John Zeitler

Essay Week 2010 runs from Sunday, July 25th to Saturday, July 31st. Every year I take a week and write about some topics of interest to me that run slightly more serious than the usual fare on the blog. That’s not to say that games and anime won’t enter into it, but the predominant theme is that this week skews a bit more literary than epistolary. We start this year’s Essay Week off with some thoughts on Essay Week itself, in point of fact.

Last week I put out the call for ideas for this year’s Essay Week. While on the surface it appears that the response was a little anemic, it turns out that that gave me plenty of ideas as to what to write about. I suppose, though, I ought to address why the call didn’t get as many public ideas being floated as I had hoped.

When I made the request, I put in a proviso that I didn’t want to tackle anything overly polarizing or controversial. The reasoning behind this categoric dismissal is well-intentioned but far from benign. In general I try to stay away from topics that, in a predominance of instances, descend quickly or unduly from discussions into mud-slinging. Religion and politics have usually been the two big ones that trigger apoplexy in people, but I’ve noticed that of late pretty much anything will set people off.

I know, I’m late to the punch on that one. People have had hair triggers for as long as there’s been people, but in general they’ve limited genuine rage to topics that tend to carry a lot of historical baggage behind them. The thing is, though, from a purely rhetorical standpoint, those topics shouldn’t be considered any more significant or compelling than any other. That’s a theory I’m increasingly becoming aware that I’m late to arriving at, too; but the big issue here is that where I would err on the side of caution by keeping a civil tone and treating all topics with equal respect, the majority of the world coming to the same conclusion chooses to treat all topics with equal disrespect.

It’s certainly true that discussing the relative merits of a television series is of less immediate consequence than, say, global politics. But there’s always the critical problem of context to bring in to the equation, and that’s where things start to get muddled. Everyone has their own opinion on how far a frame of context extends into or out of a sphere of discussion. You would certainly not expect, say, the President of the United States to spend hours discussing which episode of Spongebob Squarepants was the best and when the series started to go downhill. At least, he wouldn’t and shouldn’t be doing that in the Oval Office. If he wants to have that talk with his children, that’s certainly fine by me.

Of late, though, people have an incredible tendency to grossly misrepresent the importance of the topics they feel are important, to a point where they will feel compelled to inject that topic into all of their conversations without fail and without less than an hour’s oratory on the subject. Granted, the issues these people may espouse certainly are worth discussion, and in situations where the topic could tangentially be connected to the primary topic under discussion, it’s okay to go off on those tangents. I just happen to think that maybe, just maybe, a technical feedback forum for a video game isn’t necessarily the best place to bring up the topic of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

One of the first places I went to when I was on the Internet was a Usenet newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of Final Fantasy. I was 15. At that point, the group had a pretty coherent discussion core, a thriving community, and a pretty strong focus on the game series. A year later, when I had consistent access to the group, the newsgroup’s focus had changed dramatically. The community became self-sustaining, and the people involved were the main focus of the discussion instead of the group. It was in some senses elitist, but at the same time if the topic of Final Fantasy came up, there was almost certain to be some attention paid to it, and the question or comment answered and responded to.

However, this was merely the beginning of a larger shift. As time wore on the members of the community became more insular and isolationist, myself included, and eventually the community was what brought the community together. It doesn’t sound so bad when put that way. With the gift of hindsight I can see that some of the nominal goals of the individuals who disrupted and eventually dissolved the community were worthy of scrutiny. A lot of bad blood had passed, though, and emotions ran high. Hair triggers were everywhere, and unfortunately the group did not part ways in amicability, but in animosity.

It is not really to my pleasure that I see some of the signs of this sort of thing happening in other communities as well. Both online and offline, many groups are shifting their raisons-d’etre from supporting a cause to opposing another group. American politics in particular has seen this shift happen over the course of the past ten to fifteen years, and it is not isolated to a single party. A full discussion of what I find wrong with the American political system (note: not its government system, which I feel is perfectly sound) is far, far outside the scope of this essay, this blog, and in point of fact my comfort level for discussion. I have my disagreements, and I choose not to engage in a discussion over them.

And that in the end is the crux of the problem. A discussion would not last long if one side or another chose not to participate. While unfortunate, choosing not to participate in a discussion is a self-evident, and self-encapsulated, act. It signifies that the individual declining to discuss has an opinion that he or she does not wish to share at this time, and that is all that it signifies. It cannot and should not be taken to imply assent or violent disagreement with the challenger’s viewpoint. Furthermore, it does not mean that the individual who wants to discuss has somehow “won” over the other person, simply because no discussion took place. A game that is not played cannot be won or lost.

Over the last five years or so I have noticed an increasing tendency for people to be dragged into discussions against their will by individuals who likely do not want to hold a discussion, but more likely wish to corner their opponents into voicing an opinion that he or she does not want expressed. When the topic at hand is the core of a disagreement between two groups, this likelihood approaches 100% at an alarming pace. Discussion and rhetoric are no longer the tools of democracy, but the weapons with which democracy is being dismantled. Their potential is being perverted on a daily basis, by agents who choose to listen to the lesser devils of their nature and spark artificial conversation for the sake of fleeting attention. The very people we should trust to be impartial, objective presenters of fact, we can no longer trust to even tell the truth about the weather while they’re standing in front of a window.

Despite this, do I believe that the system of the world is corrupted beyond redemption? No. Absolutely not. “All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” A common bit of wisdom, to be sure, and a cliche by this point. But those labels do nothing to assail its truth. In point of fact, it is in its inversion that we may find a way to demonstrate its power.

Do nothing. Stay silent. Withdraw from discussion. Allow those who shout and scream and rant and preach to have their say, to have it on every screen at 6:00 and twenty-four hours a day on the ticker at the bottom of the cable news. Let the lies flow freely and without obstruction. Drown this world in filth and profanity, let it sink into the mire of untruth and deception. And when the liars’ throats are hoarse, their voices spent, and their poison disseminated, simply, and quietly, tell the truth. Engage in discussion to illuminate, not to blind; to educate, not indoctrinate; to understand, not control. If someone comes at you with a pack of lies, hold your tongue and tell the truth to someone who will listen. And never force someone into a discussion they don’t want to have.

For my part, I hope to not speak falsely during this week. I have a lot of opinions, some strong, some light-hearted, but all of them are genuine. I have no need to hide behind a facade, I have no need to misrepresent myself for attention. But I want to make clear that I’m willing to listen, and I’m willing to change my mind if presented with a compelling argument. I’m not willing to bicker for the sake of something to do; and there are some beliefs I’m not willing to change under any circumstances as I don’t think any external evidence could sway me, if it even exists. I won’t think less of anyone disagreeing with me, but I also won’t hold myself superior to them either. (This is something I have had some trouble with in the past.)

So, let’s talk.