Gamers Divorced From Reality?

nd01 writes "According to Gamepolitics.com, Bill OReilly has a few choice words for gamers and computer geeks in general. The well-known conservative pundit has harsh words for iPod owners, gamers, the PS3, and all of us 'disconnected from reality' by modern technological contrivances." From the article: "Basically what you have is a large portion of the population, mostly younger people under the age of 45, who don't deal with reality — ever. So they don't know what day it is; they don't know temperature it is; they don't know what their neighbor looks like. They don't know anything... because they are constantly diverted by a machine. Now what this does is it takes a person away from reality because they've created their own reality..."

Comments

Pot? Kettle?

[Rob T Firefly]

"Basically what you have is a large portion of the population, mostly younger people under the age of 45, who don't deal with reality -- ever. So they don't know what day it is; they don't know temperature it is; they don't know what their neighbor looks like. They don't know anything... because they are constantly diverted by a machine. Now what this does is it takes a person away from reality because they've created their own reality.

...Now stay tuned after the break for more of the Factor on Fox News.

How Is This About Politics??!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares what Bill O'Reilly really thinks? I thought slashdotters hated Fox News and stayed from their channel anyways. He baited you nerds, and you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

And besides, why is this filed under politics? According to the slashdot FAQ, this sections is for news related to US Government politics. The US government is not in play at all here.

Hypocracy?

[scot4875]

I don't really think that Bill O'Reilly is in any position to accuse someone else of being "divorced from reality."

--Jeremy

Re:Hypocracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus was attempting to bring moral values to the people, something that liberals have never done.

We're talking about the same Jesus, right?

Conservatives: tough on crime. Liberals: big on rehabilitation.
Typical conservative quote: "You did the crime, now do the time."
Typical liberal quote: "Sure, he robbed a store, but his family was starving, and it was a first offence. Go easy on him."
Jesus: "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." "Go, and sin no more."

Conservatives: big on revenge. Liberals: big on compassion.
Typical conservative quote: "We should avenge 9/11 by bombing some serious Islamofascist ass."
Typical liberal quote: "We should fight terrorism with aid and diplomacy, not bombs."
Jesus: "Love your enemy; do good to those who hate you." "Turn the other cheek."

Conservatives: big on welfare "reform". Liberals: big on welfare.
Typical conservative quote: "Handouts create a culture of dependency and encourage people to be lazy."
Typical liberal quote: "Welfare is essential to fight poverty and give the children of poor parents a decent chance in life."
Jesus: you may draw your own conclusions from the feeding of the 5,000.

Conservatives: hate taxes. Liberals: love taxes.
Typical conservative quote: "We must enact a tax relief package to lift the crushing tax burden on our richest citizens."
Typical liberal quote: "We must raise taxes to pay for better public services."
Jesus: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." See also Jesus' famous friendship with tax collectors, and the incident of the Widow's Mite, where Jesus approved of a poor woman paying crippling taxes.

And so on. Sorry, but Jesus = Liberal - there's simply no two ways about it.

Some journalist.....

[LordPhantom]

Doesn't that really depend on the "gamer" you're talking about?
Sure, there are some pasty-faced unwashed slobs out there who really think they live in Azeroth. But there are a ton of casual gamers who get out, have a real life, etc, etc. People who bring up arguments like this are similar to those that point out that drunks seem to be in taverns or their local liquor shops all the time and do nothing but drink, so therefore all drinkers are bad people.

Addiction to anything can be bad. But painting anyone who indulges in something with the same brush is just ignorant.

Opinion Formula

[realisticradical]

I think it's just sad that people accept anything that Bill O'Reilley and his brand of pundits say. Their opinions are based on a simple formula of outrage. They simply find an easy target and then express some sort of outrage against that target. Anybody remember last year's "War on Christmas?"

I wonder if O'Reilley actually believes the things he says or if he understands them to be opinions manufactured for ratings and political results.

O'Reilly's reality is television

[ewg]

If television is what O'Reilly calls reality, then yes, I'm divorced from it, and happily so.

Some Truth to This

[zoomba]

Like it or not, hate O'Reilly or not, there is a piece of truth to what he's saying.

People now are more separated than they are connected. Through a combination of technology, and paranoia, we've started sealing ourselves off from the world around us. How often do you see kids playing in your neighborhood on a summer's day? I was visiting my folks this summer and I know for a fact the neighborhood they live in is filled with little kids. Not a single one went outside to play the several days I was there. This is pretty much the norm.

What were they doing instead? Video games, TV, movies etc.

Look around you at most of the people you may work with in IT. How many of them are social creatures, going out and partying on weekends etc? Yes, it's a bad stereotype, that computer geeks are antisocial misfits, but all stereotypes come from truth.

