The Value of values

[Sotha]

It's implicit in comments about violence against children being worse the violence against adults, or people being squeamish about fictional non-existent misfortunes happening to fictional non-existent children while gleefully watching adults being butchered six ways from Sunday in the name of entertainment. It seems that an arbitrary child's life is considered more valuable than an arbitrary adult's life, simply because of their age.

 

Well, ditto with sex. In american TV shows they can show brains and gore platting all over the place in slow-motion, but few years back nudity and sexuality were Very Bad Things. Remember when they found that sex minigame in GTA3. It was like the sky was falling down. Which one is more natural for a human being: gruesome violence, or nudity and sexuality? Anyways, I've noticed this changing: In Game of Thrones, for example, they are repeating a cycle of 1) Intrigue scene, 2) Sex scene, 3) Gruesome violence scene, 5) Goto 1.

 

 

Eh? Neither of the examples I gave involved the Nazis. Well, Turing was active in WW2 but it was the British state that persecuted him, not Hitler.

Yes, I meant I was expecting the Nazi-card, but you didn't deliver it.

 

 

 

 

That's fair enough. I don't have any problem with people not wanting to make such missions, and I don't have any problem with people not wanting to play such missions. I don't even have any problem with not adding children into the core mod due to lack of mapper interest.

 

Yes, it is a good strategy to avoid making problems for self out of the behavior of others.

 

 

The only thing I would have a problem with is some kind of blanket ban because "It's Immoral!!!!". Grandstanding about "morality" in a game which simulates theft and murder requires an epic level of hypocrisy.

 

Why allow it to become a problem for you? If you didn't, would you live a more meaningful and peaceful existence? Here the problem is this:

i) Someone has different values than you. Values are touchy-feely stuff. Attacking the values of others will only get them on the defence and nothing will be accomplished in a discussion. People will only be upset. Both you and the target.

ii) Calling someone a hypocrite means you are judging them. Do we really have the authority to judge others, no matter how different they think or how alien their values are to us? They can judge us as easily. And both sides will feel they are right in this righteous battle. Not judging others. This was a really good point someone brought up in a previous discussion, and I am very fond of the idea.

 

People who passionately hate bigotry are bigots themselves towards the bigots?

[Goldwell]

Yes American television has always been about double standards.. A funny example was in breaking bad where they shot a kid, put his body in a barrel of acid and then buried it in the desert.. but that same season when a character said fuck it was bleeped.

 

Regardless though I agree that sexuality and nudity shouldn't be criminalized as much as it is especially compared to gore which is much worse in my opinion.

[Xarg]

Why allow it to become a problem for you? If you didn't, would you live a more meaningful and peaceful existence?

 

If everyone takes that philosophy, doesn't that mean that the one person who refuses to change dictates how everyone else does things?

To use the examples from the above replies, you have people who think a nipple on TV is worse than Satan bumming Hitler while Stalin "entertains" Mao in the corner, but low rating TV shows featuring graphic violence are perfectly fine. If noone "allows it to become a problem for themselves", and do nothing, that's how it's going to stay. At some point the person who refuses to change must be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the future, or left behind. Doing nothing simply allows them to retain control over how the rest of us do things.

 

Besides, just like the Blues, Rock 'n' Roll, Heavy Metal, Rap, Movies, Television, the printed word, none have caused the collapse of society or heralded the coming of Satan, so all those other people who didn't want to change who weren't allowed to dictate to everyone else how to live, haven't had any lasting effect, why let this be different? No More Room in Hell has zombie children, they've refused to remove them despite people having a pants-wet about "the chillunz" and I think the game is far better for it (the zombie children are some of the most dangerous enemies in the game, too).

[Springheel]

Someone has different values than you. Values are touchy-feely stuff. Attacking the values of others will only get them on the defence and nothing will be accomplished in a discussion. People will only be upset. Both you and the target.

 

Our values have a strong impact on our behaviour, and the behaviour of other people can potentially affect both me and the society I live in. That's why discussion of values takes up a large part of social conversation, and so it should.

