5 ms·

how does that make it political?

davidw 12y ago
Let's rewrite it. Say it's some conservative commentator like Bill O'Reilly: "To me video games are the so-called 'real France,'" he said. "The real France operates according to a video game logic, and that game logic is socialism" That doesn't strike you as overtly and primarily political in nature? Beyond that, it's simply inane.
- Malarkey73 12y ago
  I don't think it is inane at all. Lots of games since Monopoly, Elite and running through Civilisation and SimCity have model economics, free trade, and free thinking ideas in-built into the game mechanics. And a lot of economics and free trade ideas seem to be justified by game theory and the naturalistic fallacy. And a lot of chasing GDP or national wealth or Educational policy sometimes seem to be maximising some goal - like a game- rather than just running countries for the benefit of people. I think its actually a very telling analogy if you think a little more deeply about it.
  - davidw 12y ago
    It's a totally made-up analogy with no supporting facts. What does it even mean that "the real America operates according to a video game logic"? Does France operate that way? How about Morocco or Mongolia? It's nonsense.
    - popeshoe 12y ago
      In America if you collect 100 coins you get an extra life. In America if you get seriously hurt you get taken to hospital and lose some money In America you can only carry 2 guns In America if you try and run forward and sideways at once the two velocities are combined and you run twice as fast I guess some of them work
      - iopq 12y ago
        you run sqrt(2) as fast
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      What does "gamification" means? I say answers to those two questions are very relevant to each other.
- palmer_eldritch 12y ago
  Except current France doesn't operate according to socialist logic. It's much closer to neo-liberalism too (as most of today's world). Just because the current president has the label "socialist" for historical reasons it doesn't make it socialism.
  - davidw 12y ago
    "Socialist!" is one of those meaningless code words, like "neoliberal!" that just means "bad!" for the intended audience.
    - rat87 12y ago
      neo-libreral means pro free trade neo-conservate means pro war especially against non-democratic regimes they don't like seeking to remake them into democracies.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      Totally. Those labels are instant mind-killers and in my book they are tools of the Dark Arts. When someone calls you a "socialist" or "neoliberal" or whatever, they imply you believe everything some ideology has to say, so they can go ahead, point any random weak point (every political ideology has some) and call you a moron. This is so totally dumb behaviour, that I can't even begin to describe it. What's equally dumb is assuming that if you agree with some group on one thing, then you should also agree on everything else. Basically - for me, giving yourself a political label is a sign of subpar thinking. Giving others political labels is disingenuous.
      - djur 12y ago
        "mind-killers" and "Dark Arts" are self-describing labels, though. They don't avoid being political rhetoric just because they were coined by a guy who purports to be opposed to political rhetoric.
- brazzy 12y ago
  Um, yes. It is indeed overtly and primarily political once you have rewritten it to be.
  - davidw 12y ago
    > Um, yes. It is indeed overtly and primarily political once you have rewritten it to be. I changed two words - I replaced America with France and "neo-liberalism" with "socialism".
    - anon1385 12y ago
      Actually at first you used the word "communism", which is why I downvoted you and flagged your comment. You are just using inaccurate emotive language to rage wildly against a line in the article that offended your zealous patriotic/conservative sensibilities. You loudly complain about pretty much any article that contains a hint of politics you dislike. It just fills the comments with useless noise (I know I'm adding to it, but after seeing you do the same thing dozens of times it's getting pretty tiresome). If you don't like a submission, move on, don't post dozens of whining comments about how it hurt your feelings and how such submissions need to be banned from the site.
      - davidw 12y ago
        I actually flag all politics here, even the articles that agree with my political views, which are not at all what you seem to think they are, either. It helps to get rid of these articles and keep the site a good one for startups/hacking/interesting articles, so for me it's worthwhile. The article doesn't hurt my feelings: I think it's genuinely silly and low-quality.
        DanBC 12y ago
        An important part of flagging - and it is mentioned in the guidelines - is to avoid commenting that you've flagged the article. Look at the low quality sub-thread that your comment spawned.