Look around a college campus during class change. How many of those people have a phone attached to their head, completely ignoring all the real people around them? Sure they're connected to another person at that moment, but they're cut off from the physical world they're walking through almost entirely.

Gamers, especially hardcore MMO players, are notorious for spending days if not weeks doing little more than playing their games. I've known several people to flunk out of college, lose jobs, lose significant others, over their singular obsession to their games.

None of this is the fault of technology, because technology is a neutral medium that people choose how to use. What it does do however is make it easier for people who would seal themselves off from the world, to do so. You can get groceries over the net, there are dating services to avoid having to pick people up in person, heck you don't even need to go to the video store anymore with services like NetFlix. Technology has made it increasingly easy to avoid interacting with other people. When was the last time you sat on your porch and chatted with a neigbor? Used to be that was the main form of evening entertainment, now it's becoming increasingly rare as people venture out of their house less and less.

This isn't a comment on "these people are lame!" because it's not one particular group that is falling victim to this. It's the "cool" kids too now that they're getting hooked on text messaging, IMs, console gaming etc. It's a growing problem that is hard for lots of people here to recognize because we're in the middle of it. We don't like to think that maybe we're less social or less connected with the outside world than we should be.

While poorly worded, O'Reilly actually has a point burried beneath his typical inflamatory rhetoric.

Re:Some Truth to This

[EggyToast]

That's because TV news reports love sensationalism (higher ratings) and constantly tell parents that their neighborhoods aren't safe, and their kids should stay indoors. Watching more TV.

Really, this is just TV talking heads pissed off that the TV is being used for more than watching their shows. If the TV is used for video games, it's not used for talking heads.

Re:Some Truth to This

[zoomba]

His M.O worked because it's entertaining for those who agree, and those who disagree watch because he pisses them off so much. Howard Stern perfected the method. Rush Limbaugh has people listening to him just so they can "know what the morons are saying" etc. Pissing people off is a great way to high ratings.

Re:Some Truth to This

[maxume]

A couple of things:

The separated from reality stuff is just like all the people who lament the massive shift from the farm to the city; people don't grow their own food anymore and so forth. Guess what, things change.

Technology or not, people are going to seek the same types of relationships, some deeper than others, etc. The enabling factors provided by technology are probably good in some cases, and probably bad in others.

I yell at the kids in my neighborhood to get off my grass all the time.

Citing online dating services as a way to avoid interacting with people is probably a bad idea.

Lot's of my neighbors are idiots. Now that I have better things to do, I do them.

There have always been social problems, and there always will be, part of what makes life interesting is that people are different, and people that are different are going to occasionally actually notice the fact.

Re:Some Truth to This

[bunions]

let's see here.

> Look around you at most of the people you may work with in IT. How many of them are social creatures, going out and partying on weekends etc?

ok.

> Gamers, especially hardcore MMO players, are notorious for spending days if not weeks doing little more than playing their games.

I hope you see the contradiction here. MMOs are nothing BUT social events.

Re:Some Truth to This

[Kjella]

What I don't like is that not being social means you must be a "antisocial misfit". I held a full-day presentation today for about a dozen people, that's hardly introvert. I do get along just fine when I'm out socializing. At the same time, I'm perfectly happy in my own company. There's a certain group of people I would call social addicts, which can't seem to go any significant time without social interaction, which leads them to believe that those that go without are simply misfits who are unable to.

Re:Some Truth to This

[bunions]

the message here is clear: going out and boozing it up with strangers in a bar is better than playing games with your friends. That O'Reilly - he's always pushing traditional american family values.

Re:Some Truth to This

[ClassMyAss]

Look around you at most of the people you may work with in IT. How many of them are social creatures, going out and partying on weekends etc? Yes, it's a bad stereotype, that computer geeks are antisocial misfits, but all stereotypes come from truth.

Some people would rather not go out and party at bars. I don't see a major problem with this if you fill your need for interaction in other ways. In one day I have more meaningful (i.e. intelligent) interaction over the Internet than I do in a year's worth of partying. As lacking as /. is in reasoned debate, at least the centerpiece of conversation doesn't usually involve my school and major, what some asshole that I knew in high school is doing now, or the great rack on that wasted blond in the corner. And bonus! - online you can actually hear what people are saying, since it's not drowned out by an ear-splitting bar band butchering "Sweet Caroline."

I think it's a shame that most people equate sociality with drinking and chasing tail. Not that I've got any problem with either of those activities, but I like to think that as a race we are also willing to label more meaningful interactions social.

This isn't a comment on "these people are lame!" because it's not one particular group that is falling victim to this. It's the "cool" kids too now that they're getting hooked on text messaging, IMs, console gaming etc. It's a growing problem that is hard for lots of people here to recognize because we're in the middle of it. We don't like to think that maybe we're less social or less connected with the outside world than we should be.

