| |
BGonline.org Forums
How many pro BG players? (long)
Posted By: mamabear In Response To: How many pro BG players? (Robert Wachtel)
Date: Saturday, 16 March 2013, at 1:39 a.m.
I've noticed there is quite a lot of talking past one another going on in this thread, and it might be in part because those who have studied philosophy in depth (including most notably Bob Wachtel) mean something different with the same words as those who use them with their more common meanings.
In particular, the word "condemn" probably has a different meaning and emphasis to different participants here. Same with "capitalism", "ethics", and perhaps others that don't jump out at me at the moment.
But to address this post: First, about backgammon. If the amount of money involved is well within the entertainment budgets of the game's participants, I'm not willing to condemn, in any sense, those who play in that game, as long as no cheating, lying, or the like goes on. To me, acting reluctant to double when it's a pass, etc. is within the bounds of the game, but pretending to have only learned the game six months ago and never to have read a book about it, when one has actually been playing the better part of a lifetime, and has read every backgammon book that exists, is beyond the pale...at least in my view. Same with intentionally giving the opponent a wrong pip count, or explicitly saying they have a take when they don't, and the like.
Second, my thoughts about the other items Bob mentioned. 1. Porn covers a lot of ground, from stuff some people might find helpful and informative, through violent material that is up there with incitement to riot, or shouting Fire! in a crowded theater. Where to stand on it, may depend on exactly what "it" is. 2. Alcohol is part of our culture, whether we appreciate that or not. I abstain except in exceptional circumstances, such as joining in the toast at a wedding, or trying a wine that someone highly recommends, but am unwilling to judge those who indulge quite a lot more than that, even if their usage of alcohol might be crossing the line into what some people would call addiction. If they are still acting as responsible citizens, not recklessly endangering others by driving drunk or committing acts of violence under the influence, I think we need to cut people some slack, and likewise those who produce and sell the stuff. 3. Bad foods: People of the future will be falling off their solar-powered mopeds laughing at our ideas about what is healthy to eat and drink. Yeah, soda is bad, and so are French fries, but people, especially those of limited means, need some slack here too, and without the burden of others' judgment. If they want to have some fun with their friends after work and on the weekends, and that involves sharing a box of fried chicken from Popeyes, what is that to anyone else? I cannot picture a bunch of guys at the dragstrip on Saturday afternoon chowing down on vegetable korma washed down with Indian chai, even though that menu would suit me just fine.
Along this line: You didn't mention the tobacco industry, but that is one where I do put on my judgment hat. That's selling a pure addiction, one that hurts both the participant and others around him or her, and provides no social benefit. That's an industry I couldn't work for in good conscience.
4. Movies and TV: We probably agree on the lack of merit of this entertainment, but keep in mind that many of the watchers have only a high school education, and are not going to read books instead even as a personal media preference. Books also have the disadvantage that reading them is a solitary pastime, and many people would rather share the experience of watching a movie with family, friends or just a significant other, than have all concerned read books alone. If they were instead going to play a sport or game, do a craft, or fix the old Mixmaster in the basement, that might be better, but after a long day at work, it also might be more demanding than they want at that moment.
5. The fashion industry? Ouch! My clothing and accessory choices are part of how I communicate about myself to the outside world. Clothing is a form of media, though it is not really art, at least IMO. What we wear tells people something, whether that is our intent or not. It can communicate what we currently think of ourselves, but it also can express our aspirations and the impression we wish to make. What we wear also tells people how much we value conformity, and how much we will let the advertisers lead us around by the nose. Much of the fashion industry caters to the low self-image, fears, and excessive conformity of women, but more regulation beyond basic decency and safety standards isn't going to fix those problems. /Marshall McLuhan rant
6. Social media: Again, let's those of us who aren't on FB or its clones, not presume to judge it as bad for those who spend time there. What were they going to do with that time instead? If they enjoy keeping in closer touch with others than I would want, that doesn't mean they are doing something worse than what I'm doing with my time. Needs vary. Wants vary. Interests vary. (I admit, though, that I'm tempted to "condemn" whoever invented the addictive waste of FB time known as Farmville.)
7. Capitalism: We haven't defined it here yet. But any system that intends to change and/or regiment human nature has a high bar to leap in order to replace systems that attempt to direct and harness it instead. A good system also needs to meet the deepest, most genuine needs of people, or at least allow them to be met, not just ensure that everyone eats enough to keep them alive, and I don't have a plan for that. Do you? Does anyone?
This ended up longer than intended, but the conclusion I'm trying to reach is that we have to cut a large variety of people, a large amount of slack, rather than try to serve as their Jiminy Cricket conscience imposing our standards on them. If they are about to go over a cliff, we need to stop them, of course; same if they are about to push someone else over it. But if they are simply on a path we consider iffy or suboptimal by our current standards, I like to have the default be to let people have a reasonable amount of freedom to make choices, good and bad, and maybe even learn from them, who knows? (BTW I am not implying that Bob or anyone else here is trying to impose their standards, since most of this crowd seem to be simply expressing rather than trying to enforce their views.)
And coming back to making a living at backgammon: It's almost a moot issue, since from what I see and hear, it's so very difficult to do. It's probably almost as difficult as being a freelance writer! Before anyone actually quits their job to try making a living from backgammon, they need to consider that they may have to play for more money than they want, with people they don't respect or like, at places they would ordinarily shun. The more money is involved, the more they must be on their guard against cheats, and the greater the risk of nonpayment of large losses. There are friendly, honest money games out there, but I doubt that many, if any, of them involve life-changing, or living-making, amounts of money, especially not for the long term.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.