Opinions, Debate and Courting Controversy
This post has been sitting in “draft” for a while and for the want of Blaugust Reborn, it may well have remained there. I guess I've held fire on writing it because I've gotten somewhat tired of pissing in the wind. Because that is what speaking out on certain subjects frequently feels like these days. There is a sense of tedious inevitability that any post that expresses an opinion on social issues or any form of societal marginalisation will eventually lead to a torrent of vile, ill-informed and just plain dumb comments. It puts me in mind of that quote from Platoon "Hell is the impossibility of reason". And you'll find precious little reason on the internet. What bothers me about all this is why does it have to always be this way? Is there anything that can be done? Well I believe there is.
Before I start don't go looking for a miracle cure in this post because I don’t have one. What I am suggesting is fairly basic and certainly requires lots of time. In a nutshell, just keep writing and debating. Don't throw in the towel. I know it's very tempting sometimes, hence my pissing in the wind reference. Yet if we do, then the only information that remains out there is misinformation. Therefore, we should not shy away from speaking out on difficult matters. Furthermore, we can also do a lot to minimise the resulting shit storm that will more than likely will arise. Here are few thoughts on the matter.
Research and a well-constructed argument: Debating is a skill. There is also a process to discussing and arguing a point, the same way as mathematics and grammar have rules. Unfortunately, most folk don't consider either of these points and are happy to jump in feet first. It's a shame more schools do not teach critical thinking as it is an invaluable skill that can be brought to bear on so many aspects of life. However, it is prudent to consider that logic and objectivity cannot always be imposed upon a debate. Emotions do play a part and cannot necessarily be set aside. Especially if you have first-hand experience of the very matter being debated.
I believe Tobold asked the question "There cannot be any meaningful discussion of any subject if you start out by declaring only one side of the argument as valid". That is perhaps true of some subjects, especially if you are debating a matter that hinges on subjectivity and personal taste. However, in a debate regarding a subject such as racism, I cannot logically see any argument to validate a discriminatory stance. Some questions may well be open and shut cases but not all.
Life is not simple: If you are intending to hold forth on a particular subject, it never does any harm to remember that most problems are what they are because of their complexity. Which is a bummer because contemporary society really doesn't like or "do" complex (Brexit for instance). Listen to any radio phone-in, read any internet forum or just glance through a newspaper and you'll find many of the most difficult and contentious problems the world currently faces, distilled in to some rather glib and factually questionable sound-bites. Furthermore, the public lap these up because they're easy to remember and trot out. It's far easier to spout some superficial bullshit you gleaned from the pages of a tabloid, rather than spend time researching a subject and actually having to think.
Bear this in mind when you tackle a big issue. Question whether you are in a position to make a substantive point. Seek guidance from those who know what the wider implications are, such as academics and associated experts on the matter. Invite people to consider your views and reflect upon your stance. Do not just arbitrarily hector them or be excessively judgemental. There are actually times when being blunt, forceful and even rude are justified, but it need not be your default position and standard opening gambit. Aim to be disarmingly persuasive.
Change takes time: Progress is a long and often arduous path. Entrenched social attitudes and ideologies do not change overnight. Often it is a generational thing. For example, my parents were born in the Thirties and both have specific views on social status, race, religion, politics, patriotism and that other old favourite drugs. A quarter of the world was part of the British Empire during their most formative years and this era definitely shaped their world view. They have made some changes over the years but on some matters their beliefs hold strong. No amount of arguing will ever change that. However, such views are not so endemic with my own or my son’s generation. Simply put, some of the more unsavoury views from my parents’ generation will die with them. Change doesn't always come by winning "hearts and minds".
However, as with complexity, many people these days can't be doing with "long waits". Thus, we live in a time where knee-jerk reactions and crass, ill-conceived quick fixes abound. Why should gaming (or whatever else you’re advocating or lobbying for) be any different from politics? All I can really say to the ardent campaigner or blogger with a strong social conscience, is that it really helps to cultivate some patience.
Be measured and fair: If for example, you as a gamer want to lobby the games industry with regard to the depiction of women in games, there is ultimately a requirement for you to engage with those who are either a part of the problem or who seem to be indifferent to it. It's all about winning the middle ground and generating a head of steam. This process needs to be handled with subtlety and tact. Although passion is inspiring, and anger can be power (or so The Clash said), step too far over the line and perceived militancy (whether it is real or not) will work against you. It scares people and it may even drive those you need on-board to the other "side". So, pick your battles, be firm, measured and civil.
Another thing to be considered is the use of knowledge. Some gamers (and bloggers) are not as smart as others. Some folk are smart but driven by their emotions. It can therefore be easy sometimes for the intelligent or knowledgeable party to run rings around the other. Be careful in how you "wear" your intelligence. There's being clever and then there's wanting to be seen as being clever. Crushing a person publicly through Vulcan like logic does not necessarily mean that they will immediately recant their views and embrace yours. Quite the opposite. You may have made matters worse. Just watch them dig their heels in. You can be smart and make your point without being condescending or smug. However, that can be a difficult path to tread. Like it or loathe it, dealing with people in these situations requires a degree of diplomacy.
I sure we can all think of other points to add to the list. There's also an element of finding an approach that is right for you. Then of course there is always the option to simply not create content about anything controversial or to stray in to certain areas of debate. Whether you run a website, visit forums or partake of Twitter, you are not obliged to tackle the big issues. If you want to create content that simply focuses on the things you enjoy, be it kittens, making jam or grave robbing, then by all means do so. I am merely suggesting that if you feel the need to broach more complex subjects, then you should not be deterred by the facts that it is hard to engage with some groups and that progress and effecting change takes time as well as work.
As I get older I do find that my passions have tempered over time. I do not find the need to go on that many demonstrations, nor to hold an "absolute" opinion on everything under the sun. I do tend to focus on more immediate issues that affect myself and my family (like the closure of my local A&E) rather than wider international matters. But even in my most sceptical of moments, I cannot truly advocate a total withdrawal of interaction on social issues. Because that means handing the floor over to the idiot brigade and therein lies madness. Plus, if we all did that then blogging and most other forms of online content would be a lot less interesting.