- 7952 12y ago
  There is a tendancy to treat real world problems in an overly abstract way. That you pursue an argument because of a particular dogma rather than actual empathy for the victims of a problem. For example people love to debate funding of healthcare (which we can all disagree on) whilst loosing site of its actual purpose (which we mostly agree about). The same is true of homelessness where it is easy to discuss it in broad economic terms that can be dogmatic. But actually it is a social problem which means that it is caused by people breaking the agreed rules of the game. If a family member has no home you are supposed to let them sleep on the couch until they get back on their feet. When these basic societal rules break down we are only left with the state which is not a good replacment for family and friends.
  - Spooky23 12y ago
    You got it. I have relatives who work with the homeless, and one of the striking things is the population that is growing now: veterans. Politicians love waving flags and "supporting the troops". But when some if these men come home and can't adjust, the flags get out away. Many turn to alcohol and start a spiral the ends on a street somewhere.
    - happyscrappy 12y ago
      In Boston goes around to pick up the homeless and bring them to Pine Street or another shelter but you cannot force them to get into the van and they still die on the street. I don't know what the solution is but you will never be able to pass a law forcing them into the van.
  - cturner 12y ago
    [Getting this in early - I'm not an American.] > healthcare .. which we mostly agree about Reading this brought to mind a Reagan speech. Found it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUKC9E04Sck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUKC9E04Sck), complete with propaganda slides. The final example he gives goes right to it. Social democracy is the mainstream worldview at the moment in educated debate. Even the US moves in that direction. A social democrat will look at opposition to public healthcare with disbelief, "can anyone really be so mean?" Or disbelieve it altogether as you do. Well-funded public healthcare is central to the socal democrat worldview. It's easy to argue towards at the moment, because it aligns with the momentum of public policy. For freedom-centric people, it's uncomfortable. The person opposing it will often be inarticulate, to the point of appearing to be crazy. Their task is hard: they are not merely opposing one policy, but the whole momentum of worldview that's driving it. That's hard to do well. But beneath the rambling, there's probably a legitimate philosophical position that's not understood properly even by the speaker.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

Let's rewrite it. Say it's some conservative commentator like Bill O'Reilly: "To me video games are the so-called 'real France,'" he said. "The real France operates according to a video game logic, and that game logic is socialism" That doesn't strike you as overtly and primarily political in nature? Beyond that, it's simply inane.

Malarkey73 12y ago
I don't think it is inane at all. Lots of games since Monopoly, Elite and running through Civilisation and SimCity have model economics, free trade, and free thinking ideas in-built into the game mechanics. And a lot of economics and free trade ideas seem to be justified by game theory and the naturalistic fallacy. And a lot of chasing GDP or national wealth or Educational policy sometimes seem to be maximising some goal - like a game- rather than just running countries for the benefit of people. I think its actually a very telling analogy if you think a little more deeply about it.
- davidw 12y ago
  It's a totally made-up analogy with no supporting facts. What does it even mean that "the real America operates according to a video game logic"? Does France operate that way? How about Morocco or Mongolia? It's nonsense.
  - popeshoe 12y ago
    In America if you collect 100 coins you get an extra life. In America if you get seriously hurt you get taken to hospital and lose some money In America you can only carry 2 guns In America if you try and run forward and sideways at once the two velocities are combined and you run twice as fast I guess some of them work
    - iopq 12y ago
      you run sqrt(2) as fast
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    What does "gamification" means? I say answers to those two questions are very relevant to each other.
palmer_eldritch 12y ago
Except current France doesn't operate according to socialist logic. It's much closer to neo-liberalism too (as most of today's world). Just because the current president has the label "socialist" for historical reasons it doesn't make it socialism.
- davidw 12y ago
  "Socialist!" is one of those meaningless code words, like "neoliberal!" that just means "bad!" for the intended audience.
