|
Edited on Mon Nov-01-10 06:33 AM by RandomThoughts
Making it a game removes the concept of one side winning being a better result.
In a sporting collective contest when one side plays against another, it really does not matter who wins, it is just something to watch, there are no real effects to society. So if they can think of politics that way, either the politics do not have control of policy, the oligarchy system, or people are made to think it is a game to not think of the consequences.
Part of that is that the systems that want them to think it is a game remove them from contact with people effected by such decisions, or remove their empathy by a few different methods, from that, the effects have no meaning to many of them. People die, people live, some get sick, some work many hours, some live in poverty, doesn't effect them, so it is just a game to watch, unless they stretch their empathy to the end results of what happens.
And it is not a condemnation of them, it is a form of training, ever heard where some train doctors not to feel for their patience, same thing, if they feel for those they report on, their are some that think it will change their reporting. But that is only if the feeling for people is not why they are there. It is my belief that their are many reasons to be a journalist, for fame, for money, or to make a difference. And many do feel and do care, but like all people, there are many sizes and distributions of empathy circles. I think it is more an isolation from areas and concepts that can be improved, so as to not see the need for improvements.
The concept that elections matter, and votes matter. As does having systems of information dispersal that are still connected to society and the different difficulties that need to be corrected.
|