Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Talizvar wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
I spend a silly amount of time in the morass of the OT forum, particularly the US Politics thread*shudder*, and it's clear to me that gaming is just a hobby and not a contributing factor to political bias in the way environment, experience and upbringing are for the general population, gamers included.

One thing that I DO notice as a possible common behavior is we are more than happy to discuss minutia out of interest because arguing for your interpretation of a rule is a survival trait!

I mean, if anything, the YMTC forum is worse than the OT.

I consider myself middle of the road slightly leftish, and check out the politics thread to see how widely the political views vary

 CptJake wrote:
I've lived in GA and NC the past several years, near big military bases (Ft Gordon, Ft Stewart and now Ft Bragg). Many/most folks I've gamed with have some military background and tend to be conservative but often with libertarian leanings.

Unlike Peregrine's experience, they tend to be conservative even though they are educated and well off financially, and some also being young (late teens/early 20s).

Ha! I was on the base at Fort Gordon working just a few days ago.

I'm sure the Europeans on here would consider me a fascist just as I'd probably think they were commies.

 CptJake wrote:
I've lived in GA and NC the past several years, near big military bases (Ft Gordon, Ft Stewart and now Ft Bragg). Many/most folks I've gamed with have some military background and tend to be conservative but often with libertarian leanings.

Unlike Peregrine's experience, they tend to be conservative even though they are educated and well off financially, and some also being young (late teens/early 20s).

That describes most of the people I met while living in the USA. People in their 20's with decent education and financially comfortable and most were right leaning (not all).

Wargamers specifically? I have no fething idea, politics has no place in my games. When someone starts talking politics over the gaming table I do my best to be as apathetic as humanly possible because otherwise it swings between uncomfortable disagreement or pointless agreement and that's not the atmosphere I want when playing a game that I'm attempting to enjoy.

For better or worse I find Australians far more quiet about their political views and when they make comments they tend to make them from a neutral or observational standpoint, at least that's my observation compared to 'muricans. I feel like I know the political stance of most the people I met in America for more than a few minutes, where as some of my Australian mates that I've known since primary school I've only recently found out their political views

Part of it may depend on the specific sub-categories of gamers. Boardgamers and wargamers can certainly rub the gamut of the political spectrum.

Roleplayers, however, I would suspect might lean a bit more left, due to the history here in America with D&D once having been such a very controversial thing in the 80s. Remnants of those beliefs still exist. I remember a similar reaction when Magic: The Gathering was starting to boom (but nowhere on the same scale as D&D suffered).

I consider myself a strong conservative, and I support Donald Trump, which in terms of the Politics thread here on Dakka makes me a right-wing lunatic. I'm also a Christian, which also means I'm a lunatic (according to a recently-locked thread about Creationism). My gaming group is kind of a mixed bag of political leanings, but most of us are conservative on various levels (and I'm not the only one who's religious). We generally don't talk politics, as we are there to play toy soldiers rather than argue about the government. Most of us are in the 20-30 age range (me being at the top of that spectrum), but there are a few older guys in there. And we come from all walks of life, from college students to married career types to ex-military guys. I'm not sure there is a correlation between any of these things and our political leanings. The fact that we are mostly conservative probably comes from our location in Missouri, a state that has voted red in every election I can remember.

I don't think gaming is a good indicator at all of one's political leanings. Like others have said, you see it all in the gaming community.

In my own tabletop gaming group, politics (and religion) are pretty much taboo subjects. No point in alienating people. Finding decent human beings to play games with in my area is hard enough without all that.

I'm a teen and is usually expected to be leftist, but I personally think I lean a bit more right than left.

In my gaming store alone there is a former cop who is as right as it gets, a former baseball star in his home town that is a poster boy for republicans, a hippie who is the epitome of old gamer dude who leans so far left conversations with him are very interesting. I am definitely in the middle. I also game in a Army town(near and Army post) so the right tends to dominate but not over power. I can find no correlation.

