Chris

I don't know entirely how to ask this question, but do you find that this book is useful on a practical, and not just philosophical, level? I am a big fan of getting rid of stuff generally but I wouldn't mind reading thoughts from someone who has considered it more thoroughly than I have, as long as the whole book couldn't be stated as simply "have fewer things."

That's an interesting observation and I completely believe that you feel that way, but I definitely don't feel the same way about those three games.

I guess in the LONG term, games and movies both age poorly for those who don't have an interest in the history of the medium. However I strongly believe that in the SHORT term, games age worse than movies. A 2- to 10-year-old game clearly dates itself faster than a 2- to 10-year-old film.

I'm glad to have read this because I think it both communicates the parts of Chait's piece that I agree with better than Chait did, and also explains what is frustrating about it better than most of the social media replies I've seen have. This excerpt sums up in large part what I was trying to get at earlier in this thread, particularly when I shared my own experience, but I don't think I actually achieved that:

Sorry man. I offer my generalized sympathy. It's a frustrating feeling.

I would say I have evolved a great deal from my teen years as well, although more from someone who just generally didn't think about this stuff, into someone who does. I am enormously more conscious of these issues than I was 15 years ago, or 10 years ago, or 5 years ago, I just think at this point I feel as though I (and some other people) have perhaps overcorrected to some degree in some cases. I think the instincts to be conscious of issues of representation, marginalization, privilege, and so on, are very valuable and important to being a responsible and empathetic member of society, but I also think that they can turn into kneejerk affairs. (That can be a concern with literally any worldview though, I'm only talking about this one because it is the one closest to me and the internet and real-life communities I inhabit.) I think part of being progressive is a realization that ideas need to be challenged and reevaluated, or at least that's part of how I see it. Thoughtful conservatives hopefully do this as well, but in general conservatism is inherently more about maintaining the status quo and so most of its practitioners are probably less likely to engage in this kind of self-evaluation. That said, I think there is also a general human tendency for people to dig into and reinforce their own notions about things, aside from political affiliation.

While I agree that this is incredibly frustrating, and unsurprising, I don't think anyone who already would react in that particular way would fail to feel that way or link any number of other things in the absence of this once piece. I think a big reason I react the way I do to this whole issue is because, to me, it's all evidence of how incredibly polarized our political reality is at this point. I absolutely do not believe that every issue has two equally valid viewpoints, but I do think the degree to which each side is hardline and relatively unwilling to engage in meaningful discussion with those on the other side (and believe me I count myself among this number, as soon as I'm surrounded by, for example, conservatives in my own family, I can feel my intellectual shell hardening) basically guarantees this state of affairs will continue. It just feels that the internet and the way our current media works allows people to self-segregate into self-reflecting chambers that disallow meaningful communication with those in other chambers. I don't know what I think anyone should actually DO about it. I really have no idea.

Also, while an artist obviously does not get to decide how her art is interpreted or the effect it has on anyone, the fact that somebody does interpret her art in a particular way does not inherently mean there's actually a problem in every individual case. I think the thing that I actually find frustrating about the general environment surrounding these issues is that it seems like, in a very high degree of cases, the "received" interpretation of a given situation simply ends up being the one that takes the most critical tack. In other words, people in a self-reinforcing progressive community tend to be wary of ever stepping back criticism of something that someone claims might be marginalizing, because they do not want to be seen as not being sufficiently sympathetic or privilege-aware. I think this happens subconsciously, not as something people are intentionally doing, but I think it happens. Part of why I think this happens is because, as a generally progressive person who associates with other generally progressive person, I can feel that instinct pulling at me. I think it's a good instinct to have, because it lends credence to marginalized people, but at this point I feel in many cases it creates a lot of tempests in teapots that do more harm than good by making progressive people seem impossible to please without adhering to what are essentially constantly-moving targets.

Welcome, new folks!

Well, that's totally fair, but I guess I would be more specific in what I mean by saying that there is a distinction between apologizing for causing distress to another person, regardless of reason, and for taking the existence of that apology as an automatic discrediting--in part or in whole--of what was originally said.

