

*something that is happily dismissed in this case with "am not".

 

[tabzer]

I'm not reading your pretentious bs dude. It's tired and uninspired. You can subscribe and smash the like button on anything you choose. You are still a follower.

 

[Ericthegreat]

I'm not reading your pretentious bs dude. It's tired and uninspired. You can subscribe and smash the like button on anything you choose. You are still a follower.

Hey man, you feeling okay? This is not in anyway me trying to bother you, but have you considered speaking to a doctor about how you feel?

 

[tabzer]

And who are you?

 

[Searinox]

I honestly don't even understand this "liberal" label. It's like in the past 10 years facts, compassion and common sense have become increasingly "liberal" things and lies and shitty attitudes have rebranded themselves as "conservatism". Why are we even debating these things in 2019? And yes I do go to the vote with my worldview.

 

[FAST6191]

I honestly don't even understand this "liberal" label. It's like in the past 10 years facts, compassion and common sense have become increasingly "liberal" things and lies and shitty attitudes have rebranded themselves as "conservatism". Why are we even debating these things in 2019?

For some it is a smear word. For others it describes a philosophical outlook and outlook on the nature of government, personal freedoms and other things. Others note the lack of universality to it; the more recent western Europe + whatever colonies were left over circa 1950 and US divide already covered, as well as more classical divides in philosophy*. Never mind what we are supposed to do about the Australian liberal party (the more right wing government party there).
Going further (and covered in that video I posted above linky because why not, and satirised somewhat in the one following that) is there are aspects to it all as well with regards to said governmental roles, economics and personal liberty/culture that some already mentioned, and where you can adopt a blend of whatever you like really (it is quite possible to be culturally liberal but economically conservative, or vice versa, or centrist for one or more of those, or quite extremely into one or more of those).

*I quite like the following as a brief overview of history here, this guy frequently has quite good videos on the nature of/options for governing things and philosophies if you are after long form content


As you mention the last 10 years has also seen a bit of a shift, especially in US politics (while the left side of things is probably more notable at this point the right is not without shifts either). This leads some to more readily adopt it as a smear word, or just see things are very distant from positions they have long held and used to be able to readily debate with the nominal opposite side and lean into their positions more lest things "slip further" as it were.

For my money I would agree the US right wing appears to have an almost opposition to anything other than free market economics ensuring everything but borders and maybe roads (even there you can still find some that would oppose that) keep working, except they don't in practice and the almost callous indifference it appears to portray is not there, or at least is somewhat out of sight rather than at the fore. This makes dealing with things somewhat odd as we often lack a common vocabulary or understanding but we can but try.

 

[tabzer]

@FAST6191

I am not posing an argument. I am not interested in proving the existence of god or the giving way for disbelief in god, because I view both of those to be two sides of the same coin, both centered around the subject of "god" as the foundation of theosophy. Just because you think atheism wholly rejects god (it doesn't; it can't) does not mean it is not pursued religiously by those who identify themselves as such. You already demonstrate this.

God is a word, and to different people that word has a different impact/meaning. There is no authority of god, so finding any credible source on the topic is dubious. If you believe that someone can be an authority about god, then you have deemed that person to be a suitable representative of god, which especially underlines the irony of not believing in god in the first place.

This makes me think about the subject of liberals and politicians. I grew up liberal, but I never trusted politicians to know or do better than I would. It's one thing to be compassionate, but to force others to "be compassionate" is an anti-thesis. With politicians, mediation becomes coercion, and anything that was meaningful for a liberal is lost. Liberals can seem stupid and/or crazy if they actually believe there is a political party that represents their ideals. Ideally, everybody is able to represent themselves in a just society. But people are opportunists, especially politicians. Liberal politicians seem to be the most dishonest/inconsistent kind.

 

[FAST6191]

@FAST6191

I am not posing an argument. I am not interested in proving the existence of god or the giving way for disbelief in god, because I view both of those to be two sides of the same coin, both centered around the subject of "god" as the foundation of theosophy. Just because you think atheism wholly rejects god (it doesn't; it can't) does not mean it is not pursued religiously by those who identify themselves as such. You already demonstrate this.

God is a word, and to different people that word has a different impact/meaning. There is no authority of god, so finding any credible source on the topic is dubious. If you believe that someone can be an authority about god, then you have deemed that person to be a suitable representative of god, which especially underlines the irony of not believing in god in the first place.