I quibble with the idea that there is a level of connectedness that "should be" at all. In the history of our race, the main problem with being non-social is that you lose the survival/procreation benefits of interacting with other people. Whether or not that is the case, it is something that tends to work itself out in the long run. There is no "should" - if you can be happy in life spending 12 hours of day WoW-ing, then that's great for you! (I couldn't, but maybe that's just me) If you can satisfy your need for romance by meeting people online instead of going out to bars or meeting people at work (probably a laughable concept for most males in IT, given the gender ratio there), great! And what exactly is so much better about driving out to Blockbuster rather than getting DVDs delivered by mail? I must assume you also have a problem with the idea of catalogue shopping and magazine subscriptions, as well, since they take away the joy of life that is putting up with an angry minimum wage counter clerk in order to get your goods. It seems that there is a humanist consensus that the only good interaction is a face-to-face one, but let's be honest - many face to face interactions really suck, and we lose nothing as a race by automating everything that we possibly can. Some tasks are beneath people, and I think it's great if you stop demeaning people by paying them minimum wage to do them.

I am amused that you invoke IM and text messaging as examples of us being disconnected with the outside world. Okay, people may be ignoring the physical world, but they are connecting to people that they actually want to interact with, whenever they like, which I think is a wonderful thing. That my neighbor is proximate to me shouldn't necessarily make us friends; conversely, that my friend is overseas shouldn't preclude a continuing relationship.

The bad news for O'Reilly and Co.: you haven't seen anything yet. Once they crack this whole bit-to-brain thing, most of us will be logged on 24-7 without so much as a cellphone in hand to give it away. You may see this as the death of bona-fide human interaction, and I might agree; however, sometimes the whole is much greater than the sum of the parts, and we'll only truly realize the information age when the entire planet is plugged in all the time. Laugh all you want at the idea of a planet full of people acting as a single unit, but look - if the idea scares you, you should be fighting connectivity at every step along the way, because even that cellphone in your pocket is a step in that direction.

Re:Some Truth to This

[snuf23]

You have some points but basically I think you are making some sweeping generalizations.

"How often do you see kids playing in your neighborhood on a summer's day?"

This is true, but honestly a large part of it comes from the parents. My mom would let us run about the neighborhood on our own when I was 10 or so just so long as we came back for dinner. Most parents are so paranoid about kidnappings, drugs, pedophiles, drunk drivers and other problems the media exaggerates. They want they're kids to be where they can see them or hear them. Not to mention that in households with two working parents, or a single parent - the kids don't get home from school until 5 or 6pm. Then its homework, dinner, bath and maybe just time for a TV show or couple rounds of Super Smash Bros before bed. After school play time has been replaced by after school child care programs or other activities. Weekend programs are much more common as well. My own kid's weekend socializing is primarily through organized sports and educational activities.
Kids lives have changed a lot and not just due to video games. Where I live they have a year round program where summer only lasts one and a half months.

"How many of them are social creatures, going out and partying on weekends etc?"

All of the ones I know have some form of social life, be it clubs and partying, wife and family or even church groups.

"When was the last time you sat on your porch and chatted with a neigbor?"
Well we don't have a porch, but last night on the front steps and usually a couple times a week. Every once and a while we have some drinks and a laugh together outside the apartment after work. And these are not people I knew before moving into the apartment. Nor are they people with similar interests to me. One is a janitor at a local school. I make it a point to know my neighbors to some degree.

"We don't like to think that maybe we're less social or less connected with the outside world than we should be."

Why are other communication forms besides face to face bad? I agree that physical body and facial cues are absent. Or in IM so is tonality but thats why IM has such a wide range of terminology to offset that.
I've made friends in other states and countries through online gaming and while no they could never be my closest or best friends (due to proximity), they certainly have enriched my life. I would say learning first hand from people in other places or situations expands my knowledge of the "outside world" - as in it creates a picture larger than that of my immediate location.
Kurt Vonnegut in his last book mentions that virtual communities have no value - and yet he went on to promote the book via an appearance in the game Second Life.
Having worked in media and telecommunications all my life I just don't see increased communications as being bad. It's becoming different but that is just a consequence of the changing world. It doesn't necessarily mean it's becoming worse.

Re:Some Truth to This

[Anonymous Coward]

What I don't like is that not being social means you must be a "antisocial misfit". I held a full-day presentation today for about a dozen people, that's hardly introvert. I do get along just fine when I'm out socializing. At the same time, I'm perfectly happy in my own company. There's a certain group of people I would call social addicts, which can't seem to go any significant time without social interaction, which leads them to believe that those that go without are simply misfits who are unable to.

And here I thought it was just me.

Add in the factors of gossipy people, folks who use people like Paris Hilton as a role model, folks who lack critical thinking skills, and people who have a weak sense of self and it makes people like me ignore the so-called "normal" population that much more. By the end of the day I'm probably labeled a psycho by those who don't know me.