I think one thing we may fundamentally disagree about, and that may allow for no further discussion, is this: I do not think that somebody being offended by something is inherently enough to merit an apology. The number of factors that go into determining any one human's reaction to anything that could possibly be said, is such that I do not believe it is automatically incumbent on the person saying the thing to feel remorse. This is a tricky area for sure, but I do think that the reinforcement of identity politics does create more situations where people are encouraged to feel offended by more things than they otherwise would, with little positive social gain as a result. I was born with a severe congenital spinal defect that kept me in and out of hospitals for the first decade and a half of my life, and left my childhood riddled with constant insults and mockery about how I'm weird looking, a hunchback, called Quasimodo, etc.--this was even worse during the years when I had to wear a large and obvious brace, but it lasted in some form into high school. It's a lot better now, for which I consider myself lucky; it still has a big impact on my body, causes ongoing pain, etc., but the outward effects have been dampened. (It resurfaced for a while when I first became a semi-public figure online after college and had to be ambiently aware of people talking about why I look weird in certain ways, which wasn't the best.) Despite that, it still hits me when I see a piece of popular media like "THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME", or see subservient henchmen depicted as hunchbacks, or any number of other less obvious but still psychologically potent references to various physical ailments, which aren't worth listing. Even most of the furniture I use on a daily basis is a constant reminder to me of this kind of thing, as it is usually uncomfortable for me (and sometimes painful), which makes sense given that it was designed for people WITHOUT this kind of condition. I'm not looking for sympathy or asking for any kind of treatment--my life is fine, I'm fine--I'm just saying that I think it is psychically easier to live to try and live with this kind of thing as opposed to let oneself get bent out of shape about every instance of it. I absolutely 100% know that, at least for me, my interior life was a lot shittier and more stressful when I indulged in letting myself wallow in frustration when I saw things that would "trigger" certain memories or reactions inside myself. It just was. I can't ever compare my own experience to anyone else's, and I know for sure that there are kinds of institutional prejudice and bias that run a lot deeper than what I have to deal with. (Although, on the flip side, my thing is rare enough that as far as I know there aren't enough people with it that I have an obvious social support structure simply floating around on the internet.) But I also find it hard to believe that there is NO commonality in terms of how people choose to react to these things. I don't know how to talk about this stuff without preemptively feeling shame or guilt about what I'm saying, which is in ITSELF frustrating. I care about progressive causes, particularly politically progressive causes, and I just cannot deny that the way many progressive ideals are currently discussed online actually decreases the amount I am encouraged or willing to engage with and consider them. There is an insular nature to a certain kind of progressive discussion that, in my opinion, mirrors that of the far-right. Given one, I'll take the far left any day, but it still feels insufficient to me.

I mean, yes, of course that's how I'm referring to it, because that's how it works: an individual presents an argument, and a group responds to it. At least, that's how it works on the internet, because of the way blog posts/comments/facebook posts/tweets/etc. fundamentally work. I'm not claiming that this isn't frustrating for ANYONE, but I am claiming that the specific METHOD of response being described in this article--which, again, I think anyone posting in this thread is either aware of or is willfully ignoring, and doesn't need me to spell out--does absolutely harm legitimate and well-meaning debate.

One quick point about points being undermined by way of who is making them: We know that orchestras hire more women when they make use of blind auditions. I think most of us would say that says something sad about the ongoing state of gender prejudice. I wonder if it would be equally useful to mask bylines on articles that make any kind of point about anything that might inflame anyone, as it seems like a pretty meaningless distraction to get worked up about who is making the point. I know nothing about Chait and for all I know he's a hateful racist transphobic bigot asshole. But if that is evidenced in the actual argument he is making, it should make no difference that it's his byline; one should be able to agree with or disagree with an idea regardless of what name or skin color or sexual orientation is attached to it. (If you're an American, or probably someone from any modern democracy, this is sort of part and parcel with how one interprets the fundamental principles their society is based on, as they tend to be well-meaning and lofty ideas originated by people who are inherently hypocritical in the living of them.) I'm just as likely as the next liberal in line to get worked up by a privileged white person on Fox News using harmful coded language about minorities, but I would really like to think I'd feel the same way about it regardless of whose mouth it were coming from, and I really don't think it adds anything to any discussions to try and preemptively discredit or promote by way of oppression qualifications.

Like basically every single word in the English language, the term "abuse" has many degrees of potency, and if you read that passage in good faith I have a hard time believing you can't situate it in context to understand that he is not equivocating this with violent domestic abuse or something similar. His point is that the term is used to dismiss and discredit, far beyond the specific case it was once intended to describe. The entire point of that section is to demonstrate that, even in private spaces that are supposed to be "safe," and populated by like-minded and well-meaning people, the exact same kind of language, discrediting techniques, and ire are marshaled. It is specifically that exact context that gives the point its weight. If you aren't aware of similar examples on the public internet, you aren't taking an honest look at our online communities.

I entirely disagree with your interpretation. I think you are significantly misreading the concern. As a straight white male, I do not fear being disagreed with or attacked, but I am extremely frustrated by the notion that sincerely-presented arguments are frequently dismissed out of hand because they do not adhere to a specific idea of having an opinion, or because they are voiced by the wrong kind of person. But I have seen more than enough evidence to know that this does not only apply to straight white men; other well-meaning women who voice disagreement in the wrong kind of way are seemingly just as frequently dismissed.

