Are we creating a generation of victims?

[Erttheking]

Don't be a bigot, and if possible tell other bigots that mentality is only harmful to themselves.

First of all, it's harmful to others too. Secondly, I feel like if asking nicely was enough to make people drop hateful mindsets, there wouldn't be as nearly as many hateful people.

It is more harmful to themselves then anyone else. Once you realize that what they have to say matters much less.

The point is not to say you can change these people on a whim, not at all. The point is that is wasted effort. Holding a grudge will do you no services either. The point is to improve yourself, not by telling other people, but by doing it without worrying that your social circle will take notice.

Now in the case of the violent bigot, or the one prone to threatening, more extreme measures of avoidance or confrontation might be needed. This goes without saying, and depends entirely on the situation.

I don't follow.

I can get behind the concept of self improvement, but plenty of people in the world are convinced they're perfect just the way that they are.

Rather just not avoid someone who lashes out at people he dislikes. After all, it's only a matter of time before someone else falls into his aim.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Don't be a bigot, and if possible tell other bigots that mentality is only harmful to themselves.

First of all, it's harmful to others too. Secondly, I feel like if asking nicely was enough to make people drop hateful mindsets, there wouldn't be as nearly as many hateful people.

Exactly...I also like how negativity was condemned the line afterwards.

You cannot condemn bigotry without it being seen as negative by bigots, or by people who don't want to know.

You could, I guess, shut up and stop pointing out that problems exist, but that's not a solution in the eyes of anyone who cares about the problem.

 

[Erttheking]

Don't be a bigot, and if possible tell other bigots that mentality is only harmful to themselves.

First of all, it's harmful to others too. Secondly, I feel like if asking nicely was enough to make people drop hateful mindsets, there wouldn't be as nearly as many hateful people.

Exactly...I also like how negativity was condemned the line afterwards.

You cannot condemn bigotry without it being seen as negative by bigots, or by people who don't want to know.

You could, I guess, shut up and stop pointing out that problems exist, but that's not a solution in the eyes of anyone who cares about the problem.

Yeah...being silent about problems breeds complacency. Which is why I don't side with the "Just stop talking about these things already" crowd.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Don't be a bigot, and if possible tell other bigots that mentality is only harmful to themselves.

First of all, it's harmful to others too. Secondly, I feel like if asking nicely was enough to make people drop hateful mindsets, there wouldn't be as nearly as many hateful people.

Exactly...I also like how negativity was condemned the line afterwards.

You cannot condemn bigotry without it being seen as negative by bigots, or by people who don't want to know.

You could, I guess, shut up and stop pointing out that problems exist, but that's not a solution in the eyes of anyone who cares about the problem.

Yeah...being silent about problems breeds complacency. Which is why I don't side with the "Just stop talking about these things already" crowd.

Not an unusual reaction, unfortunately, but it's endlessly frustrating that the people doing it convince themselves that they have the moral high ground.

"I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

- Letter from Birmingham Jail, MLK

[small]Thanks to Madmonk12345 for finding this quote for me some time back in another thread[/small]

 

[Vegosiux]

Don't be a bigot, and if possible tell other bigots that mentality is only harmful to themselves.

First of all, it's harmful to others too. Secondly, I feel like if asking nicely was enough to make people drop hateful mindsets, there wouldn't be as nearly as many hateful people.

Exactly...I also like how negativity was condemned the line afterwards.

You cannot condemn bigotry without it being seen as negative by bigots, or by people who don't want to know.

You could, I guess, shut up and stop pointing out that problems exist, but that's not a solution in the eyes of anyone who cares about the problem.

Yeah...being silent about problems breeds complacency. Which is why I don't side with the "Just stop talking about these things already" crowd.

Not an unusual reaction, unfortunately, but it's endlessly frustrating that the people doing it convince themselves that they have the moral high ground.

"I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

- Letter from Birmingham Jail, MLK

[small]Thanks to Madmonk12345 for finding this quote for me some time back in another thread[/small]

Yeah, I've heard this one may times before. If I chase down a black person and kill them because they're black, I'm a better person than if I simply walk past them on the street and mind my own business.

I mean, I don't really understand the logic behind that, but if you say so, I guess?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Yeah, I've heard this one may times before. If I chase down a black person and kill them because they're black, I'm a better person than if I simply walk past them on the street and mind my own business.

I mean, I don't really understand the logic behind that

Probably because it's a particularly poor strawman that you've come up with there.