Reality is dependent on context.

[Richard Steiner]

The "reality" of a family in a small town in Nebraska is quite different from the "reality" that a single person living in a major city experiences. Neither reality is better; they're just different ways of viewing life and its associated recreational or social priorities.

Folks who interact a lot with technology are no different -- they simply have a set of experiences and priorities that differs from other groups of people.

As long as it doesn't hurt other people, what's the big deal?

Re:Word.

[LordPhantom]

Yes, let's make a sweeping generalization about "kids these days". Because "oh so many" college students previous to the era of onling gaming didn't fall into other traps in college (negative addiction to drugs, general lazyness)? For those types of students, video games are simply an escape from the fact that they aren't motivated enough or aren't smart enough to get through college.
I note you apparently don't suffer from the same issue. And college graduation rates are up across the board (if not retention percentages).

Re:Word.

[rucs_hack]

I disagree with WoW being the cause of that. I've known people drop out at uni with the same disorganisation/lack of personal hygeine, but causes vary from drugs/booze/hating the course and not wanting to admit it, or just being a moron (ok, I made up that last one).

Still, I've seen exactly the same 'symptoms' that people ascribe to WoW existing before WoW ever turned up. In the eighties I knew people who neglected work and school for Pacman and Firebird.

When people don't want to do something, whether they admit it or not, they will distract themselves with something/anything, often becoming obsessed to the point of losing touch with reality. I knew one guy who got that way with scratchcards, he went without food to get them.

People don't change that fast, but maddeningly every knew 'fad' is touted as the cause of problems that have existed for millenia.

Re:Pot? Kettle?

[lewp]

Even if this weren't Bill O'Reilly, it would be kind of silly for some multi-millionaire radio/TV personality to claim that normal schmucks (by comparison) don't deal with reality. I may play games, but I still have to worry about paying the bills, where dinner is going to come from, and how I'm going to get to work.

I don't know anything about Bill O'Reilly's origins, since I only watch him for a laugh now and then, but if he were ever part of reality he left it long ago for the greener pastures of celebrity, albeit minor celebrity.

Pedoes

[tepples]

Through a combination of technology, and paranoia, we've started sealing ourselves off from the world around us. How often do you see kids playing in your neighborhood on a summer's day? I was visiting my folks this summer and I know for a fact the neighborhood they live in is filled with little kids. Not a single one went outside to play the several days I was there. This is pretty much the norm.

The news media has made parents more aware of child molesters, and many parents have become so phobic about them that they don't take their kids to the park anymore.

Re:Oh puh-lease.

[jtev]

Ehh, I thought video games were training grounds for terrorists and school shooters. People are scared of terrorists. Bill is just inconsistant. He's right to an extent though. Video games are fine if you can handle them. but if you have to much invested in them, you can loose track of reality. But then again, books are good if you can handle them, TV news is good in moderation, alcohol is good in moderation. Food is good in moderation. He's just stating the obvious. Now excuse me while I go back to rotting my brain out with the internet. And what's that damned yellow thing outside the window?

Re:Hey I know what day it is!

[Captain Splendid]

Tell that to his millions of viewers/listeners who not only hang on his every word, but also consider him "independent" and "centrist". O'Reilly is a symptom, not the problem.

Roger Wilco is my mentor

[spyrochaete]

"Now you have the "knows" and the "know-nots", because if you spend all your youth being prisoners of machines..... you're not going to know anything.... You're gonna fail."

Yuh huh. I'm 26 and I've been playing video games for 20 years. I recently completed a post-graduate program in technical writing (top of my class with high honours) and am employed as a tech writer and sys admin. I also fix PCs on the side.

Video games are the foundation of my full time employment which I enjoy very much. I put up with the drudgery of learning batch files, composing multi-config.sys boot environments, configuring IRQ/DMA/IO ports, memory management, hardware installation, and troubleshooting because the payoff of exciting games was worth the trouble. Games are the gateway to technology because they put a human face on computers.

Does O'Reilly claim that playfighting lion cubs are out of touch with reality? Doesn't play prepare us for real challenges?

Who is Bill O'Reilly and why should I care?

[malsdavis]

Who is Bill O'Reilly and why the hell should I care about what he has got to say?

From the article he doesn't appear to have an academic or industry credentials on the subject to his name so why has he got any more insight than anyone else on the street?

Surely researchers who study the issue would be a better source of information.

Re:Word.

[Maul]

My grandfather failed out of school because he preferred to go hunting over going to class.

Re:Word.

[OldeTimeGeek]

Please. We had this same discussion in the 70's when people were playing D&D "too much". It was every much as much BS then as it is now.

Well, half the kids that come into my store..

[Channard]

.. are disconnected from reality by at least one level. They come in with their parents looking to buy a computer so they can see and speak to their friends two streets away over the webcam. What's wrong with going round to someone's house and asking if someone can out to play, as I did when I was a kid?