[Sotha]

Xarg,

In reality, the scenario that everyone would adopt such a philosophy is quite artificial. Anyways, even in the current world where people flame other in internet forums because of values or preferences, there are only a few who dictate how evereyone else should do things. We already have that. That is normal. Humans arw herd creatures that look at others for guidance and examples.

 

Spring,

Value discussion is of course a good thing. It becomes problematic when someone makes someone elses values a problem. You cannot say "your values are incorrect. Change them, you hypocrite." It would be better to have a value discussion without judging some of the values being discussed.

 

In society, the values are always changing. Things come and go. In an individual level, it is usually fruitless to try to change the values of others by pointing out their mistakes. It is just a bad tactic as it gets everyone of the defence side, and no matter how hard you push, they will be pushing back equally hard. That's how people react. It is normal.

 

Why make yourself a problem you cannot solve?

[Airship Ballet]

Value discussion is of course a good thing. It becomes problematic when someone makes someone elses values a problem. You cannot say "your values are incorrect. Change them, you hypocrite."

 

"I think today I'm going to enter a discussion and then take offense if it turns into anything other than us all stating our opinions and not engaging with one another. How dare people pick up and work with my opinion, I want to state it in a discussion forum and not have it discussed."

 

For my own FM, I had the implication of violence to a child. Part of it was, at the time I was outraged at actual violence to a child and it was a way to express my anger at it, and let the player share that anger by making the perpetrator the bad guy, and they could send him a message if they wanted.

The best way to use it, definitely. Having a point behind including children aside from "well there would be children there" is great, especially if you can tell the story without playing your entire hand and straight-up including a child AI.

[Sotha]

AB, I think it is perfectly possible to discuss opinions and values without condemning the other person, their opinions or values. It is of course more challenging the more the thoughts of the other differ from ours.

 

I think this has been forgotten in the era of the internet: sadly, often internet postings, generally, are about showing others how wrong they are, and how right we are, and how stupid the others are because of they way they think or believe. People are very quick to judge. I don't know why we are so eager? We "win" and feel good about it? We are narcistic social media junkies who elevate ourselves by stepping on others? Is a discussion a way to expand our sphere; a method that helps us to understand others, or is it just a competition; a game someone wins to gain points?

[Airship Ballet]

A bit of everything, and competition isn't a bad thing unless you're proud enough to think you're above it, or that debating points is lowly to begin with. What is bad is throwing your hands up and halting it when somebody points out a flaw in your argument. If opinions weren't challenged, the world would be a worse place, and if people could stop taking that challenge as a personal insult, it'd be a better one. Besides, there's a big difference between saying "Sotha is a walking hypocrite" and "as far as I can tell, people who think this way are being hypocritical".

Edited September 11, 2014 by Airship Ballet

[Sotha]

But it is very human to stick to your views even all clear evidence is laid in front of your states otherwise. Everyone does that. It is bad, but it is the expected behavior.

 

Opinions can and should be challenged, but one should do it without judgement. "Everyone who thinks X is an idiot/hypocrite" appears very judgemental/condemning. Once the other gets on the defence, all future discussion/persuasion is waste of time. This is my main point.

 

If you avoid condemning and leave the other some room to back off without losing face, you will have much higher chance to influence their beliefs and actions.

[Airship Ballet]

I think all that's too generalised, because the opposite of each exists in different situations for different people. For more important things that actually need to be fixed, as in smoking/alcoholism/drug abuse/abusive attitude/criminal tendencies/not properly closing the packet on a loaf of bread rather than somebody's opinion, people need to be shocked into action via labor of love. Most people end up better off from being ridiculed and scolded into action, because nowadays we're all too polite to people who don't deserve it. I've told plenty of people exactly what I think of their problems once we've been friends for a long time, and it's almost always shocked them out of their crappy habit, and I've had the same happen to me. Neither me nor them were bad people, but we had stupid, harmful or irritating habits that had to go, and go they did via being cornered and whipped into repair. It's mildly humiliating for a short while, and then you're better off. There are 6 billion people on the planet, and I've no interest in being kind to everybody I meet and leaving bridges unburnt, and at the same time those I care for will usually end up being told off for something that's objectively a problem.

