02.21.08

Crazed And Libelous Screed

Posted in Gaming, Rants, Writing at 5:10 am

I’m going to try to get through this without mentioning the name of the person to whom, by now, I think we all know I’m referring and directing this. It’ll be a challenge, sure, but I’m up for it. Besides, since I’ve thrown his words right back at him, I’ve already more or less explicitly said it anyway. Leaving him off this essay just serves to reduce his importance in the so-called “blogosphere”, and also means he likely won’t bother responding to this with his usual stream of toothless snarling and unrelated personal-attack vitriol.

After looking back at my notes for the infinitely-backburnered Metal Rogue (no, I didn’t forget about it), I saw a phrase that summed up the theme behind the project: “the danger of a monoculture”. The notes went on to explain that it is through a diversity of thought and opinion that societies, sciences, and people evolve, and that to force everyone into a rigidly-defined, narrowly-allotted frame of reference is akin to putting a gun to their heads in the long term. It’s not that people aren’t free to choose, in that case: it’s that making the choice to disagree carries undue consequences, socially, economically, and sometimes physically. You need only look at religious oppression in the Dark Ages to see how the seeds can be sown for enduring, interminable, and entangling quagmires of holy wars stretching off into the foreseeable future.

This isn’t about religion, which I’m fine with; “live and let live”, after all. But it is about one of the most basic tools of oppression available to individuals today: the gross and intentional misapplication of the fundamental right to free speech. Despite how they’re represented in the world stage and the educational system, our rights are not free. There is a cost for everything, and the right to free speech carries with it a grave penalty for those who would seek to twist it to their own ends. The price for the right to free speech is the certainty that you are infallible; put another way, you can say whatever you want as long as you accept that someone else can disagree. It must work both ways or not at all.

So, with some amount of amusement I learned that the subject of this, let’s call it an object lesson, claimed that a quietly-published article on MSNBC.com was a “hit piece” and the title of this particular entry. Those were his exact words, as a matter of fact. I got a pretty good laugh out of that on Tuesday, to be honest. And, to prove that I’m not really above a little bit of tweaking now and again, I took a moment to tag his book with that rather colorful phrase. Call it the seed of a Google-bomb; I could die happy knowing that the phrase was as iconic to him as the canonical example of a Google-bomb.

The thing is that, like I said, free speech is not granted without its caveats. When you speak, expecting the protections of the First Amendment (or equivalent protection for your jurisdiction), certain conditions must be fulfilled. You have to be reasonably sure that what you’re saying, if you present it as fact, is in fact true. For example, if you shout “fire” in a crowded theater, you had damn well better see smoke, even if it’s just some jackass with a cigar; if, later, it’s discovered you were wrong, and you knew you were wrong or at least misrepresenting your statement, then you can’t claim free speech protection. The freedom to speak does not include the right to lie with impunity, nor does it grant you immunity from the consequences of having knowingly lied.

The second condition, and probably the one most lost in English-language discourse, is the requirement to differentiate personal opinion from fact. I can say that “blue is the best color”, and that’s fine– because it can’t reasonably be inferred that that statement is anything but my opinion. If I say something like “I’m the number one Web developer in the world”, that’s too ambiguous– setting aside the fact that it’s an obvious lie, how is “number one” defined? It’s not so bad when a private figure (like me) gives out his opinion on pretty much everything (like I do here); when a public figure attempts to use his or her position of respect and authority, however legitimately said position was obtained, to further a personal opinion, then that’s an abuse of freedom of speech. As another example, I really respect Roger Ebert’s opinions, so I’d look to him as a (relative) authority on movies, but not on, say, car maintenance or food preparation. (If he is, in fact, also a decent mechanic or a master chef, please overlook this fact because it wrecks my example– but, knowing that, I would then come to respect his opinion in those areas a little more.) Same thing might be, say, Bram Cohen on data transfer protocols, but not proper Sousaphone care and handling.

The final condition is one I’ve said in as many words before, but bears repeating. The right to free speech does not have an audience bolted on to it. If what you are saying is unpopular and/or incorrect, people are in no way obligated to listen to you. I’m a firm believer in free speech, myself, but the fact that I have a worldwide reach of, oh, two hundred people or so does not bother me in the slightest. For me, at least, the fact that I’m saying these things– that I’m declaring myself, quietly and firmly– is enough, because I know that there are folks who agree with me. I know I’m not alone in my viewpoint, and I know– more than ever, now, as it turns out– that this viewpoint is shared by people who are in those positions of influence. Right now, what I have is an opinion. That makes it dangerous to individuals who disagree with me, because there’s nothing that can contradict my opinion except their own; while evidence is slim in the particular case that spurred this essay, what little there is seems to support my side of the argument more than the opposing viewpoint. I don’t have to force my opinion into the public viewpoint because it’s already there, it’s already being seen as ‘right’; the opposing viewpoint has been demonstrably shot down so many times that it’s becoming something of a conspiracy theory, more along the lines of “the moon landings were fake” than an actual, valid, rational position to hold. And yes, I do realize that equating the anti-game sentiment to a crackpot delusion isn’t exactly sound rhetoric, but in this case it works because it’s not the basis of my argument: note I said “demonstrably shot down”.

I’m not a lawyer. I’m not a logician. I’ve only had a handful of courses in rhetoric and debate, and most of that is long forgotten. I couldn’t tell you an ethos-based argument from a pathos-based argument these days– those courses are, actually, close to a decade behind me. But the core of it is still very much with me, and it’s reinforced every time the gentlemen I’m talking about speaks. After all, it doesn’t take a good actor to recognize a bad one. (Another unsound argument by itself!) I’m not attacking him. That’s descending to his level– and besides, my opinion of him is pretty much well-known. I’m attacking his opinion– which really doesn’t need attacking; it’s kind of like levelling anti-aircraft batteries at the Hindenburg– because as many times as he will prop up his incorrect assertions, flawed logic, and outright lies, I will adamantly and calmly destroy them. I urge you all to join me– calmly and adamntly pull the platform out from under him, and leave him out of it. He wants this to be about him, which is the only way he can continue to assert his lies.

Lock and load, boys and girls. Let’s take that zeppelin down.

Permalink