Are we creating a generation of victims?

[Batou667]

I'm of the opinion that a lot of contemporary thought and (semi-)public discourse is now tinted by the lens of social justice and rigid, over-applied concepts like privilege and power dynamics. Although social justice is it itself a well-intentioned movement it's created a race to the bottom - there's moral high-ground, recognition, and even a certain type of prestige now linked to minority status, and as a result people are competing to distance themselves from the majority (because the majority is privileged, and there's nothing worse than that) by inventing all kinds of silly labels and imagined oppression.

It taps into the same kind of easy, feel-good inaction as slactivism does - complaining is easier than changing, raising awareness is cheaper than donating money, painting yourself as helpless is easier than offering help. It also dovetails with the nasty and vindictive kind of Tall Poppy thinking associated with social science's prevailing ethos of cultural Marxism, where any deviation from the baseline is seen as proof-positive of either being privileged or marginalised - and because everybody is created equal, any inequality of outcome is to be viewed suspiciously.

In much of the West there has always existed a culture of rooting for the underdog. As the mainstream becomes more politically liberal, that compounds the situation by actively rewarding the underdog - financially, in the case of welfare, academically and vocationally, through affirmative action and quotas, and socially, through the gradual promotion of "Tumblr values" - it's more important to try than to succeed, bravery is more important than beauty, it's more noble to accept than to strive for better, everywhere is a "safe space", and disagreement is a hate crime.

That's not to take anything away from people who are genuinely worse-off, marginalised, victims of abuse, etc. But the well has been thoroughly poisoned by the politicization of victim culture.

(In my humble opinion.)

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

That's not to take anything away from people who are genuinely worse-off, marginalised, victims of abuse, etc. But the well has been thoroughly poisoned by the politicization of victim culture.

Has there ever been a time when the well was not poisoned, though? From religious patriarchies to feudal overlords, the balance of favor is always being tipped one way or the other. It's not the first time the downtrodden have received an elevated status, that was the case in monastic societies however this might be the first time they are succeeding in using it for material privilege. Unknowingly or not. I can honestly see it getting to the point where most (>50%) see themselves as marginalised in some way, and so there is no-one to tip the balance back the other way.

 

[Phasmal]

Jesus christ, you and Phasmal will pick apart anything I say if you don't like an example I pull out of my ass to finish my point.

Dude, you didn't even reply to me.

I thought what you said was dumb, so I quoted you to point that out. I didn't realize this was an agree-fest with no discourse allowed.

Really, I just re-read my own post to try and see what you could find so objectionable.

The idea that women don't own the Gilmore Girls (and by extension men don't own video games)? No, that's just silly.

The idea that people can complain about things they love? That'd just be bizarre.

I'll just be over here picking my own post apart.

 

[Signa]

Jesus christ, you and Phasmal will pick apart anything I say if you don't like an example I pull out of my ass to finish my point.

Dude, you didn't even reply to me.

I thought what you said was dumb, so I quoted you to point that out. I didn't realize this was an agree-fest with no discourse allowed.

Really, I just re-read my own post to try and see what you could find so objectionable.

The idea that women don't own the Gilmore Girls (and by extension men don't own video games)? No, that's just silly.

The idea that people can complain about things they love? That'd just be bizarre.

I'll just be over here picking my own post apart.

You said you took issue with that one part of the whole post, and I had no attachment to what I said. I could have picked Oprah or... well fuck, I don't KNOW! That part of my point wasn't WHAT woman watch, just that they have shows that are geared for what they like, and I'm not going to say that it needs changing based on what I like. I wasn't ready to get into discussing that tiny part with you in a thread about people being whiny and "victims"

Then Zach had to start pretending I didn't mean what I said because he disagrees with my point...

 

[cypher-raige]

1. Have you found a clip of a psychologist clearly stating that Rodgers was "disturbed" or any other evidence of so? Because, he does appear to be like many other guys I come across, feeling that they had "earned" sex a long time ago. The actions of things he had done may be extreme or disturbed, but I can find a good portion of that mindset in even close friends and family. My grandpa even thought that women should have give him "some" because he kind of viewed Rodgers as me and actually thought he was a peculiar and isolated nice guy that didn't get his way and feared I might become that way.

