Mason  🏃‍♂️ ✂️

I’m sort of concerned by the “it’s a game/LARPing” frame for Antifa v. Proud Boys — not because it’s not arguable, but because I think it confuses several possible definitions for “game.”

There’s an understanding of “game” by which *all* conflicts, from a couple’s mild arguments to world wars, are games. If there are incentives, a set of available moves, and actors to make them, you have a game. These can include *actual* violence.

And there’s the colloquial understanding of “game,” which rests on a much tighter set of mutually-understood rules, a clear group of players distinct from non-players, and transparent win/loss conditions. These can include *simulated* violence (e.g. LARPing, contact sports).

Antifa is playing a game by the 1st standard & not clearly playing a game by the 2nd. I enjoyed @primalpoly & @jmrphy’s interview, but I think it’s irresponsible to call this a game, introduce scattered elements of a colloquial “game” & leave it at that.https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/1145802255871856640 …

I DON’T think it’s wise to directly compare Antifa to LARPing, because it may give the impression that this “game” is bounded by a rule set that precludes killing. I don’t think Antifa & the similar groups they oppose have a group-level understanding of when the game should stop.

…but I DO think it’s wise to think about this in terms of game theory, to try to understand the meta-level rewards of battles that are clearly pointless on the object level.

To Antifa, Andy Ngo is an enemy, unique to all other journalists. It seems to me that he actually angers Antifa *more* than their stated targets. There’s an obvious reason for this. The meta-level rewards of pointless battles disappear when the pointlessness is made apparent.