I don't know why it's not meaningful and worthwhile to present anecdotal evidence of well-meaning people being afraid to engage on many of these topics for fear of reprisal over the tiniest perceived misstatement, because the entire way that these criticisms are generally constructed is to speak about the lived experience of marginalized people, which is in most cases inherently anecdotal. I think it is intellectually dishonest to refuse to at least consider that current trends of having an opinion in progressive communities are not severely curtailing actual debate that is genuinely well-meaning. I think that, at this point, the actual reality of this situation is that the people who are most likely to watch what they say are people who are fundamentally in agreement with progressive people most likely to tsk-tsk, but are worried about small distinctions. The people who actually have fundamental disagreements or more significantly harmful attitudes simply do not care what a bunch of liberals say about them, and in fact benefit from being able to paint their opponents as overly sensitive outrage-mongers. While I don't think anybody in this situation is operating in a dishonest or ill-motivated way, I'm not sure it's doing any significant good more than harm.

Once again, you're describing things that you know only after the fact, and using them to create suspicion of people who have not yet gained that experience. You're allowing yourself to be disillusioned, but expecting others to already know what to expect and thus express disinterest or apprehension.

Why would you be suspicious of someone who wants to perform jury service? Isn't the point of your post that you learned most of these things firsthand through the experience? How would you expect somebody who hasn't yet had that experience to alredy be aligned with you in their feelings about it?

Idle Thumbs 186: Doctor DNA It is time to give thanks. Join us in giving thanks for inexpensive content updates, for the Super Smash Bros. metagame, for mobile free-to-play experiences, for elephant slaughter, for knowing one's own gaming limits, for blockbuster pseudo-reboots, and for Chris and Sean arguing about basically nothing. But most of all, thanks to you, the reader. Games Discussed: Monument Valley, Far Cry 4, Crossy Road, Never Alone, This War of Mine, Super Smash Bros. for Wii U Trailers Discussed: Jurassic World Listen on the Episode Page Listen on Soundcloud Listen in iTunes Subscribe to the RSS Feed

Yeah, it's true that it is technically an adaptation, and is credited as such, but I think it is a transformative enough work--far beyond even a fairly liberal adaptation--that it basically qualifies as an original screenplay.

Sadly the reason the episode ends as it does is because Jake turned off the recording as soon as I got excited about telling the cheese story.

I think Sean was suggesting that Patricia was in fact at that 0 end of the Disney World visit spectrum going into this trip.

My thanks as well!

My dad's hair has been entirely white/silver/whatever since before I was born, and his hairline was extremely regressed (up to the highest point on his head). I don't even remember what we/I said on this topic on the podcast, haha.

No, I already indicated I found the first point somewhat bizarre and concerning, although, again, I think the degree to which Sarah interrogated her own assumptions to be admirable. She cast herself as the skeptic but then immediately spent a whole episode weakening that skepticism. I do disagree with #4. I just don't buy the claims. I don't think it is possible for anyone of any race or culture to be able to fully inhabit someone else's experience, even if the person comes from a very similar background, and I find the claims that she did a great disservice in this department to be unpersuasive. I don't for a second claim that that this is not an issue that exists in a serious way in our culture, I just think Serial is a pretty weak example of it. Also as for #2, I simply am not willing to default to questioning Sarah's motives to the point that I will assume this is a racial motivation, conscious or unconscious. If you want to criticize the lack of her interrogation of the prosecutorial side of things, again, I would hope that one would be equally bothered by that regardless. But I imagine the most likely reason the reporting slanted this way is because she talked to the people who were actually available, and about whom there were relevant materials on record—and also because she was not trying to reprosecute the case, but rather to try and fill holes that were left gaping. She was trying to uncover NEW (or recontextualized) information from people who may have had specific preexisting knowledge about the people and circumstances in question because of their actual proximity to the events and to the personalities prior to the events, and that is a lot closer to the normal human beings surrounding Adnan's life as opposed to the prosecutor and detectives whose case was already made and successfully won in court. Their perspective was the one that was already shared with the world; this podcast aimed to find other perspectives to paint a fuller picture of that case. Also, I guarantee that if the prosecutors and detectives agreed to be interviewed, she would have interviewed them. She did not do deep dive investigations into people's lives, with the exception of Adnan (whose family obviously supported this anyway), she did interviews. The deep investigations about people's lives generally came from materials that were already exposed (ie, Hae's diary, or all the testimony and context surrounding Jay). But most of her material came from direct one on one interviews.