His beliefs aren't important. What's important are his actions.
His peers in college may have had similar mindset. What sets Elliot apart is that he called himself a God and shot up a school.
That's what tells me he's a damaged person.

Based on his actions, I believe he was a narcissist (which is a personality disorder).
In extreme cases, narcissists will become violent when they don't get what they want.
Elliot was diagnosed with autism which made him socially awkward and marginalised. This only exacerbated the problem.

Blaming media/pop culture for mass shootings is an argument that Jack Thompson lost years ago.
But I have seen Feminists argue that he was perfectly sane until he was corrupted by Seth Rogen movies, Mass Effect and Dudebro culture. History doesn't repeat itself. People do.

 

[jacob idstrom]

There are some people on the internet who take social justice to a ridiculous degree, what do you expect? Every thing on the internet is taken to a ridiculous degree by one group or another. Just because some person on tumbler or wherever said something dumb that does not make every "social justice issue" equally pointless. I would argue we are creating a generation of cynical contrarians, rather then victims.

 

[Skatologist]

@cypher-raige: "His beliefs aren't important."... are you serious? I'd assume you would think the beliefs of Scott Roeder, Michael Page, the 9/11 hijackers, and other mass killers are equally as unimportant if you were to be consistent with that statement. If you want to focus on the "How" aspect of mass killings, be my guest, just don't blame those asking "Why". Does him calling himself a God and taking action make him different than a majority of people around him? Yes, but that doesn't mean people bringing up what he thought is off limits or that showing what's wrong with extremists can not also show what is wrong with the moderates, my grandpa and other sympathizers being examples. I like how you say that extreme narcissism can lead to what Rodgers did, but not extreme racism or sexism or any other -ism, which can easily be said as doing the same for anyone. Also, narcissism has no form of solid treatment currently excluding years of therapy, so it's near impossible o treat unless it has a unique origin. I'd like a link where you actually say these feminists thought he was completely sane and normal before being exposed to what you said, and not make mention that he didn't appear as a narcissit as you said.

I'll let some videos do some more talking for me.


the site linked in the video: http://jezebel.com/lessons-from-a-day-spent-with-the-ucsb-shooters-awful-f-1582884301





I'm guessing most of that was TLTW, so I'll bring out my biggest gripes.

You know what the worsts parts of this is? I've met peers like Rodgers, all the way down to planning how to take over the world and idolizing mass killers, calling all women they don't personally admire as sluts,and having this narcissistic attitude of being above everyone else. These guys weren't even just peers, one considered me a close friend and ally, and at times, I was almost persuaded by that jerk.
I refuse to think that the misogyny in these mens' minds is anymore a mental disorder than extreme antisemitism or racism, or that you can't be mentally disturbed and a bigot at the same time, but that's just me. I'll await a response.

 

[cypher-raige]

I'll await a response.

I'm not going to argue with a lot of what you said as I mostly agree.

My main problem is the social-justice crowd were denying that Elliot had any mental illness. Because mental illness is fetishised and held as a badge of honor among those people and the stigma hurt their feelings.
Instead they decided to do the Jack Thompson thing of blaming art and culture for corrupting men.

Sorry, I'm not reading Jezebel or those watching videos.
Also, embedding videos into a thread and letting them do the talking for you doesn't help you and de-values what the author of the video was trying to say. I want to hear your opinion not their's.

I will address a few of your points.

"His beliefs aren't important."... are you serious?"

I thought you were referring to college frat boys. Who aren't going to go on a Columbine style shooting if they get rejected by a female.

Does him calling himself a God and taking action make him different than a majority of people around him?

Un-ironically calling yourself a God will lead people to believe you are a fruitcake.

I like how you say that extreme narcissism can lead to what Rodgers did, but not extreme racism or sexism or any other -ism, which can easily be said as doing the same for anyone.

A lot of people have beliefs like that. Suffering from a personality disorder like that will increase the likelyhood they will act out whatever harm they want to commit against particular groups of people.