Re:Well, half the kids that come into my store..

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with going round to someone's house and asking if someone can out to play, as I did when I was a kid?

Rejection on the internet hurts less -- partly because there's less physical involvement. If you have to walk 3 blocks to ask if a girl can come out and play and she says no or her parents say no, then you get to walk 3 blocks hanging your head. But on the internet, (a) she's more likely to be available if she's online, and (b) if she says no, you can hit someone else up in 10 seconds vs. 10 minutes in rl.

During his rant...

[DragonPup]

O'Rielly also bashed people with iPods, practically saying that owning one is a personal character flaw.

He has downloadable podcasts for his paid website subscribers. Whoops.

Seriously, O'Rielly is a self absorbed idiot who believes anyone that disagrees with him is 'one of them'.

Ratings war

[Suzumushi]

What O'Reilly and others are actually upset about is that the "under 45" demographic is spending more time playing games, etc than watching the boobtube. That costs networks money...ad revenue...ratings, etc.

The article should read, "Please stop living in a fantasy game reality and watch the fantasy reality cable TV is offering..."

Re:Hey I know what day it is!

[curunir]

What's reality, anyway?

Reality is people from Bill's generation selling our country to corporate interests, destroying our environment, sending our generation off to be killed in Iraq, spending umpteen trillion dollars of money they don't actually have with the full realization that they'll all be dead long before the time comes to pay up and pointlessly banning activities and substances that they only don't partake in because their bodies are too old and frail to allow them to enjoy.

Reality is that his generation is using their last gasps at power to fuck everything up for our generation. Is it any wonder that we want to divorce ourselves from his so-called reality?

Government will silence this guy

[Karem Lore]

If the majority of people didn't have an escapism (such as games, iPods, programming, even reading) then they would be much more interested it the absolute disgrace the "REAL" world is actually in. People might actually start complaining about it and the government don't want that! Real life? Pfft, government wants to make a market that will keep the population in a semi-artificial (yet remarkably relaxing) state, and make us pay for it...

I buy PS3/Xbox360/Wii/iPod (my money) that I have to work for (and pay taxes). Those items consume my time and hence have less time to devote to things like the complete failure in the Middle East.

Enough off-topic, the guy is a moron. If you take an iPod and consider it not real life then your a moron! It is a real person recording their real voice (sometimes) onto a medium that can be duplicated and distributed to as many people that are willing to buy it, which is another real life shite experience...shopping...(thank the lord for Internet shopping). Oh, and I still have my little boy, wife and 9-6 job...My life is just the way I like it thank you very much.

I suppose you wish cars, guns, hell even aquaducts to be gone? Hey, let's go back to the time of disciples and prostitutes...Now there's a good idea! Not!

Re:Yes, but...

[Peden]

Ok, while your starting point was good you went way overboard here: "Your generation aren't the ones who've had to die by the thousands in Iraq...many of you, when you *were* our age yourselves, dodged service." See, those that go to Iraq are not drafted, they have chosen to go into the armed forces of their own free will. Making a comparison with someone "his age" dodging service, and dying from a calculated risk is not very good.

Re:Pot? Kettle?

[MisterBlue]

It is ironic for someone on television to be accusing computer people of being divorced from reality.

This exact same complaint has been made about people who watch television -- people separated from their community and life by sitting in front of the tube.

These days, though, our tube has a network connection out the back.

Re:Pot? Kettle? - Logical Fallacies 101

[sesshomaru]

I disagree. The discussion is in fact about Mr. O'Reilly. If J. Random Nobody made the same comments on his blog, people would pretty much ignore it. O'Reilly makes most of his arguments using appeals to authority (including himself, as an authority).

Seriously, if this was an Ask Slashdot, "Do video games, ipods and technology destroy social networks?" and some person said, "Well, that's what O'Reilly thinks and he's a frothing right-wing nutjob," you'd have a point.

However, I'd argue that this is much more about Bill O'Reilly than it is about his rant. Of course, I've probably just been successfully trolled, because who's going to say that an informal Slashdot discussion about something Bill O'Reilly said isn't allowed bring up the dubious authority of the man himself?

Re:Hey I know what day it is!

[Mister Whirly]

"Seriously, can you come up with ONE activity that "conservatives" (such a broad term that it does not really mean anything) want to ban unreasonably ?"

The right to same-sex marriage. Why can't gay people be as miserable as the rest of us??

Re:Hey I know what day it is!

[LindseyJ]

I think you know about as much about Christianity as you do about most of the things you touched on in your post.

Re:Pot? Kettle?