  - rat87 12y ago
    neo-libreral means pro free trade neo-conservate means pro war especially against non-democratic regimes they don't like seeking to remake them into democracies.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    Totally. Those labels are instant mind-killers and in my book they are tools of the Dark Arts. When someone calls you a "socialist" or "neoliberal" or whatever, they imply you believe everything some ideology has to say, so they can go ahead, point any random weak point (every political ideology has some) and call you a moron. This is so totally dumb behaviour, that I can't even begin to describe it. What's equally dumb is assuming that if you agree with some group on one thing, then you should also agree on everything else. Basically - for me, giving yourself a political label is a sign of subpar thinking. Giving others political labels is disingenuous.
    - djur 12y ago
      "mind-killers" and "Dark Arts" are self-describing labels, though. They don't avoid being political rhetoric just because they were coined by a guy who purports to be opposed to political rhetoric.
brazzy 12y ago
Um, yes. It is indeed overtly and primarily political once you have rewritten it to be.
- davidw 12y ago
  > Um, yes. It is indeed overtly and primarily political once you have rewritten it to be. I changed two words - I replaced America with France and "neo-liberalism" with "socialism".
  - anon1385 12y ago
    Actually at first you used the word "communism", which is why I downvoted you and flagged your comment. You are just using inaccurate emotive language to rage wildly against a line in the article that offended your zealous patriotic/conservative sensibilities. You loudly complain about pretty much any article that contains a hint of politics you dislike. It just fills the comments with useless noise (I know I'm adding to it, but after seeing you do the same thing dozens of times it's getting pretty tiresome). If you don't like a submission, move on, don't post dozens of whining comments about how it hurt your feelings and how such submissions need to be banned from the site.
    - davidw 12y ago
      I actually flag all politics here, even the articles that agree with my political views, which are not at all what you seem to think they are, either. It helps to get rid of these articles and keep the site a good one for startups/hacking/interesting articles, so for me it's worthwhile. The article doesn't hurt my feelings: I think it's genuinely silly and low-quality.
      - DanBC 12y ago
        An important part of flagging - and it is mentioned in the guidelines - is to avoid commenting that you've flagged the article. Look at the low quality sub-thread that your comment spawned.
7952 12y ago
There is a tendancy to treat real world problems in an overly abstract way. That you pursue an argument because of a particular dogma rather than actual empathy for the victims of a problem. For example people love to debate funding of healthcare (which we can all disagree on) whilst loosing site of its actual purpose (which we mostly agree about). The same is true of homelessness where it is easy to discuss it in broad economic terms that can be dogmatic. But actually it is a social problem which means that it is caused by people breaking the agreed rules of the game. If a family member has no home you are supposed to let them sleep on the couch until they get back on their feet. When these basic societal rules break down we are only left with the state which is not a good replacment for family and friends.
- Spooky23 12y ago
  You got it. I have relatives who work with the homeless, and one of the striking things is the population that is growing now: veterans. Politicians love waving flags and "supporting the troops". But when some if these men come home and can't adjust, the flags get out away. Many turn to alcohol and start a spiral the ends on a street somewhere.
  - happyscrappy 12y ago
    In Boston goes around to pick up the homeless and bring them to Pine Street or another shelter but you cannot force them to get into the van and they still die on the street. I don't know what the solution is but you will never be able to pass a law forcing them into the van.
- cturner 12y ago
  [Getting this in early - I'm not an American.] > healthcare .. which we mostly agree about Reading this brought to mind a Reagan speech. Found it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUKC9E04Sck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUKC9E04Sck), complete with propaganda slides. The final example he gives goes right to it. Social democracy is the mainstream worldview at the moment in educated debate. Even the US moves in that direction. A social democrat will look at opposition to public healthcare with disbelief, "can anyone really be so mean?" Or disbelieve it altogether as you do. Well-funded public healthcare is central to the socal democrat worldview. It's easy to argue towards at the moment, because it aligns with the momentum of public policy. For freedom-centric people, it's uncomfortable. The person opposing it will often be inarticulate, to the point of appearing to be crazy. Their task is hard: they are not merely opposing one policy, but the whole momentum of worldview that's driving it. That's hard to do well. But beneath the rambling, there's probably a legitimate philosophical position that's not understood properly even by the speaker.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]