I'd like a link where you actually say these feminists thought he was completely sane and normal before being exposed to what you said

Here is an example.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/in-a-final-videotaped-message-a-sad-reflection-of-the-sexist-stories-we-so-often-see-on-screen/2014/05/25/dec7e7ea-e40d-11e3-afc6-a1dd9407abcf_story.html
And response from Seth Rogen

Spoiler

A lot of Feminists want to interpret this shooting as patriarchy/rape-culture teaching men to hate women and politicise it to promote Feminism.
Which is why I have a problem with them.

and not make mention that he didn't appear as a narcissit as you said.

He wasn't diagnosed with anything because people didn't pick up on his behavior until it was too late.

I believe myself to be a good judge of character and body language and I believe him to be exhibit the traits of a narcissist.
Which would explain his behavior. Getting angry when he didn't get what he wanted which ended in death for these college kids. I have seen cases like this before.

You don't have to be mentally ill to be a mass shooter. I believe Anders Brevik was simply a cold-blooded killer.
Elliot Roger was not, he a damaged person. I saw his video. Same deal with the VA tech shooter.

You know what the worsts parts of this is? I've met peers like Rodgers, all the way down to planning how to take over the world and idolizing mass killers, calling all women they don't personally admire as sluts,and having this narcissistic attitude of being above everyone else. These guys weren't even just peers, one considered me a close friend and ally, and at times, I was almost persuaded by that jerk.

Why do you hang around those kind of people?

I refuse to think that the misogyny in these mens' minds is anymore a mental disorder than extreme antisemitism or racism, or that you can't be mentally disturbed and a bigot at the same time, but that's just me. I'll await a response.

They can be both and it can be a deadly combination.

 

[Erttheking]

I think what is more damaging is the fact that people are becoming irresponsible and always attributing things to an outside factor. At some point you either have to step up and take some responsibility for your plight, or getting out of it, rather than just attributing it to something vague like "cultural misogynyny" "the patriarchy" etc.

Another super old argument which will adapt itself to the times. Come on. This was used in the 50s and 60s against civil rights advocates, because they weren't taking responsibility, either.

It's nice to say "take responsibility and stop blaming X" but you might as well be calling people lazy or use some other buzz word intended to shut down the argument.

The difference here is that the Civil Rights Movement were fighting for basic human rights in a racist society. We do not live in a misogynistic society, women etc. (there's actually a case for gay/trans people here I admit) have basic human rights are are trying to change vague social concepts like "sexualised bodies".

Frankly this sounds like the "Appeal to worse problems" fallacy. It's operating on the same logic that if you step on a rusty nail and get tetanus you can't complain because there's someone in the world struggling to live as a quadriplegic. And while my sympathy goes out to all the quadriplegic, you need to drive the guy with tetanus to the hospital right the hell now.

People can care about more than one problem at the same time. It's why I can be concerned about the status of gay marriage AND the representation of homosexuals in video games.

 

[Erttheking]

snip

Are you just going to keep putting words in my mouth or attacking me for the words I chose? You don't seem convinced that I believe what I believe. I'm not some parrot that says things because others said them first. I'm not going to explain it again, because you'll focus more on my word choice and not the actual point I was making.

Jesus christ, you and Phasmal will pick apart anything I say if you don't like an example I pull out of my ass to finish my point.

You know, I read her posts and she was making very clear points directed at the points that you made. Very well thought out ones as well.

Then Zach had to start pretending I didn't mean what I said because he disagrees with my point...

Frankly it sounds like you're misinterpreting what she's saying. I'm not even sure where you're coming from with this point.

 

[Nowhere Man]

I'm of the opinion that a lot of contemporary thought and (semi-)public discourse is now tinted by the lens of social justice and rigid, over-applied concepts like privilege and power dynamics. Although social justice is it itself a well-intentioned movement it's created a race to the bottom - there's moral high-ground, recognition, and even a certain type of prestige now linked to minority status, and as a result people are competing to distance themselves from the majority (because the majority is privileged, and there's nothing worse than that) by inventing all kinds of silly labels and imagined oppression.