Well on this site we have views that lead to both ends of the political spectrum. Feel free to dip yourself into the US election debate mk2, don't ask about the original it ended badly or the UK political debate. I partake in both, what am I? I like to think myself as centre-right. I uphold traditional Conservative Values, but look to see the positives in both sides of the argument. I am not a Trump basher either, even though I don't always agree with his approach to things.

It's pretty clear that your geography and social circle will influence your politics many times more than your hobbies.

It would be an interesting but irrelevant statistic outside of Dakka, but wouldn't it be an interesting idea for someone to set up a poll we could vote on to see who was left, centre, right etc?

There's a political spectrum test that gets posted every so often, it's interesting to see where others sit, also where some people self-identify and where the test puts them don't always match up.

 feeder wrote:
There's a political spectrum test that gets posted every so often, it's interesting to see where others sit, also where some people self-identify and where the test puts them don't always match up.

I didn't know that, I'm up for taking part next time it comes round. Thanks.

I'm left of [Canadian] Centre, generally supporting the Liberal Party. My best friend is well right of Centre, and generally supports the Progressive Conservative party, and would probably support the old Reform Party if Preston was still around.

I've met all walks, from way left to way... terrifyingly right [for a Canadian]. I can say I've found absolutely no correlation at all between politics and gaming. When the game gets dull, you can always fire things up with talk of Politics.

 CptJake wrote:
I've lived in GA and NC the past several years, near big military bases (Ft Gordon, Ft Stewart and now Ft Bragg). Many/most folks I've gamed with have some military background and tend to be conservative but often with libertarian leanings.

Unlike Peregrine's experience, they tend to be conservative even though they are educated and well off financially, and some also being young (late teens/early 20s).

I don't think they're inconsistent. Gamers as a whole tend to be better educated and better off, financially, than average. But think hard about the two biggest demographics that feed into tabletop wargaming: geeky creative types, and military veterans. The former is going to lean pretty hard to the left, while the latter leans to the right. And like any generalization, you can come up with plenty of counterexamples, but the trends are pretty noticeable.

The majority of right wing gamers occupy the libertarian, fiscal conservative space, and while they might be culturally conservative they are rarely fundamentalist. Liberal gamers in my experience tend to be very socially progressive, with a lot of emphasis on identity politics over economic concerns.

 greatbigtree wrote:
I'm left of [Canadian] Centre, generally supporting the Liberal Party. My best friend is well right of Centre, and generally supports the Progressive Conservative party, and would probably support the old Reform Party if Preston was still around.

I've met all walks, from way left to way... terrifyingly right [for a Canadian]. I can say I've found absolutely no correlation at all between politics and gaming. When the game gets dull, you can always fire things up with talk of Politics.

Heh, if you ever had the chance or get to, try TSR's Birthright campaign, its all about politics, and I have seen some crazy ideas from real world politics trying to get going in a fantasy setting. what a mess

I'm not convinced the US even has a left wing in politics, certainly not one recognisable as such to the average Brit or European. The Democrats seem to be a centre-right party much like the UK Conservative party, and the Republicans seem to be far-right equivalents of a UKIP / BNP hybrid. Anything truly left-wing seems to get shouted down as 'well why don't you just live in Russia then'...

Crispy78 wrote:
I'm not convinced the US even has a left wing in politics, certainly not one recognisable as such to the average Brit or European. The Democrats seem to be a centre-right party much like the UK Conservative party, and the Republicans seem to be far-right equivalents of a UKIP / BNP hybrid. Anything truly left-wing seems to get shouted down as 'well why don't you just live in Russia then'...

The whole left vs right political paradigm is a joke anyway. Originally it meant monarchist vs republican. There is nothing consistent about makes a person "left" or "right".

Prior to Israel right wing meant anti-semetic and left meant pro-semetic. Since Israel that has reversed.

Mandatory free secular state education was a right wing policy when first introduced in UK by lobbyists for industry in an effort to curb the influence of left wing Christianity now it is claimed as sacred turf by the left.

Marx was a massive racist against "inferior" races, but now leftists are only racist against white people.

Freetrade used to be a left wing policy and protectionism a right wing policy now that has reversed and may reverse again with "right wing" Trump being protectionist and "left wing" democrats being pro-global trade.

left vs right is a garbage concept for politics.