[ccarson]

This quote is incomplete and misconstrues what he was trying to say. I saw the episode where O'Reilly said this and he went on to imply that technology hurts the ability for people to interact with one another face to face. I think this is absolutely true. I'm a computer programmer by day, gamer at night just like many here are and I realize the side effects of being wired in like I am. I'm smarter for it, no doubt, but I also forgo meeting more people in real life. O'Reilly later predicted serious problems down the road. Will it? I don't know, maybe. Maybe not. O'Reilly just sees a generation drastically different from his own and he doesn't understand. He fears the side effects will result in problems and it would be foolish to not consider what he's saying.

Re:Hey I know what day it is!

[slartibart]

Why exactly should a person be proud to serve their country? The vast majority of people are only citizens of that country because (to paraphrase Chris Rock) that's where they came out of their mama's pussy. And lo and behold, about 18 years later, their beliefs and values and desires are directly in line with the politicians who run that country. And that is, to blow up people in another country. Coincidence? I don't think so. How often do people choose to serve some other nation's military? You only get to choose *if* you serve, not who.

Re:Pot? Kettle? - Logical Fallacies 101

[powerpants]

I guess there are two discussions. One, as you mentioned, is about Bill O'Reilly. The other is about technology and its effect on the social fabric. One of these discussions is a pointless ad hominem attack on an easy target. The other discussion is actually worth having.

Re:Pot? Kettle?

[StarvingSE]

Know why this view is always the case? Because "computer nerds" or technology geeks in general are always criticized for being disconnected from reality. Technology is our hobby, and most people have lives outside of their hobby.

Why is it that you don't hear about NBA stars disconnected from reality? All they do is live in their celebrity. They live, breathe, and eat basketball. When the day is done, they go out to clubs in expensive cars and live the life of a celebrity. Are these people just as disconnected from reality? Absolutely. Are all NBA stars like this? Nope, because its a generalization.

I'm sure there are some computer geeks disconnected from reality, but so are plenty of other people, who are into plenty of other things.

It all comes down to O'Reilly being an idiot and looking to generate some publicity with off-the-wall statements.

Re:Pot? Kettle?

['nother poster]

Bad assumption there. Are your lack of social skills caused by your gaming, or is your attraction to gaming a side effect of having poor interpersonal skills? The reason a lot of people got into gaming was BECAUSE the lack of social interaction with large groups of people they didn't want to interact with. The jocks didn't game. The preps didn't game. The teachers didn't game. The fucking pundits didn't game.

He's like my great grandfather bitching about my grandpa and those other kids spending all their time working on their hotrods and watching TV rather than going to the icecream social down at the VFW. Societies change. Bill can get a grip. If my kids are acting like me when they grow up I'll be damn scared for society then.

Re:Hey I know what day it is!

[An Onerous Coward]

Okay, let's not start with the whole, "But look how many people went to Iraq and didn't get killed" argument. That way lies true madness.

Yes, there are a lot of people out here (myself included) who don't believe that the Iraq war is serving our country's interests, and no, I don't see that as a problem. I respect most everyone who is fighting over there. They're making great sacrifices and I believe that most of them honestly believe they are trying to make the world a better place. But I also believe that our leaders were delusional in their reasoning and grossly incompetent and greedy in their execution. Finally, I do not believe that the Iraq war has made the U.S. or even Iraq better off.

Re:Who cares?

[Sage Gaspar]

If Bill Maher/Michael Moore/Robert Greenwald come out for/against video games, should that make news on here?

No, but it probably would. Have you noticed the amount of video game stories coming through? We've hated on Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman just as much for their various gaming agendas, along with a whole bunch of minor judges and political figures from either side of the aisle.

Re:Pot? Kettle? - Logical Fallacies 101

[Anonymous Coward]

An interesting attempt to frame the discussion in favorable terms, but you fail to consider the weight Bill O'Reilly's words have with a significant portion of Fox's viewing audience, which is not an insignificant number of people. Whether you agree that Bill O'Reilly is frequently nuttier than a Snickers bar, Bill O'Reilly and his comments are worthy of discussion simply because people listen to him.

The argument that a person is being entirely irrational and should therefore simply be ignored only works when the topic under discussion is a matter of purely logical calculation. For example, when an individual is spouting a string of lies about a scientific topic such as evolution, it behooves those who understand to ignore the person and to focus instead on simply educating people with the actual facts. If it's a matter of basic deduction, there is no real value in arguing with a person who's entire argument is flawed from the base because simply educating others on the actual facts will allow them to see such errors on their own.

However, this discussion is not purely logical, it is a rational discourse, and, as such, there is a significant weight hanging on the argument in the form of perception. Regardless of the level of ignorance displayed by O'Reilly in making this tirade, he does still retain a significant force in the form of his viewers' perception of him, and that alone is enough to warrant discussing him.

