Call me a fundamentalist, but...
Usually people say gambling is morally wrong because it is a misuse of resources God has given us, or something to that effect. I'm wondering if poker would be morally wrong because it is essentially a game that is based on one's ability to be deceitful. Maybe this isn't a new revelation to anyone but me, but I can't remember this being an issue whenever people say poker is morally wrong. This could also apply to the cult college game Mafia. I remember loving it at school, but then teaching it to kids at camp and then feeling a little uneasy about it. "Yeah, normally lying is a strike, but for this game it's okay," sounds a little weird.
I thought about this because I remember being really angry when I watched the Survivor Allstars Finale and heard Boston Rob justifying his lying, deceitful, Godfather-type moves in the game by saying he wasn't making anything personal, he was just playing to win. I was thinking about how he was making a game out of people's feelings, and that if he had done that to me in Survivor, I wouldn't have been too willing to start a business with him. And what about Amber of Beaver Falls fame? You would have to think that if he can lie and manipulate a whole group of people on an island he could lie and manipulate her when they were married. The sad thing to me was that everyone cheered when he said he was playing to win. Is this really "winning?"
I read an article on the New Pantagruel by Dr. John Fea about Dr. Seuss which took the underlying messages of Dr. Seuss seriously for the "unfettered individualist" values they impart between the lines, or actually pretty explicitly. There is also a book by Tom Englehardt called The End of Victory Culture that made connections between the United States' view of itself during the Cold War era and the changes in G.I Joe, among other things. It became almost too obvious how much what kids play with is what grown-ups do for real (or in Survivor, what grown-ups play with) are very much attached after reading Dr. Fea and Tom Englehardt.
Can anything we do really be just a game?
Matt Stewart
I thought about this because I remember being really angry when I watched the Survivor Allstars Finale and heard Boston Rob justifying his lying, deceitful, Godfather-type moves in the game by saying he wasn't making anything personal, he was just playing to win. I was thinking about how he was making a game out of people's feelings, and that if he had done that to me in Survivor, I wouldn't have been too willing to start a business with him. And what about Amber of Beaver Falls fame? You would have to think that if he can lie and manipulate a whole group of people on an island he could lie and manipulate her when they were married. The sad thing to me was that everyone cheered when he said he was playing to win. Is this really "winning?"
I read an article on the New Pantagruel by Dr. John Fea about Dr. Seuss which took the underlying messages of Dr. Seuss seriously for the "unfettered individualist" values they impart between the lines, or actually pretty explicitly. There is also a book by Tom Englehardt called The End of Victory Culture that made connections between the United States' view of itself during the Cold War era and the changes in G.I Joe, among other things. It became almost too obvious how much what kids play with is what grown-ups do for real (or in Survivor, what grown-ups play with) are very much attached after reading Dr. Fea and Tom Englehardt.
Can anything we do really be just a game?
Matt Stewart
posted by CROATOAN at 2:29 PM
1 Comments:
Fundamentalist.
Jon Dodd
Post a Comment
<< Home