Atheism is generally said to be the rejection of god and gods. Said gods being supernatural beings with, or once with, enormous power to shape reality beyond what which physics would say is possible, or with such knowledge of the state of things as to effectively be so (hard to record the information of the universe with just the contents of the universe, never mind the apparent randomness of quantum mechanics, and thus back to supernatural)
Some go a bit further and coin agnosticism as the general rejection of existing attempts by religions and thinkers to define a god's scope, origins, meanings and relevance to individual or societal philosophy but not preclude there from ever being one. Whether the complete rejection of deities poses a logical problem (worse if we invoke probabilities) could be debated a bit if you want but it seems like something that can be claimed as being done.

If you have more apt words then please do share as those concepts seem worth having some kind of word to describe, as opposed to stating it every time.

Similarly not every religion requires a god, or supernatural force, at its foundation. Some look at Buddhism here, and we also have the ever fun "I am not religious but I am spiritual" thing to unpack.

There are certainly atheists that take great pains to effect some kind of society (local or otherwise) change. You then get terms, possibly misnomers, like militant atheist or antitheist (sometimes seen as antitheistic atheist) as a result, to say nothing of the atheism+ debacle. Many of those do share a common cause of ridding the world of religious practice (or the big examples and obvious offshoots), religious influence upon the law, religious practice upon education and religious practice upon general thoughts of morality and philosophy, and can be seen cooperating in those goals. This is not all of them though, and said cooperation may well be more mutual or pragmatic than born of logical agreement on things. You might also find a great many, especially among those that will talk about it, share a fondness for logic, rationality, observation, testing and all that flows from that, but it is not a requirement.

The nature of god and gods is also a fun one and the line you had there about credible sources is much what would be written about them by me, and part of the reason why I give so little credence to the concept. The classic one being how do I know Jesus a) existed, b) if he did was not just a crazy guy or charlatan, c) said what he purportedly said, d) had that transcribed accurately, and e) had said transcription accurately kept, translated and with enough context* such that a major or minor take on the concept is still around, useful and accurate today (most takes on Christianity having huge incompatibilities with one another). Someone might have their own take or meaning but if said take puts you at odds with historical, current and likely future leaders of the faith, their adherents and things they and their works claim as essential to practising -- the major takes on Christianity would have major issues calling god an abstract concept to deal with apparent nature of the universe, though it seems there are those that would claim they are religious but have no god belief). I would also not say you grant a person an authority -- could still have been someone that "was there, man" to witness it.

I would also agree it has different personal meanings to people but much like one can believe their wife to be the most beautiful woman in the world and it be true as it is a statement of their own mind but the nature of a god is a statement of the universe, which I live in and thus have a stake. To that end I will refer back to the definitions given above pending better suggestions for such words or reasons on why. The natures/abilities of said gods vary to minor and major degrees between religions and versions of them, new ones can be cooked up and and other edge cases created but as a linguistic, philosophical, historical and sociological phenomenon there is enough there to pose a definition, one that can in turn be rejected as being at least part of the fundamental force of the universe or possessing powers/traits not expected within it.

*the whole rich man and eye of the needle thing some tell me instead refers not to the literal trouble of getting a dromedary through an item designed to get thin thread through material but instead having to unload a beast of burden through a particular gate in a particular town in the holy land where the stories are set. Now I have seen a camel because I went to a zoo, someone 300 years might not have. Neither of us would however know what it was like to have a camel as our means of sustenance in a cold and unpleasant world; I have a van if I need to move hundreds of kilograms hundreds of kilometres with for less work than walking there myself, or indeed for the monetary equivalent of a few hours of effort, to say nothing of plentiful enough food for me to probably be notably taller, more educated and stronger than said camel man, to say nothing of xrays, surgery, painkillers and antibiotics when I decide to drop it all on my leg.

 

[Nino_Z]

I hate the fact that political correctness and sjw bullshit is being pushed onto the gaming community.

 

[subcon959]

I hate the fact that political correctness and sjw bullshit is being pushed onto the gaming community.

We don't have to accept it though.

 

[WD_GASTER2]

We don't have to accept it though.

it strikes me as odd that bigger forms of corruption are less of a concern in the video game industry.

 

[subcon959]

it strikes me as odd that bigger forms of corruption are less of a concern in the video game industry.

I think the concern is still there but it's just not the current particular trend to oppose.