 

Your opinion is worth nothing if you're not willing to stand up for it and challenge the antithesis, and is similarly worthless if you never allow it to change based on what's correct and in front of you. If people lose their special snowflake status from being called hypocritical or illogical, it's a weakness of theirs to think in such a way that they see themselves as judged as a person rather than challenged in their opinion. For example, I don't know you at all--pretty much nothing I know about you can be used to judge you as a person--but the opinion you hold with regards to people coming to harm in video games is backwards to me. That's no reflection on you, it's just an illogical way to think, which doesn't mean I think you're an illogical person, but that the way you think on that subject makes little to no sense. If you feel judged as a hypocrite rather than somebody with a hypocritical opinion, that's you spinning it that way and taking offense for whatever reason within what constitutes your personality and frame of mind.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Airship Ballet

[OrbWeaver]

Why allow it to become a problem for you? If you didn't, would you live a more meaningful and peaceful existence? Here the problem is this:

i) Someone has different values than you. Values are touchy-feely stuff. Attacking the values of others will only get them on the defence and nothing will be accomplished in a discussion. People will only be upset. Both you and the target.

 

Just in case it wasn't clear, what I would have a problem with is a ban on missions featuring children. As in, an authoritative statement that such missions are not allowed and that they will be prevented in some way. This is a lot more than other people simply having different values, this is a case of people forcing their own values onto others and restricting their freedoms.

 

I'm not particularly bothered about changing people's values as a goal in itself, providing they mind their own business when it comes to what other people are allowed to do.

 

Calling someone a hypocrite means you are judging them. Do we really have the authority to judge others, no matter how different they think or how alien their values are to us?

 

My philosophy is "if you don't want to be called an idiot, don't say idiotic things". I have no time for namby-pamby "only God can judge me" all-opinions-are-equally-valid bullshit. YMMV.

 

(This is a general statement; I'm not calling you personally an idiot in this case)

[Sotha]

AB and OW,

Surely you notice how certain you are that your belief is the correct one. The objectively correct truth. Other opinions are backwards and worthless. Everyone else, even in the opposite side of the spectrum, may be having the very same thoughts about you. If the discussion partners thoughts are worthless to you, why do you keep discussing? Just to win something?

 

Of course some opinions are wrong in the light of present scientific knowledge, let's say "the Earth is flat." Truth is not constant and some information may still change as science progresses.

 

But on the topics that do not have a distinct correct or right answers, it may be a bit silly to use strong expressions. "I think your opinion on eggsalad/gaming/fashion is backwards," is a bit backwards starting premise for a discussion. If you used a more openminded approach, a better discussion will be obtained.

[Lux]

That's no reflection on you, it's just an illogical way to think, (in your opinion) which doesn't mean I think you're an illogical person, but that the way you think on that subject makes little to no sense. (to you - don't leave that out) If you feel judged as a hypocrite rather than somebody with a hypocritical opinion, that's you spinning it that way and taking offense for whatever reason within what constitutes your personality and frame of mind.

 

Saying someone is "incorrect in their thinking" because what we think to be "correct thinking" doesn't jive with it, is kinda funny to me.

 

I get in these conversations all the time with my sister who has her Masters in Psychology and listening to her recite stuff endlessly to me about this and that is like listening to a church person at my front door trying to sell me on lord. They will not be swayed! ...and they have this wealth of knowledge behind them so you'd do well to listen up and change your views.

 

Reminds me of an old Mark Twain poem we had on our bathroom wall for some 30 odd years -

 

-----------------------------------------------------

When I was a boy of fourteen

my father was so ignorant

I could hardly stand to have the old man around,

 

But when I got to be twenty one

I was astonished at how much the old man

had learned in seven years.

-----------------------------------------------------

 

We can't tell people anything to the point. They have to learn it on their own or they won't accept it.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Lux

[Bikerdude]

To ALL in this thread, please don't let it descend below common decency. Thats what comm-chat is for over on ttlg.