It taps into the same kind of easy, feel-good inaction as slactivism does - complaining is easier than changing, raising awareness is cheaper than donating money, painting yourself as helpless is easier than offering help. It also dovetails with the nasty and vindictive kind of Tall Poppy thinking associated with social science's prevailing ethos of cultural Marxism, where any deviation from the baseline is seen as proof-positive of either being privileged or marginalised - and because everybody is created equal, any inequality of outcome is to be viewed suspiciously.

In much of the West there has always existed a culture of rooting for the underdog. As the mainstream becomes more politically liberal, that compounds the situation by actively rewarding the underdog - financially, in the case of welfare, academically and vocationally, through affirmative action and quotas, and socially, through the gradual promotion of "Tumblr values" - it's more important to try than to succeed, bravery is more important than beauty, it's more noble to accept than to strive for better, everywhere is a "safe space", and disagreement is a hate crime.

That's not to take anything away from people who are genuinely worse-off, marginalised, victims of abuse, etc. But the well has been thoroughly poisoned by the politicization of victim culture.

(In my humble opinion.)

This guy gets it. Bravo. I tend to stay away from these kind of threads because I end up rolling my eyes harder and harder with mostly each post and that can get pretty headache inducing. Interjecting my opinions would invite a firestorm that I really don't feel like having to deal with since everyone's already made up their mind on these kind of matters and we're all just yelling against the wind. But it really is a "you must think this way or you are wrong and a terrible terrible human being" situation when it comes to these kind of things.

Thank you for presenting a logical and objective overview. I really couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Dango]

No, it just seems like it because teenagers in every generation have had similar sentiments, this generation just has the internet to talk about it though.

 

[Phasmal]

You said you took issue with that one part of the whole post, and I had no attachment to what I said. I could have picked Oprah or... well fuck, I don't KNOW! That part of my point wasn't WHAT woman watch, just that they have shows that are geared for what they like, and I'm not going to say that it needs changing based on what I like. I wasn't ready to get into discussing that tiny part with you in a thread about people being whiny and "victims"

I think you missed my point. Twice.

My issue isn't you said Gilmore Girls.
My issue is you seem to have picked a random example of `women things for women` and implied that games are `men things for men`, which is what I took issue with.

Hopefully that makes my point more clear.

 

[Signa]

You said you took issue with that one part of the whole post, and I had no attachment to what I said. I could have picked Oprah or... well fuck, I don't KNOW! That part of my point wasn't WHAT woman watch, just that they have shows that are geared for what they like, and I'm not going to say that it needs changing based on what I like. I wasn't ready to get into discussing that tiny part with you in a thread about people being whiny and "victims"

I think you missed my point. Twice.

My issue isn't you said Gilmore Girls.
My issue is you seem to have picked a random example of `women things for women` and implied that games are `men things for men`, which is what I took issue with.

Hopefully that makes my point more clear.

I guess that does make more sense. I don't entirely agree, but mostly on the basis that there are things that I just simply don't enjoy, but A LOT of other people do. A good unisex example would be Game of Thrones. I'd be a lot more interested in it if they turned up the fantasy and turned down the sex and nudity, but I'm not going to tell them they are wrong for making the show they way they have, and I'm not going to tell fans to stop enjoying it either. It's just not for me.

 

[Phasmal]

I guess that does make more sense. I don't entirely agree, but mostly on the basis that there are things that I just simply don't enjoy, but A LOT of other people do. A good unisex example would be Game of Thrones. I'd be a lot more interested in it if they turned up the fantasy and turned down the sex and nudity, but I'm not going to tell them they are wrong for making the show they way they have, and I'm not going to tell fans to stop enjoying it either. It's just not for me.

I don't know if I agree.
From all your examples you are using, you are approaching it as a non-fan wanting things to change, which is not what's happening with games.

Trust me, me and other ladies wouldn't bother with all this if we weren't fans.

And I honestly can't remember the last time I told anyone not to enjoy something, and I'm probably one of the more prominent irritating feminists on this site, if I do say so myself.

I guess I'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Vegosiux]

I guess that does make more sense. I don't entirely agree, but mostly on the basis that there are things that I just simply don't enjoy, but A LOT of other people do. A good unisex example would be Game of Thrones. I'd be a lot more interested in it if they turned up the fantasy and turned down the sex and nudity, but I'm not going to tell them they are wrong for making the show they way they have, and I'm not going to tell fans to stop enjoying it either. It's just not for me.

