500 Words On People

500 Words On People — Blue Ink Alchemy

A good soundtrack for this column: [tube]-u05Yc5zurI[/tube] It's been a while since I've reviewed anything. Or stuck to a one-post-per-weekday schedule. I give myself mental and emotional hell for that, on occasion, but you know what? It isn't the end of the world. It's okay. I'm okay. My name is Josh Loomis, and I'm a person. Provided you're not one of Google's non-self-aware bots, you're a person, too. It's a simple fundamental fact, the establishment of personhood on behalf of the other. Yet it's so easy to forget, to villainize, to de-personize. "Your opinion is horrible from my point of view, therefore YOU ARE HORRIBLE TOO" tends to be the norm in a lot of discussion and debates, especially online. A person may have horrid opinions, or behave in a horrible way for one reason or another, but does that make them inherently horrible? When someone says something of a dubious nature, or that can be taken as offensive by another, it's insidiously easy to jump to conclusions, choose sides, take up arms. I've been guilty of that. But in my age, I've taken more time to breathe, think, and consider both sides. Or try to, at least. I'm a person, after all. I err more often than not, by my very nature. I've written about things like GamerGate in the past, and have found myself coming down on the side of those who have felt intimidated out of professions they love because of external pressures from such sources. However, that's been unfair of me. There are people within GG who are legitimately trying to make gaming a better community. There are people within games journalism attempting to base their work on facts and research instead of corporate sponsorship. And there are less upstanding people on both sides as well. But it's people, all the way down the line. And I think we should try harder to be kind to people. I'm certainly not saying censorship or thought policing is the answer, because freedom of speech and of choice are essential to a free-thinking society. But, to quote another AJJ song, "for God's sake, you've gotta be kind." Pointing out problems in a behavior, turn of phrase, or course of action can and should be divided from a judgement call on the person you're addressing. Because you're addressing a person just like you. From discussions on the essence of GamerGate to debates on who and what Superman should be, try to remember to be kind. As of this writing, we only have the one planet on which to live, and we all have to share it. What is the point in bickering for superior intellectual positioning? Don't we have enough problems? We should be working to be one people, not being rude and dismissive of one another. I'm not a violent person, but I will fight, and keep fighting until all are one. I don't think it's too late. I believe we can turn it around. I have faith. Don't you?

---

Blue Ink Alchemy

From the Vault: The Sith Have A Point

From the Vault: The Sith Have A Point — Blue Ink Alchemy

In honor of the whole "May the 4th" Star Wars-related tomfoolery of the day, I went back to last year and blew the dust off of this post. Enjoy! The X-Wing Miniatures Game by Fantasy Flight has been teasing me for a long time. I've tried to keep my attentions elsewhere, but with the excellent review over at Shut Up & Sit Down has nailed the coffin shut on my intentions. Soon, I will be picking up the Starter Set, and I have the feeling I will be fielding the Imperial forces. Despite the fact that we are intended to sympathize and root for the heroic underdog Rebellion, we have to remember that every villain from our perspective is the hero from theirs, and when you get right down to it, the Sith have a point. The Jedi are held up as paragons of virtue, galactic peacekeepers devoid of emotional attachment and personal ambition. However, if you give them more than a cursory glance, you start to see leaks in this presentation. They say that 'only a Sith deals in absolutes,' yet they consider Sith to always be on the wrong side of a battle. Always. No exceptions. An absolute. Makes you think, doesn't it? There's also the fact that the Jedi Masters that we find ourselves keying into - Qui-Gon Jinn, Yoda, etc - are often seen as renegades or iconoclastic among other Jedi. Others attempt to adhere to their strict adherence to being emotionless icons of righteousness. Absolute ones at that. The Sith seem to have a different approach. While many of them do pursue selfish ambitions that result in others getting hurt or the innocent getting suppressed, the general philosophy embraces the strength of independence, free thought, and ambition. It's certainly true that this sort of thinking can lead to people going down darker paths. However, it can be argued that a path of righteousness can also lead to dark places. Not that Jedi would ever admit this. Sith strike me as more honest in retrospect; the Jedi have good intentions but their strictures can yield rigid minds devoid of mercy as much as they are of emotion. As brutal as some of them can be, they have a point - passion can be every bit as powerful as rigid adherence to strictures, and in some cases, the passionate path is preferable, and not necessarily easier. For all of the flak Lucas deservedly gets for some of his ill-advised creative decisions, the universe he created is not devoid of merit, and this dichotomy is worth examination. Instead of the naked good/evil conflict we see all too often, in the right hands it can be a crucial examination of the debate between free thought and organized discipline. It can also be a simple backdrop for laser swords and dogfights in space.

---

Blue Ink Alchemy