Slashdot Mirror
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..."
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
I don't really think that Bill O'Reilly is in any position to accuse someone else of being "divorced from reality."
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
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.
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.
If television is what O'Reilly calls reality, then yes, I'm divorced from it, and happily so.
org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
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).
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.
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.
Game... blouses.
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?
That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
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.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
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.
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.
My grandfather failed out of school because he preferred to go hunting over going to class.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
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.
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.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
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'.
"Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
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?
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
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.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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?
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
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.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
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.
I got nothin'
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.
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
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.
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.
I drank what? -- Socrates
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)