 SolarCross wrote:
The whole left vs right political paradigm is a joke anyway. Originally it meant monarchist vs republican. There is nothing consistent about makes a person "left" or "right".

Left - Progressive, favoring using legislation/the government in general to encourage equality, narrowing of the wealth gap, and equal growth.
Right - Regressive or conservative, favoring laws based on past events and religion. Believes in social darwinism in respect to economic and social policy.

Prior to Israel right wing meant anti-semetic and left meant pro-semetic. Since Israel that has reversed.

Are you seriously calling the left anti-semetic? Not supporting Israel's human rights abuses does not an anti-semite make. Additionally, Israel is supported by the right partially because its existence (gathering of Jewish peoples) is necessary for the "end of days".

Marx was a massive racist against "inferior" races, but now leftists are only racist against white people.

This is total bs. The majority of "leftists" don't follow Marx, and only a tiny minority actually follow that "racist against whites" crap.

 Verviedi wrote:

Left - Progressive, favoring using legislation/the government in general to encourage equality, narrowing of the wealth gap, and equal growth.
Right - Regressive or conservative, favoring laws based on past events and religion. Believes in social darwinism in respect to economic and social policy.

Well that is A definition, a really gakky one, but one none the less.

It's a definition I came up with at 10:00 AM without access to any proper sources whatsoever. Give me some credit here.

 Verviedi wrote:

Left - Progressive, favoring using legislation/the government in general to encourage equality, narrowing of the wealth gap, and equal growth.
Right - Regressive or conservative, favoring laws based on past events and religion. Believes in social darwinism in respect to economic and social policy.

That as a definition might work for the US political scene from 1980 to 1990 ish, it wouldn't work at all for the French revolution or the English Civil War or the Thirty Years War, the 17th century war between the mughals and the persians, the conquest of China by the mongols, 19th century British Empire, or the Pelopenisian War.

Now in the 21st century it will be wrong again.

 Verviedi wrote:

Prior to Israel right wing meant anti-semetic and left meant pro-semetic. Since Israel that has reversed.

Are you seriously calling the left anti-semetic? Not supporting Israel's human rights abuses does not an anti-semite make. Additionally, Israel is supported by the right partially because its existence (gathering of Jewish peoples) is necessary for the "end of days".

Anti-semitism is increasingly becoming a feature of leftist rhetoric as they increasingly ally with Islamists. The US strategic thinkers support Isreal for the same reason that the British & French allied with them during the suez crisis, to keep the Suez canal safe from politically irresponsible players in the arab world.

Marx was a massive racist against "inferior" races, but now leftists are only racist against white people.

 Verviedi wrote:

This is total bs. The majority of "leftists" don't follow Marx, and only a tiny minority actually follow that "racist against whites" crap.

The majority of leftists indeed no longer foillow marx but then he was a creature of the 19th century and leftism back then is different entirely to lefitism now, which is my point!

 SolarCross wrote:
That as a definition might work for the US political scene from 1980 to 1990 ish, it wouldn't work at all for the French revolution or the English Civil War or the Thirty Years War, the 17th century war between the mughals and the persians, the conquest of China by the mongols, 19th century British Empire, or the Pelopenisian War.

Do you know from where the “left-wing” and “right-wing” expression comes from?
Hint, I bolded it.
For everything before this, the definition doesn't apply (though sometime analogy might?).
And back then, the definition is not really far off…

 SolarCross wrote:
Anti-semitism is increasingly becoming a feature of leftist rhetoric as they increasingly ally with Islamists.

Islamists are pure right-wingers. The fact a few complete idiots are allying themselves with the Muslim far-right doesn't mean that far-right ideas are leftist now.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:
Anti-semitism is increasingly becoming a feature of leftist rhetoric as they increasingly ally with Islamists.

Islamists are pure right-wingers. The fact a few complete idiots are allying themselves with the Muslim far-right doesn't mean that far-right ideas are leftist now.