[Airship Ballet]

If you used a more openminded approach, a better discussion will be obtained.

The discussion was in full flight until you halted it by going on a tangent of open-mindedness and acting a martyr because we're the big mean bullies and you're the open-minded saint. It works both ways, because the moment you heard something you didn't like, you started trying to shame people instead of responding on-topic. I've no interest in changing your mind or swaying you in any way until your opinion has an effect on me, which it currently doesn't as there's no executive power riding on the discussion. It's definitely an idea to stay on topic rather than taking exception the moment something prompts you to explain yourself, because it was an interesting topic until the speculatory pseudo-science talk came out of nowhere to stamp out any and all progress being made towards a consensus. The conversation might actually go somewhere if you were to suck it up and respond properly, but instead you dive into philosophy and the folly of man, as if it has any bearing on you having your opinion questioned. Your opinion will be questioned, and you'll have to stick up for it or stop participating in the discussion. I've no idea how you've lived so long and still think that you can present an opinion and then act victimised when it gets challenged, as if people are here to discredit you rather than debate a topic. It's petty, and it gets in the way of anything being talked through properly. If it's so easy to hurt your feelings to a point where you'll go off topic to try and make people feel bad, you might want to steer clear of any posts containing the word "discuss" because somehow you have an internal filter that swaps "discuss" with "pick on Sotha".

 

I get in these conversations all the time with my sister who has her Masters in Psychology and listening to her recite stuff endlessly to me about this and that is like listening to a church person at my front door trying to sell me on lord.

Except what she has to say is firmly grounded in tried and tested research and evidence dating back centuries, and she's studied it for several years to know what's up with our brains. If she's the kind who says "look I have an MA in neuroscience so I know what the best hot dog topping is", she's an asshole, but if she's saying "your brain works in this way because chemicals" then she's right and you're being a child by ignoring her.

[Sotha]

AB, you seem to have interpreted me completely incorrectly. Please refrain from being upset.

 

I never called you a bully. I didn't call myself a saint. I didn't shame any other individual, but talked in the general level. I've used this discussion as a tool to organize my own thoughts, and I didn't have any issues with my opinion questioned, but did offer another perspective. I think the discussion has improved my understanding on various topics, and I hope it has been useful for others.

 

I do not feel (and have not felt) victimized in any way during the discussion. I completely fail to identify me or my intentions from your post, which -frankly- is confusing.

 

I am sorry if I made you feel bad. It was not my intention. My intention was declared in posts 35 and 38.

[Lux]

... but if she's saying "your brain works in this way because chemicals" then she's right and you're being a child by ignoring her.

 

She's my sister, I don't ignore her but yes, I am a child and will remain so my entire life. Free to accept new ideas even if they differ with what I believe to be true.

[Airship Ballet]

I didn't misunderstand anything: you said that people get on the defensive and all further discussion is halted. I'm saying that you're right, and it isn't remotely necessary, justified or typical to get on the defensive and derail discussion, especially about something so trivial and after something that wasn't in any way an insult.

 

That said, this is going nowhere fast: resume OT discussion and remind me to be very delicate when talking to you in the future to avoid the buddhist-monk-organising-his-thoughts thing.

 

Edited September 11, 2014 by Airship Ballet

[Lux]

 

...especially about something so trivial and after something that wasn't in any way an insult.

 

Which bit was trivial to you? Just curious, and yes, lets please get back on topic.

 

Children in TDM, seems like a pretty black and white issue for most people. Its just that the blacks and whites are sometimes reversed. It certainly seems like a sensitive subject similar to Religion, Politics, etc., so it seems best just to avoid it unless its handled gingerly.

[Airship Ballet]

Well, I said that deriving schadenfreude/satisfaction in landing a gruesome headshot on an adult guard yet becoming sentimental when children are involved is hypocritical but understandable, so Sotha picked up on the one word rather than responding. It was a single trivial point in a hypothetical and therefore mostly trivial topic that garnered a big old response out of nowhere that in turn derailed the thread to give a spiel about argumentative psychology. In other words, mountain out of a molehill.