As such, the actual discussion that should be occurring should revolve both around the facts of the social impact of technology, and the impact Bill O'Reilly has on viewers' beliefs, regardless of his accuracy, as a matter of his celebrity status. That is the discussion I'm seeing, therefore, I see the discussion as both relevant and valuable.

Re:Pot? Kettle?

[ArcticCelt]

"Why is it that you don't hear about NBA stars disconnected from reality? All they do is live in their celebrity. They live, breathe, and eat basketball. When the day is done, they go out to clubs in expensive cars and live the life of a celebrity. Are these people just as disconnected from reality?"

Good question, my answer is: because people are normally afraid of what they don't understand. Sports are easy to understand, every idiot can understand sports. But looking at strange code on a computer screen or playing games is not familiar to older generations and they react accordingly with fear and accusations of witchcraft.

Re:Pot? Kettle?

[aalegado]

O'Reilly has lived in his own reality for so long that he doesn't realize how disconnected he is. He's probably that last person short of Rush Limbaugh who can safely accuse any group of people of being divorced from reality. And for that matter, who's reality is he talking about? His Neo-Con, GOP Cheerleader, Reality? Gimme a break.

Re:Pot? Kettle? - Logical Fallacies 101

[Al Dimond]

People haven't "always" been able to carry a music collection with them to listen to, say, while walking down the street. At least, they haven't always been able to do it very easily. They gained this ability with walkman-like devices a few decades ago. This might seem like "always" to you, but O'Reilly is probably a lot older than you are. In fact, recorded music isn't really all that old itself. One might argue that recorded music has diminished the significance of live music performance; after all, how often do you hear a piece of music performed for the first time live? At the same time, it's also lowered the threshold for enjoying music in terms of cost, social class and location (you don't have to live near Chicago to hear the CSO, and if your favorite band won't come to your town you can still buy their CD). And the iPod, after all, is just another way for people to pipe recorded music into their heads, sans-performer. It's just an improved phonograph.

Maybe it never registered with O'Reilly that an iPod is an improved Walkman. I'd say it probably did, because to a non-user of such devices they all look the same: a set of headphones connected into a little piece of plastic. The connection would be hard to miss. But iPods and other modern portables have done something distinctive (that is, in addition to their technical distinctions such as increased storage space, ease of putting together custom playlists, and the single-oriented online music stores): they've made portable music popular to the point of ubiquity among young people. And they have, more than any previous portable player, become a status symbol among the young hip crowd. People have been able to walk down the street, disengaged from their immediate reality, with headphones in, for several years now. But the coming of the iPod has made it not only much more common, but also made it the cool thing to do.

Generational gap

[vga_init]

This is just a case of mixed up values.

O'Reilly values things like knowing what day it is. Why does he value you that? Because in his lifetime, he couldn't function without that kind of information.

People who can function without this information obviously don't need it. This has nothing to do with "reality" or not. In times gone by, you couldn't function very well if you didn't know the current phase of the moon (because that's how people organized time). That's reality, but I bet old Bill has no idea what phase the moon is, nor does he care. In his own way, he's disconnected from reality, but he made that sacrifice so he could devote his attention to connecting to things that matter to him.

Now, he notices that lots of other people are now connecting to things that don't matter to him. Furthermore, they're not connected to things that matter to him. This is okay because, frankly, they're not him, and he's not them. He has a problem with this, probably for a number of reasons, but I can't help but thing his interpretation is a little bit egocentric.

That's not to say that his criticisms are invalid. It is sometimes hard to get by in life without knowing the date, but if someone can do it, then hey... as long as it works.

The real reason O'Reilly thinks this.

[no reason to be here]

The young people that O'Reilly says are divorced from reality turned out in record numbers to vote a couple of Tuesdays back, and, horror of horrors, in a stinging rebuff to the current president and his administration, they voted overwhelmingly for Democrats, returning them to power in the congress and in a majority of state legislatures and governorships. You could only possibly do something like this if you're divorced from reality, in Bill's mind, anyway. Because, reality is, terrorists are around every single corner, and only George W. and the GOP can protect you from them.

And of course, in Bill's head, the technology is to blame, because all of these crazy kids with their iPods and Nintendo DSs and the like got their political info from websites, horrible, liberal, progressive, blogspherical, divorced-from-reality websites.

I guess O'Reilly hasn't heard about reality's well known liberal bias.

Re:The real reason O'Reilly thinks this.

[dbIII]

websites, horrible, liberal, progressive, blogspherical, divorced-from-reality websites.

While from being outside of the USA I get the impression that the majority of your press is divorced from reality. CNN and even sometimes the NYT get a lot of things wrong with international news (I can't judge your domestic news) and sometimes even NPR sounds like news-lite.

Re:Pot? Kettle?

[Gilmoure]

Sports are easy to understand, every idiot can understand sports.

I don't. I mean, I understand playing sports; that's fun, but I don't get sports fandom. It's one thing to cheer for a friend or family that's playing a game but to be emotionally involved with a bunch of rich guys playing a game with a ball is just weird.