I think that by the time anyone reaches the point of no return, by allying themselves with Islamic Extremists, their whole principle of if they were left or right are totally out the window. All that remains is an extremist view on everything.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:
That as a definition might work for the US political scene from 1980 to 1990 ish, it wouldn't work at all for the French revolution or the English Civil War or the Thirty Years War, the 17th century war between the mughals and the persians, the conquest of China by the mongols, 19th century British Empire, or the Pelopenisian War.

Do you know from where the “left-wing” and “right-wing” expression comes from?
Hint, I bolded it.
For everything before this, the definition doesn't apply (though sometime analogy might?).
And back then, the definition is not really far off…

Of course I know, I already said a number of posts back that originally "left wing" meant republicanism and "right wing" meant monarchism and this came about from an accident of seating arrangements during the French revolution. Care to guess how many republicans there are in the UK now (or ever)? There are about 4 and 2 of them are not really sure.. Care to guess how many monarchists there are in the US now? There are about 4 and 2 of them are not really sure... So then the UK is MASSIVELY ULTRA FAR RIGHT WING and the US is MASSIVELY ULTRA FAR LEFT WING? LOL. It does not work. So yes the left v right thing is purest garbage and the reason is far too many policy positions have been tacked on each one over time that they don't make sense anymore. If the simple left vs right thing still meant the simple republican vs monarchist it would be fine and it would work for the past before the french revolution: ie the roman republic's transition to a imperial monarchy by the maneuvers of right wingers like Julius Caeser and Augustus Caeser was a clear case of a massive progression from left to right.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:
Anti-semitism is increasingly becoming a feature of leftist rhetoric as they increasingly ally with Islamists.

Islamists are pure right-wingers. The fact a few complete idiots are allying themselves with the Muslim far-right doesn't mean that far-right ideas are leftist now.

You must be an american then. In Europe from one end to the other the substance of leftists are clearly and vocally allied with the Islamists. Remember the ULTRA FAR LEFT republican US doesn't have a real left wing just two wing parties (LOL, whereas predominatly ULTRA FAR RIGHT monarchist europeans have bucket loads of the real red flag waving traitor leftists. Europe's Left (or is it right?) actually defines what is left (or is it right?) so if they allied with the Islamists then that is what the left has done and it isnt' just a few left-wingers.

I really dispute that Islamists are pure right wingers, many probably most are republicans. Take the Iranian Islamic revolution wherein the Iranian monarchy was overthrown by Islamic republicans. Care to take a wild guess as to who was left and who was right wing in that revolution?

Clearly the Shah and his supporters were right wing because they were monarchists and the revolutionaries were leftists because they were republicans.

Oh but wait! somebody randomly decided that secularism was left wing now and religiosity was right wing now. So then the secular regime of the monarchy was actually left wing and the republican revolutionaries right wing?

Oh but wait! somebody randomly decided that being open to international business was right wing and that being closed to international business was left wing so that would make the shah right wing and the revolutionaries left wing again.

Oh but wait! Somebody randomly decided that social liberalism and women's rights are now left wing and that strict gender segregation and restrictive sexual mores are right wing but then that would make the Shah a leftist again and the revolutionaries right wingers... Oh how confusting! See it is garbage.. left vs right means nothing at all.

 SolarCross wrote:
Of course I know, I already said a number of posts back that originally "left wing" meant republicanism and "right wing" meant monarchism

So, let's check the definition given by Verviedi:

Left - Progressive, favoring using legislation/the government in general to encourage equality, narrowing of the wealth gap, and equal growth.
Right - Regressive or conservative, favoring laws based on past events and religion. Believes in social darwinism in respect to economic and social policy.

The republicans were progressive, and did favor legislation and the government in general to encourage equality (the end of privileges and all that).
The monarchists were regressive/conservative, favoring laws based on past events and religion (the king was supposedly put in charge by god at the time). Though I agree that the right didn't have this “social darwinism” aspect yet.

 SolarCross wrote:
You must be an american then.

No, the flag next to my name is accurate.

 SolarCross wrote:
In Europe from one end to the other the substance of leftists are clearly and vocally allied with the Islamists.

Tell that to Charlie Hebdo. I dare you.

