Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a local Meetup group I like to hang out with, and we're all pretty good friends. Occasionally we set up a night to play tabletop games and (those who drink) order beer or whatever. One popular game is Cards Against Humanity, which is basically the evil twin of Apples to Apples. When talking about the game night to others, I've found it's rather hard to describe CAH without getting weird looks and awkward silence. I mean, I'm a humanist, I know the smurf is wrong, but paradoxically, that's why it's funny.
If I had to guess at the psychology, I could posit that the uncomfortable ideas provoke unease, and that stress is relieved by laughing. Beavis & Butt-Head were stupid to the point of it being tragic, but they were funny for a similar reason. More currently, I think South Park and Family Guy work in much the same way.
In contrast, I don't condone things like rape jokes, homophobic slurs, and attacks to someone's ethnicity, disability, or other aspects of personal identity they have little control over and which don't actually cause harm. I speak up enough to at least say it's not cool with me, to be clear that I reject the oppressive language. However, there are exceptions for some contexts and some subjects, though they'd be extremely difficult to state up front. Humour doesn't trump everything, but it's close.
What is it about the context of a cartoon or a card game that makes it seem more okay to say some of the worst smurf possible?
Many young mammals, and even adults in some species, will play-fight. Even juvenile rats will tussle, and if you have equipment capable of picking up pitches higher than humans can hear, they seem to be laughing the whole time. Among humans, baring one's teeth and narrowing one's eyes is a friendly expression, though among many other species, that could indicate a threat. 'Play' could be considered a nonserious threat display, a way of showing that those involved recognize they could do harm, but they would rather build social bonds.
Maybe the cartoon characters get away with saying awful smurf because our culture is predisposed to view cartoons as absurd and not to be taken literally or seriously. When playing Cards Against Humanity with friends, I know them well enough to take it all in jest. I can see their expressions and hear their tone of voice, but more specifically, I know their true ethics are generally compatible with mine.
Online, watching or interacting with people I don't know, that 'just playing' interpretive mode often doesn't work. As a culture, we don't have much history indicating how we should interpret emotion-laced communication that's been made vague by anonymity, and people regularly take advantage of that anonymity just to troll for a sort of schadenfreude. The adversarial tone can be overcome with time, as people work out what's meant to be threatening and what's playful, but to an outside observer it would still appear toxic. Worse, due to the us/them tribalism people so easily fall into, it's difficult for new people to be accepted to the ingroup clique.
In PFO, I hope the need for new members is strong enough that those on the ingroup side of the fence will look for ways to bring newcomers across, and that everyone will realize that their continued enjoyment of the game depends on its success, which itself depends on having an influx of new players greater than the outflux. Can we avoid presenting an image of toxicity, whether we mean it or not, so we're not chasing people away? Can competition be handled with "good luck, have fun" sportsmanship so folks don't feel burnt out? Anonymity is intoxicating in many ways, but can we find ways to counteract that and avoid dehumanizing people?
Let's try it here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I came across an expression that might be applicable: "kindful play". A guy wrote a book on the subject back in 1978. I've yet to read more but I think this has potential for describing "correct" play vs "toxic" play. There seems to be some science on the subject eg play -> fun, games -> rules and learning and exploring in a sort of sandboxed from reality safe environment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I came across an expression that might be applicable: "kindful play". A guy wrote a book on the subject back in 1978. I've yet to read more but I think this has potential for describing "correct" play vs "toxic" play. There seems to be some science on the subject eg play -> fun, games -> rules and learning and exploring in a sort of sandboxed from reality safe environment.
I call it "positive game play".
