Garwulf’s Corner #26: Credo

Originally published February 17, 2016

This remains an accurate statement of my ideology. I don’t know that too many of my fellow content creators across the pop culture media ever read it, or if they did, read it and agreed with it, but at least it was said.

AS STRANGE AS it may sound, my proudest moment as a pop culture commentator came not here on Garwulf’s Corner, but in Fooling Garwulf.

For those who didn’t read it, Fooling Garwulf was a review and commentary column based on Penn & Teller: Fool Us. After each review section, I shifted to tour guide, talking about some aspect of magic that few outside of the performance art would have heard about. And, one of the things I wanted to do from the very beginning was talk about women in magic.

As I began my research, I found the usual articles — writers talking about how female magicians aren’t taken seriously, or have trouble being anything other than an assistant. But, I also discovered that there weren’t many articles on the subject at all. So, getting ready to write a blistering expose about sexism in magic, I reached out to Christen Gerhart, a female magician and judge on Wizard Wars, for an interview.

To my utter shock, Christen told me that in the decade she had been involved in magic, she hadn’t actually encountered any sexism or misogyny from her fellow magicians. She passed me on to Misty Lee, who confirmed that in her years of performance she also hadn’t experienced any institutional sexism. In fact, Misty had faced more frustrating sexism from journalists treating her like a fad or curiosity than she had ever seen from a male magician.

By the time I was done, all of my preconceptions about sexism in magic had been proven wrong. I had to start again from scratch, and it was glorious. I wrote the “women in magic” commentary with care, making certain to be clear that I was just relaying what female professional magicians had told me. I was giddy: with all the terrible things I have to sift through in tracking pop culture, I got to deliver good news — I got to point at one place in performance art and declare: “no institutional sexism here — magic has its act together!”

The commentary went up as Fooling Garwulf #3, and I did what I could to publicize it. I sent a tip to The Mary Sue, and left a comment in We Hunted the Mammoth. I watched the GamerGhazi sub-reddit like a hawk, wanting to see the news break that there was a performance art that left institutional sexism behind decades ago, and bask in the knowledge that I was the first to spread the news.

There was nothing. Not a word, not so much as a comment reply outside of The Escapist.

To say the least, I was disappointed — but I was not surprised.

One of the things you gain by stepping away from being an active commentator for close to a decade and a half is perspective on just how much has changed. Some things have changed for the better — there are discussions we can have today that weren’t possible in the early 2000s. It’s hard to talk about video games as art when you’re still trying to prove that they are capable of communicating ideas. But, in other ways, things are worse.

I suppose I see it the way I do because I don’t hold an allegiance to any part of the political spectrum. When it comes to politics, I’m a skeptic, going wherever the nuances of any given issue takes me. And, since I have no loyalty to the right or the left, I see the excesses of both side’s extremes, and I cannot turn a blind eye to any of it.

The sins of the far right and the far left are the same. They both engage in witch hunts, shifting goal posts, and even sometimes slander. I watched a movement loosely aligned with the far right conduct a ruthless witch hunt for “SJW” video game commentators (a field of commentary I helped pioneer), and then I watched people loosely aligned with the far left engage in their own vicious behaviour in the name of defending the Hugo Awards.

All too often, I feel like I left a marketplace of ideas in 2002 and returned to a Thunderdome of ideas in 2015. I feel like I’m witnessing a cultural war dedicated to turning pop culture into a battlefield. It’s at the point where I’ve seen attrition tactics used on sub-reddits and forums, where an article is linked to by proxy to prevent page views — not because it is vile, such as advocating hatred or violence, but because it is disagreed with.

Perhaps the right term is indeed “outrage culture.” To be fair, outrage is useful — it pushes society into making changes. We would not have equal rights for homosexuals or successes in the civil rights movement if it wasn’t for outrage. But the outrage that changes things is outrage used sparingly. When everything is subject to outrage, no matter how great or small, that outrage becomes meaningless.

I want to see this change, in large part because this current Thunderdome of ideas breaks my heart. And so, I present my Credo — my code of beliefs — with the hope others will join me in it.

I believe that discussion will always be superior to debate, and that “two ideas enter, one idea leaves,” will always be inferior to “two ideas enter and a dozen ideas leave.” Likewise, I believe that echo chambers are poison to discourse, and our ideas are only truly worthy if they can withstand challenge and scrutiny. Further, I believe that any idea must be judged based on its merits, and not the identity of the person who put it forward.

I believe that understanding an idea or point of view is better than defeating it. And, for that matter, listening with an open mind to those you disagree with, regardless of if your mind is changed by their ideas or not, is a vital part of understanding any issue. That said, while I believe there is an obligation to understand, understanding a thing does not carry any obligation to champion or even agree with that thing.

I believe that there are matters worthy of disapproval, and matters worthy of outrage, and that outrage and disapproval are not one and the same. Likewise, those things worthy of outrage are far outnumbered by those things worthy of disapproval.

I believe that facts must always trump ideology, and ideas are better than dogma. I also believe that when one can build one’s vision of the world from the facts up, rather than from ideology down, one can gain true perspective.

I believe that as much as I can be right, I can also be wrong, and that admitting that I’m wrong or have made a mistake does not lessen or disgrace me. I believe that there is no shame in discovering that one is incorrect — only in failing to correct course after.

I believe that the best words come from contemplation, joy, and even sadness, and the worst come from anger. Likewise, I believe that in those cases where one must take a stand against something, considered determination and a willingness to be fair is better than blind rage, and that the ends almost never justify the means.

Most of all, I believe that the marketplace of ideas is not truly lost, and we can have it all back. All we have to do is to step away from the echo chambers and keep reaching for it.

I’m willing to do that. Will you join me?