 

[notimp]

If you should still be wondering, why so few hackers are actual conservatives, may I present you with this (not at all) historical piece, I just coincidently watched recently - that captures it:


click on Vimeo to watch it fullscreen

(Film is a callback to If... (1968) also with Malcolm McDowell and David Wood, which was an artfilm shortly before the 68 liberal revolution in britain at the time, ... Watch it. )

Now this is a case, where it urks me, that this video still has zero views (according to vimeo).

I really shouldnt care, but this time I do.

Because to me it shows me one thing. People dont care about finding stuff out about the issue at hand at all.

Premise:

Conservative majorities, ruled the world for the past x decades. They've build most of the structures we know as society today. The last time we saw a liberal 'uprising' (small, nonviolent revolution), that actually worked, and changed societies for a while was in 1968.

Now - if I give you 'documentaries' about what happened at that time - they won't do it justice. I couldnt even conceptualize how to produce one of those, that would actually kind of show what happened at the time (in a few short words, the youth rebelling against their parents generation, after there was set up a continuity of power after WW2 - in germany especially, for obvious reasons, but also in UK and other parts of the world).

But there are a few films in the artsy independent genre that were made around the time, that kind of do.

If you are interested in that stuff, then look at those.

But if you are just a person that wants their ego to be stroked, and doesnt look at anything on the internet if you identify a font treatment, that isnt from the youtube age - you make this a thread about your feels and nothing else.

If you don't want to learn a thing or two - why make this threads at all? Go on facebook, farm some likes by talking about your feels over situational pseudo political newsstories.

What - the video doesnt have someone faking excitement on the cover image, so you dont watch?

Again, I shouldnt care about people not watching something that took me 3 minutes to cut together - but in this case - I strangely do.

Probably, because millennials and gen z'ers are turning out to become the most conservative generations out there yet, because they self optimize for online likes, and don't even question established social structures at all - when changing them would actually mean that they don't have insta majorities on social media from minute one.

Liberal in sensibilities, but never in action, right?

edit: Also - because I know from experience, that you never click through to a source story - because that takes too much time out of your day - and you were conditioned to scroll neverending social feeds, and not to actually gather sources, that werent youtubers - here, have a link:
h**ps://vimeo.com/350550464

Otherwise I woulndt have a chance in hell - that you clicked the video, even after expressing wide spread disillusionment.

Again - once more, just for good measure - you create all those threads, to stroke your feels, not because you actually would want to learn a thing.

And if you think that this is unfair - let us hear one aspect you think you have learned from this thread so far.

Come on - make this a little exercise to see how much you take away from participating in 'political discussion' every day.

Oh - too provocative? Doesnt get you any like in the instagram world, so you don't like? Here, read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offending_the_Audience

Oh how strange, that one also premiered around 1968.

 

[NoNAND]

sometimes I wonder why does this sub-forum even exist.
At some point a few are right about video games.
Excessive gaming for long periods of time is a waste of time.

 

[PityOnU]

ITT: "Identity politics"

/end thread

 

[Bimmel]

Because I've read this a couple of times: "Political stuff? Leave my games out of this!"

How naive.. everything is political. You can't escape you fools.

 

[notimp]

Strong recommendation to watch:

Portillo The Trouble With The Tories S01E01
Portillo The Trouble With The Tories S01E02

(Current time piece on the state of the conservative party in the UK.)

 

[plasturion]

Conservatism shouldn't be a poclitical party, but the normal attitude of every decent person. (Nicolás Gómez Dávila)
Some his qoutes are interesting, usually I find more on english wiki, this time is opposite so i share. Enjoy.
https://translate.google.pl/transla....org/wiki/Nicol%C3%A1s_G%C3%B3mez_D%C3%A1vila

 

[Josshy0125]

Conservatism shouldn't be a poclitical party, but the normal attitude of every decent person. (Nicolás Gómez Dávila)
Some his qoutes are interesting, usually I find more on english wiki, this time is opposite so i share. Enjoy.
https://translate.google.pl/translate?hl=pl&sl=pl&tl=en&u=https://pl.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nicol%C3%A1s_G%C3%B3mez_D%C3%A1vila

Thats like saying "we should all be raciest". Super dumb. The normal, unbiased train of existence should be liberal; accepting change, (and heres a HUGE part of it, that conservatives don't agree with...) accepting EVERYONE the way they are, and not saying things like "gay people shouldnt be married because it affects me personally l", as conservatives, in the "usual sense" tend to believe. So no, what youve written is absolutely ridiculous and stupid.

 

[DuoForce]

Degeneracy.