 SolarCross wrote:
Take the Iranian Islamic revolution wherein the Iranian monarchy was overthrown by Islamic republicans.

Sure. A good old republic with a supreme leader who has all the real power and whose position is literally for life. It's nice to play with word and all but that republic is definitely not a democracy.

 SolarCross wrote:
Oh but wait! somebody randomly decided that secularism was left wing now and religiosity was right wing now.

It was already the case by the French revolution, so you have a weird definition of “new”.

So are you saying Pahlavi Shah was a left winger?

The US establishment is predominantly left wing?

The USSR was right wing because of their persecution of homosexuals?

When Stalin purged all the jews out of the bolshevik party and secret police he was a right winger then but would be a left winger now?

Chavez claimed to be a practicing Catholic and also visited the pope, so I guess he was a right winger.

Which country is more "progressive" right wing Kingdom of Japan or left wing Republic of Cuba?

Oh wait that is another word that doessn't mean what it used to.. progress was a word that was used as a watchword by British Industrialists way back when Queen Victoria sat on the throne. Britain then was the first modern country, modernity was our invention and all the world wanted to follow us. So we were the bleeding edge of progress, because progress then meant rapidly improving science, engineering, industry and commerce. Now "progress" has been conscripted by leftists to mean something else. It means becoming more leftist and nothing else. So progress is becoming leftist and leftists are progressive. To the left of what? Left of the right! Progressing to what? More leftism.. In practical terms it could be progress to mass starvation as with Holdomor or progress to totalitarianism or progress to mass unemployement as with Spain and Greece today, progress towards mass censorship.. but none of that matters as long as it is progess towards leftism whatever that is.



So much progress!

 SolarCross wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:

Left - Progressive, favoring using legislation/the government in general to encourage equality, narrowing of the wealth gap, and equal growth.
Right - Regressive or conservative, favoring laws based on past events and religion. Believes in social darwinism in respect to economic and social policy.

That as a definition might work for the US political scene from 1980 to 1990 ish, it wouldn't work at all for the French revolution or the English Civil War or the Thirty Years War, the 17th century war between the mughals and the persians, the conquest of China by the mongols, 19th century British Empire, or the Pelopenisian War.

Now in the 21st century it will be wrong again.

 Verviedi wrote:

Prior to Israel right wing meant anti-semetic and left meant pro-semetic. Since Israel that has reversed.

Are you seriously calling the left anti-semetic? Not supporting Israel's human rights abuses does not an anti-semite make. Additionally, Israel is supported by the right partially because its existence (gathering of Jewish peoples) is necessary for the "end of days".

Anti-semitism is increasingly becoming a feature of leftist rhetoric as they increasingly ally with Islamists.

Do you have any actual sources of this?

Being against supporting Israel's policy does not make one antisemitic.
The irony of your statement is impressive though, considering the right had a presidential candidate who got support from white nationalist groups that actually are antisemitic.

The US strategic thinkers support Isreal for the same reason that the British & French allied with them during the suez crisis, to keep the Suez canal safe from politically irresponsible players in the arab world.

Well actually, the "US strategic thinkers support Israel" because there is a very vocal lobby in the US that has painted Israel as being on the back foot, constantly on the verge of being destroyed.

Marx was a massive racist against "inferior" races, but now leftists are only racist against white people.

 Verviedi wrote:

This is total bs. The majority of "leftists" don't follow Marx, and only a tiny minority actually follow that "racist against whites" crap.

The majority of leftists indeed no longer foillow marx but then he was a creature of the 19th century and leftism back then is different entirely to lefitism now, which is my point!

Pretty sure that your "point" was to sling mud by trying to paint left-leaning ideologists with Marxists.

I could say that the right have aligned themselves with Islamic extremists, given that both are attempting to set up a rule of law codified by religion. It doesn't make it true--it just opens up comparison as both have done similar things.

Wow, this thread is certainly going south...

I'm left wing by the way. It has no effect on or is affected by the political leanings of the people I game things with. We leave our politics at the door, but generally we agree on most things, and beg to differ on others.