• Dear forum visitor,

    It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.

    Click here to register for a forum account!

    If you already have a forum account, you can simply click on the 'Log in' button at the top right of your forum screen.

    Your Elvenar Team

The economic recession is real

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeepTerminal

Active Member
E330AF44-C563-4C7A-9204-486DB6E29720.jpeg
 

KarlD

Well-Known Member
@ElegantZara, nothing good can come from mentioning He Who Must Not Be Named anywhere in Elvenar. It invites political discussions and we're so polarized these days that even if it doesn't directly destroy a fs it can create negative feelings knowing how many members of your fs are on the opposite end of the political spectrum. Those negative feelings can have a surprisingly negative effect on one's enjoyment of the game. It's best just to stay far far away from politics.
 

Pheryll

Set Designer
Conversely, tiptoeing around it what allows it to grow and actually creates the kind of situation we have currently. We'd be netter off relearning to disagree without assuming other people are bad. We need to get back to understanding each other, even if we don't agree.

Between #savethechildren and #orangemanbad I am not sure that any common ground can be reached. Some are hoping for a narrative that stands in the middle of leftist and rightist extremism that would explain the many unusual occurrences of our time. I do not think that such a middle narrative exists, and that the truth of the matter may well be found under one of our extremist labels. I also feel that political viewpoints would be better discussed in off-topic venues as the sheer breath of matters to disagree on would easily derail a forum.
 

Ashrem

Oh Wise One
There doesn't have to be a middle ground. We just have to stop thinking of each other as evil. There are a few points on which we can't ever agree, but mostly we disagree about the details. A small number of people with money and power have been spending money for decades to polarize us, giving in to that is not good for anyone but them.
 

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
The problem is not what you believe, but why you believe it. If a world where "narrative" is the highest form of "truth," we are doomed. It was about 25 years ago that one writer famously declare "history is dead," a sentiment reached by realizing that every "report" is reported from the perspective of the reporter. That perspective causes the reporter to make series of decisions that shape the story.

The first decision made is if he/she feels the "story" is worth reporting. In other words, that which is to him/her significant is reported and that which is not, isn't. Minimizing the event by ignoring it is one of the chief tactics of good activist journalism.

The second decision made by a reporter is actually made long before the investigation is done. A reporter finds something interesting...some piece of "gossip" or even a "fact" and wonders about it. He/she goes to his/her editor and suggests a "story" be done. The first question out of the editors mouth is, "What's the angle you'll take?" He/she asks that because he/she is in the business of pulling in viewers/readers. You don't get those by producing stories that say, "well nothing really happened here even though at first glance we thought it might have." In other words, whatever angle the reporter wants to take he/she knows it must include a good deal of "sensation" -- human drama -- or it won't be published/written. So whatever the story actually is, it's always presented as a human drama with real suffering or, at least once in a while, real heroics. Praise and blame is the goal because almost all stories have to have heroes to praise and villains to blame.

A third decision is made once the reporter has gathered the "facts." That the reporter may sense some "facts" are "insignificant" to the story. Another reporter, viewing the same facts may feel they are integral to the story. Both see/hear the same things but due to the framework of their personal perspective (usually influenced by their politics) they "foreground" some facts and "marginalize" others. Out of that which is "important" they build their story. If they try to take in all perspectives and write a more or less "neutral" perspective the tendency is to praise and blame all parties equally. This is a really bad idea since ambiguity does not make the reader/viewer feel much but confusion. Confusion is not morality and leaves the reader wondering what they should feel about the heroes and villains in the story.

Finally, in addition to the decision that the event is significant and that there's a story in it, the reporter then has to write the story from the perspective pitched to the editor. It does no good to pitch that the local baseball team is having an off season and you pitch a human interest story on how that is affecting the players, if you then come back and write a story lauding their hitting. The editor would laugh and ask about what you actually pitched in the first place. Unless, of course, their hitting is great because they switched to a questionable type of bat and the other teams are mad as hornets. In other words, once you pitch a story you are obligated to either write the story with all the proper villains and heroes or one with even more villainous villains and heroic heroes. A story is a moral tale, not a neutral account. That's the lesson learned in journalism over the last fifty years. And if it is so then reporters are encouraged to participate in "activist journalism" -- targeting players as heroes or villains -- exactly because, since there is no reality that can be known, any reality that serves the purpose is perfectly fine so long as you get it in print.

In the end, since our students are taught to view every "event" as a story told from some personal/political perspective rather than as an "honest report" we make it so every listener can just discount what he/she doesn't like in the story because it's "just a story" told out of political motivations (read propaganda). I was once in a debate over affirmative action. In that debate I cited, complete with references, a double blind study that showed my opponents position just plain wrong. Her response was, "that's just propaganda." I was shocked but recovered myself enough to ask why she thought that. "Because it flies in the face of what I know to be true," she said with a straight face.

In the end we don't/can't discuss politics or anything of significance not because methods of discussion that avoid dramatic confrontations aren't available, but because we no longer believe truth can be known. If history is dead then even what I ate for breakfast is up for debate. All you have left at that point is the desire for the power to declare to everyone -- and make them live it -- that your truth is true and theirs' not so much. In an world where truth is sand we all fall down.

AJ
 

GlamDoll

Well-Known Member
It seems that my last post is a failed & vain attempt at humor and a joke in 'poor taste' despite my intent...

I shall refrain from politics here.

I think George Carlin said it best...

"It's a big club & you ain't in it..."

I often wonder what he'd say now, if he were still here.

RIP
 

Pheryll

Set Designer
It seems that my last post is a failed & vain attempt at humor and a joke in 'poor taste' despite my intent...
I shall refrain from politics here.

Whatever the intent, the entire topic (which does not seem to be based on an Elvenar recession) is on questionable grounds according to forum rules (see second sentence in the quoted paragraph):

It is not allowed to post any discussions of illegal activities or illegal content. Politic and religious discussion are also not allowed. Pornography, racist or ethnic bashing comments are forbidden even if used in jest.

It is hard to avoid discussing politics when talking about real recessions.
 

Darielle

Chef, Scroll-Keeper, and Buddy Fan Club Member
Every time I hear a certain name my head explodes, so I think it's best to just move on to my happy meditative place . . .
 

DeepTerminal

Active Member
It invites political discussions

it doesnt if you dont make a big deal out of it.. this is literally a pay-to-win browser/mobile video game forum, no one (except those without a shred of self-awareness) cares about someone mentioning donald trump.

if someone wants to broadcast their boomer political takes (which no one cares) in a video game, that sounds like their problem.
 

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
Of whom are we speaking? Obviously enough people are in on the joke that to the "insiders" it's obvious. But as an obvious outsider I have to note that such humorous references strike me as political commentary side stepping the rules. Assuming such is a case let's refrain from such comments in the future as they would not be in keeping the spirit of the forum rules. Right?

Thanks for listening.

AJ
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top