PZ Myers... I am disappoint.

I suppose this could be taken as an objective lesson in the fact that sometimes, you should only spout off about what you know.

[pause for hypocrisy to fade out]

PZ Meyers, noted humanist, skeptic, atheist, and researcher of evolutionary developmental biology, has tossed his hat into the ring hosting an old/new battle of opinions. On one side, gamers, lead by Penny Arcade (who say that games can be art). On the other, wizened warlocks, lead by Roger Ebert (who says they cannot).

To summarize, Ebert, and now Meyers, seem to feel that it is appropriate to compare video games to chess, mahjong, or basketball, in terms of a means of expression. Tycho does not.

I don't want to speak to the debate at large. It's a ridiculous terminological dispute, with meaning apparently generated only as a side effect of more ponderous, pointless statements.
Define art one way, video games are included. Define it another way, they are not.
I've spoken here before about what a destructive influence different connotations of words have on reasonable discourse.
If someone, say Roger Ebert, starts with the definition that 'Art' includes only, "things that I'm interested in, and cannot have a winner or loser," then obviously video games will not be included. But this trods quite firmly upon the emotional toes of anyone that defines it as an emotionally engaging and significant piece of media.
The effect is doubly strong when you consider that despite it's nebulous definition, 'art' is something spoken of with reverence by most of humanity. I'll admit it, when beauty is captured in ways that inspire creativity and invoke my emotions, I call it art, and mean something great and numinous by that. It seems to be a word that encapsulates the meaning within a subset of our experiences, and these sorts of arguments seem an attack, an attempt to invalidate your experiences.

I seem to have ended up talking about it anyways. Not everyone gets what they want I suppose. But I just couldn't keep quiet after seeing statements as perplexing as: "imagine recording that game, and wanting to go back and watch the replay again sometime. That's where games fail as art."
I wonder speaking up like this is some kind of instinct. If I were an evolutionary psychologist, perhaps I'd say that it must have been advantageous to confront people spouting nonsense, to make sure they haven't eaten poisonous mushrooms.
Does this make sense to anyone else? Because to me the situation he is describing is a bit like saying that literature cannot be art because no one would want to listen to an audio recording of a person reading a book.

Internets is serious business.

So I've noticed this phenomenon, it occurs when people, particularly on the Internet, decide to have an intelligent, rational discussion about their beliefs in certain matters.

Yes, this does end in fire.

Typically, these individuals people have quite unremarkable and moderate opinions, which they will go on to state in relative terms to one another, and then continue into what some would call a "full and frank exchange of views".

It often happens that these people's positions are markedly similar to one another's (though don't try to tell them that!). Now, of course there are real differences of opinion here, but they're typically obscured by the way they're stated. Mostly, we state things in relative terms, but apply them to differing baselines.

Give me leave to tell a little story.
Alice and Bob are arguing about welfare affirmative-action Iraq abortion gun-control net-neutrality the price of apples.

Alice says, "I think apples are too expensive."
Bob says, "Apples should cost something."
They aren't specific and never say, "I think the apple should be two dollars," (we'll say it's three right now) which they both believe.
Bob is arguing against people who think apples should be free, and paid for with fairy dust.
Alice is arguing against people who want to jack the price of the apple up even further, to line their fat Corporate greed holes.
But they both think they're arguing at each other.

Then, this cross talk will also obscure other, real issues. (Bob, for instance, thinks genetically modified apples may not be safe, whereas Alice believes that in this particular instance the modifications are well understood. Both of these positions will be discussed, not in terms of the actual information of them, but as part of a larger position into which both are walling the other into caricatures of.)

There are complicating factors. For instance, Carol, who things apples should be one fifty, and Dave who thinks apples are fine at their current price. But Bob feels like a dick with nothing to say if he can only say "Um, one-fifty is too cheap," so it requires him to "demonize" Carol, and portray her as the communist she's not. (And vice versa.)

And of course, don't forget Eve, who really does think three bucks is too cheap for an apple, and Fred, who doesn't really think apples should be free, but says he does because he likes being a dick.


Now... I'm sure that while reading this, you've realized, quite correctly, that there's nothing particularly Earth shattering about this revelation. But I've written it all down because the fascinating ability of humans to store information externally can give rise to interesting insights.
Sure, it's obvious that there are a lot of people out there that think different than you do. Equally obviously, these people are wrong. But the next time you become upset with someone, or even find yourself nodding along to what they're saying, take a minute to figure out whether those words mean what you think they do. With perspective, a lot of disagreements disappear.