Os "liberalismos" dos fãs de jogos de computador

Há tempos, a revista Reason fez uma pesquisa sobre as posições políticas dos fãs de jogos de computador, concluindo que eles se dizem largamente "liberals" (isto é, de esquerda), mas que em muitos assuntos eles são "libertarians" (isto é, liberais):

Political operatives looking to explore gamers as a voting bloc should know that gamers are more likely to identify themselves as independent than non-gamers and also are less likely to identify as Republicans.

When independent gamers are pushed to identify leanings, they are more likely to lean leftward to the Democrats.

Mapping onto their partisanship, gamers are significantly less conservative and more liberal than those who never play video games. This can't be wholly accounted for by the fact that gamers trend younger. Even within age groups, gamers lean more liberal and less conservative than their non-gaming peers.

But while they may lean more liberal, that doesn't necessarily mean gamers are fans of a centrally planned government to deal with everybody's problems. Gamers agree with non-gamers in supporting free market solutions over government intervention when possible, 52 to 43 percent. Gamers also believe (57 percent) that government is often an impediment in people's ability to succeed. And 54 percent disagree with President Barack Obama's views on the role of government.

Don't Tell Me How to Play

If there's any one trend to take away from a poll looking at gamers it's that gamers don't like to be told what to do with their lives. Again, they may describe themselves as liberal, but they do not like government policies that control individual life choices, like what products they can purchase or consume. Video games are all about making choices, right? That's one mentality that does carry over in real life (unlike the fear that games make people more violent). Our polls show that many government bans on products or activities like caffeinated energy drinks or online gambling are already disliked by Americans, regardless of gaming habits. But for gamers, this dislike of nanny-style regulation is enhanced—upgraded if you will. For every single poll question where we asked whether the government should allow people to own, consume, or use certain products or services that are currently a focus of debate, gamers are more likely to say yes than non-gamers. In only one question did gamers support a government ban, for 3D-printed guns. But even then, 42 percent of gamers still supported allowing people to print them, compared to 26 percent of non-gamers.

Probably the biggest gap was the gamer support for allowing use of bitcoin as a currency—55 percent for gamers; 30 percent for non-gamers. This example is particularly interesting because a majority of gamers and non-gamers alike knew very little or nothing at all about bitcoin. But non-gamers appear more likely to call for government regulations or a ban on a product they've never heard of than gamers.

Gamers Concerned About Police Power, Accountability

Though gamers may love the idea of having Four Loko and marijuana delivered to them by drones so they can focus on improving their Call of Duty skills, they are much more reluctant than non-gamers to give police the authority to use them and are more concerned than non-gamers about militarization of police (though even non-gamers are concerned about the trend). Seventy percent of gamers think drones and miitary tools in the hands of police goes too far. Only 57 percent of non-gamers agreed.

Furthermore gamers are much more likely to believe that police are not held accountable for misconduct. Only 33 percent of gamers think police are punished for misconduct, compared to 51 percent of non-gamers. Though three-quarters of gamers have a positive view of the police, they're much less likely to believe the bad apples are properly disposed of.

Noto é que a maior parte dos exemplos que a Reason dá para indicar uma tendência "libertarian" entre os "gamers" têm a ver, ou com questões de o Estado limitar a liberdade dos individuos para o proteger deles próprios, ou com questões de "lei e ordem" (não vejo praticamente questões relacionadas com politicas de distribuição da riqueza ou de proteção ambiental) - tal não me parece entrar em contradição com o seu proclamado "liberalism", já que é o género de posição que há uns anos atrás era mais ou menos a posição padrão de muita esquerda e dos "liberals" dos EUA (combinando a intervenção estatal na economia com a defesa das liberdades civis e a tolerância para com os estilos de vida alternativos que não afetem terceiros), embora é verdade que de há uns anos para cá a esquerda tem vindo a ser colonizada pelos defensores da "vida saudável" (nos EUA, parece-me que tal tem vindo associado à substituição de "liberal" por "progressive" como termo de auto-designação)