I think the gaming community, and NeoGAF in particular, needs to find a way to calmly evaluate its
hierarchy of values.
It's no secret that recent political trends have taken a hold of hobbyist communities, introducing a whole new set of values and belief systems. Political values are highly divisive because people tend to feel very strongly about them. What's making things even worse is the fact that these new values, that have been injected into the bloodstream of the gaming community, claim hegemony by aggressively challenge long established values. Unfortunately many people are woefully unequipped to discuss these values. often resorting to some kind of
hyperbole or
inductive-reductive reasoning in order to drive their points home.
The problem of hyperbole
Hyperbole is a form of overstatement that seeks to exaggerate the truth in order to augment the potency of the argument. It can be a valid rhetorical tool (e.g.
I avoid crowded places like the plague), but when hyperbole is used in the context of people or social groups, it becomes rather aggressive (e.g.
this person is a Nazi or this community is a hivemind).
The problem of inductive reasoning
Inductive reasoning is the derivation of universal principles from specific/singular observations and often leads to
faulty generalizations. Sharing personal experiences is well and fine, but should at best be considered anecdotal evidence because other people usually make different experiences. I often see this when people are discussing other gaming communities, they usually take 1-2 specific examples in order to make assumptions about the community as a whole. For example:
this member of the community said X, this member said Y, therefore said community must be Z. That kind of reasoning often leads to the vilification of whole communities and social groups and is harmful to any sort of healthy debate. It is better to stick to the arguments at hand, rather than making assumptions about the whole group by making them guilty through association.
The problem of reductive reasoning
Reductive reasoning is the practice of oversimplifying a complex problem, idea or situation. People often tend to present an inadequate or simplistic proposition for some idea, and address this
reduced version of the subject in order to show how silly and foolish this inadequate or simplistic idea can be. This is often used to label people of the opposition in order to dismiss their claims by construing an ad hominem. For example:
This person said Y, therefore said person must be X. This approach is incredibly harmful for any discussion, because you are essentially reducing a complex person to a handful of simplistic comments. In other words, separate the argument from the person. Considering the reputation of NeoGAF, we should be
very careful not to fall prey to this kind of reasoning as to
prevent harm to people on the outside (i.e.
don't start stupid witch-hunts).
The hierarchy of values
When two people debate their values, they oftentimes make the erroneous assumption that their opponent
doesn't acknowledge their beliefs at all. In reality, they more often than not, disagree on the importance of said values, that is the
position of said value within the hierarchy
. Furthermore, different people may share the same values, but disagree on
how said values should be enforced or attained. Values don't exist isolated from each other, sometimes they overlap and sometimes they even contradict each other (e.g.
should I tell a white lie, or say the truth and risk vexing somebody), in other words they are part of a complex belief structure. It is important to keep that in mind when debating somebody, thus creating mutual understanding.
NeoGAF in practice...
After the recent turmoil, I think that NeoGAF is currently reevaluating its hierarchy of values, at least in the sense that the
free exchange of ideas has become much more important relative to other values. This change happened very rapidly and in a radical manner, leading to all sorts of problems:
First of all, the community hasn't had time yet to adapt to the challenges that come with this new freedom. Once mutually accepted speech codes have established a general debating culture, things will settle down.
Second, it is only normal that this radical shift comes to the dislike of many users who grew used to the old hierarchy of values. Thus leading to the subjective impression that 'NeoGAF is going down the drain' or becoming a bastion for the 'alt-right'. Whether this is true or not comes down to the ability of this community to engage with controversial ideas in a reasoned and responsible manner, and not to heavy-handed moderation.
Third, while the NeoGAF community is reevaluating its hierarchy of values, it should be made clear that other values are not discarded. So feel free to disagree with each other, but acknowledging the other person's values and understanding where he comes from, contributes greatly to a more healthy discussion. When the value system is changing, clarify the reasons why this is happening and why it's considered necessary. Do this by underlining the strengths and benefits of your own proposed hierarchy, not by shitting on other people's belief systems and values. It is important to explain and make people understand why changes are happening. In that regard I think that EviLore and his team are doing a good job (or at least that seems to be their intention), but it also comes down to the responsibility of every single member.
That other place...
For obvious reasons, I feel somehow reluctant to talk about this, but I think it's important in the context of this discussion. It is quite evident that the people who left have chosen a wholly different hierarchy of values, revering the
representation of identity above all else. They are doing so
partially to the detriment of any other values, leading to a whole new set of different problems. There is certainly value in
reasoned discussion of these problems because they pertain to the validity of the value hierarchy on NeoGAF. What's not conducive though is when these discussions merely serve to point fingers at other communities or people. Both communities should be aware that there is still significant overlap between their values, but they disagree on how they should be weighted and/or applied.
Considering the quite suffocating atmosphere of this forum in the past, it is only natural that its members have the need to vent their frustrations now that they feel allowed to talk more freely. Although I would advise to kindly follow the above mentioned proposals as to prevent some sort of silly
flame war. I don't think the gaming community needs any more of that and most people are getting sick and tired of that.