The Enigma That Is Larry

[Petersko]

Imagine, if you will, a fellow by the name of Larry.

Larry telecommutes. He converses with coworkers via teleconference, and he does his job well. His employers are completely happy with his productivity, and he is happy with his privacy. Larry gets paid by direct deposit. He pays his bills online, and never has a need of services that require him to visit a bank.

When it comes to food, Larry likes variety. He prepares a list from an online product catalog, and four hours later the food arrives, delivered by a local company that specializes in this type of transaction. They also deliver household consumables, such as bathroom supplies. Sometimes Larry wants something ready to eat, though, and of course companies have been delivering pizza, oriental food, indeed most kinds of meals, for decades. He orders clothes, gadgets, and computer equipment online, and the courier companies beat a path to his door.

Larry likes to keep fit, and to that end he has a treadmill, a set of weights and a stair climber, all within his home. He works out six days a week, and never strays from his routine. His health is excellent.

When it comes to socialization, Larry is an online kind of guy. He plays MMORPGs - Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games - and is active in video game player guilds, spending upwards of fifty hours per week interacting with other people in a virtual world. He uses a microphone to talk to players from all over the planet, and is well known in the circles of elite gamers. He even has virtual girlfriends. He is popular with people he has never met in his alternate reality, "real life".

Larry never goes out. He never really physically interacts with anybody. In fact, he hasn't left his home in months.

The question is: can Larry be happy?

For a long time I would have thought that no, Larry couldn't really be happy. After all, man is a social being by nature. From birth, we respond to touch, and to the presence of those around us. We have a need of sex, and possibly of love.

But what is really missing from Larry's life? He has food, shelter, clothing, work, entertainment, physical exercise, a social network, and sex by proxy (through "cybering" with his online girlfriends). He has a full life by his standards.

Many people would look down on his life, but Larry is part of a different scene. He grew up in a world that could be fully realized in isolation, and it is one that most people don't understand. But it is a life that has all of the trappings of a normal one, save for some small variances. Larry may be perfectly suited to his life, and consequently he may be very happy and well-adjusted.

Just because somebody makes lifestyle choices that we don't understand is no reason to conclude that their life is somehow lacking depth or value. The world is changing, and lives are changing with it.

Larry may be normal in the future.

(Taken from my blog, July 18, 2006)

Why is it wrong to create your own reality?

[DogbertRulez]

I don't think it is wrong to create your own reality. I think it is perfectly normal. I think everyone one creates their own reality and geeks happen to create one via the computer.

In O'Reilley's Reality...

[ukemike]

In Bill O'Reilley's reality:

we found WMDs in Iraq;
we're winning in Iraq;
the world was created by God approximately 7,500 years ago;
evolution is a liberal fabrication designed to undermine the true faith;
global warming isn't happening, and if it is then it is good for you;
lying about an extra-marital affair is a greater crime than torture, agressive wars, or illegal spying;
any fact can be refuted by yelling !!SHUT-UP!! really loudly; AND...
people who get their news online are more detached from reality than people who watch Fox news.

I think he's just cranky because so many of those people "who don't deal with reality -- ever" booted his party out of power in congress with a fraud-proof landslide!

Why would /. waste time on this blowhard?

Re:Pot? Kettle?

[tbonius]

Sports are easy to understand, every idiot can understand sports.

I strongly disagree. If one knows the difference between a Strong Safety and a Free Safety and can understand the alternate strategies of slot coverage with a pass rush on 3rd and short versus the effect of route interruption from the Cornerbacks in a 3rd and long situation, as well as be able to explain these concepts to the average "idiot", then I will concur that sports are easy to understand. This example of strategy and play can be applied to many other sports as well

Re:Pot? Kettle?

[MaxInBxl]

Sports are easy to understand, every idiot can understand sports.

You've obviously never witnessed a game of cricket.

Re:Word.

[PhraudulentOne]

You see, you just hit the nail on the head.

If you guys were playing D&D that long back then, then I would have to say you guys-at least somewhat-lost touch of the reality around you.

The reality around them at the time was D&D, so they obviously weren't out of touch.

People have this idea that there is one reality, and all things have to jive with that reality. In actuality, everyone has their own version of reality.

I agree that people need to eat, drink, sleep, and defecate, but that is where our common reality ends. "To each their own" is a powerful statement, and one that isn't understood by the masses. There is nothing wrong with playing WoW 15 hours a day. If you can pull off the "common reality" that I mentioned above, and ALL your other time is dedicated to WoW, then that is fine. Yes, you won't be aware of current events, and worldy things, but those aren't your realities. Those are the realities of the people that are partaking in them.

Sorry, I'm at work, so I don't have time to elaborate, but you can do that on your own - however you wish to.