|
The staff of RPGamer would like you to know that the opinions expressed in this column do not represent the viewpoint of the editorials editor, the editorial staff, or RPGamer. Nor, in fact, do the opinions expressed in this column necessarily represent those of the author. Wait, what was that? Yes, you heard me correctly: the opinions expressed in this column do not necessarily represent those of the author.
I think there's a tendency to, when reading an editorial, make the assumptive leap that one is reading the honest and authentic viewpoints of the author. It's necessary to make a distinction in one's mind, however: an editorial is just an argument, a collection of opinions, but there is no dictum which states that the opinions be agreed with or believed.
As a matter of fact, some of the most enjoyable and entertaining arguments to craft are those with which the author disagrees. When this is done, it becomes less a matter of convincing or swaying the points of view of others so that they share the author's own opinion -- a situation which is personal, and thus a tainted and biased argument. Instead, it becomes something much more pure -- an argument in its most elemental form, untethered from personal interests; it is an argument molded not for such mundane goals as convincing or proving, but merely for the more transcendental aim of arguing.
Debate for debate's own sake! Try it sometime. It's much more enjoyable, and much more rewarding. I speak from personal experience when I say this, as I can confess that quite a few of the arguments I have presented in my own editorials have been divorced from my own actual opinions.
And so a word of caution, fair readers: the next time you browse through the editorials section and come upon some new argument -- whether vitriolic polemic or even-tempered reasoning -- don't be so sure anyone at all believes it; it could be all in good fun. This concludes our disclaimer.
|
RSS feed
iTunes