I don't know if I agree.
From all your examples you are using, you are approaching it as a non-fan wanting things to change, which is not what's happening with games.

Trust me, me and other ladies wouldn't bother with all this if we weren't fans.

And I honestly can't remember the last time I told anyone not to enjoy something, and I'm probably one of the more prominent irritating feminists on this site, if I do say so myself.

I guess I'll just have to agree to disagree.

Thing is, "fan of videogames" is just a too broad term to use. it's literally equivalent in analogy to "fan of TV shows". Of course not every TV show, or every game will cater to you!

Yet I fail to see the commotion about how no (or not enough) reality show features minorities (honestly, link me some examples if you have them), or how come there's no (or not enough) fat people in fashion shows.

 

[Phasmal]

Thing is, "fan of videogames" is just a too broad term to use. it's literally equivalent in analogy to "fan of TV shows". Of course not every TV show, or every game will cater to you!

Yet I fail to see the commotion about how no (or not enough) reality show features minorities (honestly, link me some examples if you have them), or how come there's no (or not enough) fat people in fashion shows.

Ok, I'm a fan of triple-A games. I've got a taste for western RPGS. I enjoy an FPS. Sandbox games are my kinda thing. Beat-em-ups are super fun. I've been known to indulge in an RTS from time to time. JRPGS are all right with me. Driving games are pretty cool too.
That's a little less broad for you.

I'm not sure what you're driving at? That the people who are complaining need to give their gaming resumé cause `fan of video games` is too broad?

Also- there's no pushback towards men in TV. People don't freak out when they see a guy watching TV. People don't assume TV is a guy thing (or really a girl thing either). I'd like gaming to be more like that.

And honestly reality shows or fashion shows could not be further from things I care about.

 

[Vegosiux]

Ok, I'm a fan of triple-A games. I've got a taste for western RPGS. I enjoy an FPS. Sandbox games are my kinda thing. Beat-em-ups are super fun. I've been known to indulge in an RTS from time to time. JRPGS are all right with me. Driving games are pretty cool too.
That's a little less broad for you.

I'm not sure what you're driving at? That the people who are complaining need to give their gaming resumé cause `fan of video games` is too broad?

Not at all. I'm saying that if you're a fan of something that broad, there's simply so much variety to that "something" that you'll likely run into parts you don't like, so your complaints should be more specific.

"Hey, I've played 20 first person games this year and all of them wanted me to play a bloke" is different than "I can't play anything other than a guy in any game I've tried!"

In the latter case, I'll simply shove a lot of games that don't have a male protagonist at you without caring what genre you actually like. In the former case, I'll say "You know, that bugs me too, I wanna play a woman in a first-person game myself."

 

[Phasmal]

Not at all. I'm saying that if you're a fan of something that broad, there's simply so much variety to that "something" that you'll likely run into parts you don't like, so your complaints should be more specific.

"Hey, I've played 20 first person games this year and all of them wanted me to play a bloke" is different than "I can't play anything other than a guy in any game I've tried!"

In the latter case, I'll simply shove a lot of games that don't have a male protagonist at you without caring what genre you actually like. In the former case, I'll say "You know, that bugs me too, I wanna play a woman in a first-person game myself."

Absolutely you run into stuff you don't like. Gamers are notorious complainers anyway. You could probably find any aspect of any game and find someone who is unhappy with it.

Eh, as for myself, I think my complaints have always been pretty specific (I hope so, I've been barking up this tree for like ten years).

And I actually just stopped to think if I have any games that are first person with lady protags. Nope. Sucks. Then again I only have like one FPS right now because if I put a game down for more than two seconds my boyfriend trades it in.

I get these conversations can be annoying if you don't care about gender in games.
But equally, if you don't care about it, it's pretty easy for you. You can just avoid the discussions and play the games you like.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Well not real victims, just self created victims. For instance is their being a female Assassin Creed really that big a deal to any of our lives? A black Lara Croft? A square Pacman? Mario being an electrician? Link being gay? Its easy to moan about stuff online but none of it effects our offline lives one bit.