 

Speaking of, a great scholar once said "deriving schadenfreude/satisfaction in landing a gruesome headshot on an adult guard yet becoming sentimental when children are involved is hypocritical but understandable", discuss.

[OrbWeaver]

Surely you notice how certain you are that your belief is the correct one. The objectively correct truth. Other opinions are backwards and worthless. Everyone else, even in the opposite side of the spectrum, may be having the very same thoughts about you. If the discussion partners thoughts are worthless to you, why do you keep discussing? Just to win something?

 

You seem to have entirely ignored my main point. Here it is again:

 

Just in case it wasn't clear, what I would have a problem with is a ban on missions featuring children. As in, an authoritative statement that such missions are not allowed and that they will be prevented in some way. This is a lot more than other people simply having different values, this is a case of people forcing their own values onto others and restricting their freedoms.

 

I'm not particularly bothered about changing people's values as a goal in itself, providing they mind their own business when it comes to what other people are allowed to do.

 

I am not arguing that my opinion is the One True Opinion. I am not arguing that all other opinions are backwards and worthless. I will defend to my dying breath the right of everybody to hold whatever opinion they like and to express that opinion freely, even if I profoundly disagree with it.

 

What I will not defend or tolerate is people trying to oppress, control, censor and manipulate others by telling them what they can read, what they can say, what they can think and what emotional content they can insert into their TDM missions. Providing you are not trying to do this I have no objection to whatever personal preference you may have regarding the content you individually choose to create or consume.

[Sotha]

AB, oh so that now you are moving all the responsibility for derailing the thread to me.

 

That is a bit silly, because you have been with me in the endeavor all the time. I find it a bit irresponsible to externalize mistakes completely to other people. Does it make you feel better?

[Airship Ballet]

gr8 b8 m8

[Springheel]

Value discussion is of course a good thing.

 

Ok, good, we have some common ground here.

 

It becomes problematic when someone makes someone elses values a problem. You cannot say "your values are incorrect. Change them, you hypocrite." It would be better to have a value discussion without judging some of the values being discussed.

 

Here I you seem to be making two separate points:

 

1) you shouldn't judge someone's values

 

2) coming on strong about someone's values is likely to make them defensive

 

While I agree with 2, I absolutely disagree with 1. Because, as I said before, values influence behaviour, and it is therefore in our best interest to ensure that people hold values that result in the least amount of harm to others. I don't want to live next to someone who values the freedom of his dog to bark more than the right of his neighbours to sleep, for example. And if someone holds values that make them want to dehumanize or harm others, that's absoutely a value we should judge and condemn. To do less is actually immoral.

 

Values aren't as nebulous as we sometimes think they are. Most values are based on facts that can be rationally discussed, if people are willing.

[Airship Ballet]

Yes American television has always been about double standards..

 

Just re-reading, this reminded me of that nonsense with Hannibal, where the network wouldn't allow one scene of a dead, bloody, mutilated, hanging body to be shown because it had a nude butt, so they filled the crack with more blood to disguise its shape and they allowed it.

 

On topic, it's always been interesting to me to be able to see what variables in a person's life change their outlook and personality. Spoiled children, for example, are often completely unaware of how rotten they act, while truly intelligent people are often the most self-deprecating and humble on the planet. It's ironic that your own values obscure the bigger picture, and how looking out of a window it's almost impossible to see the graffiti on the outer wall around it. It's in cases like that that external forces need to intervene if there's to be any good change, so that everybody can properly look at themselves for what they are. It's nobody's right to judge what's good and bad about a person, but things like an intelligent person's crippling depression and a spoiled brat's attitude when they can't have their way are generally accepted as bad. Even so, some people would say that they have a right to be depressed and rotten, which I've always found bizarre. Then again I've only heard that from Americans, who are all for promoting freedom to be what you want to be, to a point where it's a flaw. I appreciate it when people take the time out to call me names and scold me when I deserve it; I see it as a labor of love once I'm done being self-righteous. I'd imagine most people worth associating with are like that: wanting their values to be right rather than just their own, and willing to test their own humility to get there.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Airship Ballet