 

[Vegosiux]

Yeah, I've heard this one may times before. If I chase down a black person and kill them because they're black, I'm a better person than if I simply walk past them on the street and mind my own business.

I mean, I don't really understand the logic behind that

Probably because it's a particularly poor strawman that you've come up with there.

If you're implying the "moderate" and "indifferent" person is "the greatest problem", then that kind implies you think anyone who's not "moderate" and "indifferent" is "less of a problem".

You can't say something is the worst and at the same time that there are even worse things than that - that makes it "not the worst" by definition.

To say nothing of the fact that I've repeatedly run into people who use this argument literally the way I posted it which makes it even more silly.

 

[Uncle Comrade]

snip

You raise a very good point, reminds me of an issue a few months ago here in Britain, when some Subway stores (mostly ones in predominately Muslim areas) announced that they were altering the menu to better cater for Muslim customers. This was too much for some people, who immediately took to the internet with cries of "WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO CHANGE OUR WAYS FOR THEM? IF THEY DON'T LIKE IT EAT SOMEWHERE ELSE!" and so on, inevitably leading to more bigoted 'this is OUR country' ugliness. You're right, there are far too many people who will resist any sort of change, regardless of whether it affects them, because of this absurd idea that the majority is always right.

My point (which I could probably have made more clear) is that it can sometimes feel like there's no option for neutrality. To use the example of female characters in games, it's not something I personally feel strongly about. Yes, I'm perfectly happy to see games with more focus on women (or anyone who isn't a grizzled brown-haired white dude), but it's not going to be a deal breaker for me, like it would be for some. A while ago, a friend of mine reviewed Tomb Raider 2013, and said she felt the story was mildly disappointing from a feminist perspective. To her it was something that stood out, I hadn't even considered it.

For some people, however, me not being bothered about female protagonists is treated as being just as bad as if I were actively opposing the idea. Somebody further up this thread has mentioned the sort of Us vs Them mentality that often seems to crop up, and it's that I have the problem with. Whether it's SJW's v DudeBros, Christians v Muslims, Liberals v Conservatives, the thing everyone should remember is that just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't make them your enemy.

 

[Thaluikhain]

If you're implying the "moderate" and "indifferent" person is "the greatest problem", then that kind implies you think who's not "moderate" and "indifferent" is "less of a problem".

You can't say something is the worst and at the same time that there are even worse things than that.

Almost the greatest stumbling block, mind, not actually the greatest problem, though I grant the two are similar.

More to the point, though, it's not about people being indifferent...he didn't use that word. If people truly were indifferent, they'd be irrelevant. People to recruit from, I guess, but otherwise not having anything to do with the issue.

Likewise, he was not condemning the moderate for merely being moderate. He was condemning moderates who support social justice in some vague abstract way, but oppose any attempts to actually get it.

To say nothing of the fact that I've repeatedly run into people who use this argument literally the way I posted it which makes it even more silly.

Um, ok...I don't see how someone could move from what MLK said to what you said in good faith at all. It's very clear what he was saying.

To extend your analogy, though, if you stand by and ignore a murder, you're not showing yourself in a good light, but you aren't guilty in anything like the same way.

If you try to stop others from preventing a murder, because you support the victim's right not to get murdered, but don't think people should be making a fuss and what can't we all just get along, then things are rather different.

 

[Thaluikhain]

My point (which I could probably have made more clear) is that it can sometimes feel like there's no option for neutrality. To use the example of female characters in games, it's not something I personally feel strongly about. Yes, I'm perfectly happy to see games with more focus on women (or anyone who isn't a grizzled brown-haired white dude), but it's not going to be a deal breaker for me, like it would be for some. A while ago, a friend of mine reviewed Tomb Raider 2013, and said she felt the story was mildly disappointing from a feminist perspective. To her it was something that stood out, I hadn't even considered it.

For some people, however, me not being bothered about female protagonists is treated as being just as bad as if I were actively opposing the idea. Somebody further up this thread has mentioned the sort of Us vs Them mentality that often seems to crop up, and it's that I have the problem with. Whether it's SJW's v DudeBros, Christians v Muslims, Liberals v Conservatives, the thing everyone should remember is that just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't make them your enemy.

Neutrality is de facto approval of the status quo. There are plenty of times when approval of the status quo is enough to make someone an enemy, such as when rights or justice are involved. Saying "I'm not responsible for the problem, but I don't care about it either" isn't going to endear you to people concerned with the problem.

Having said that, of course, there are plenty of other times when approval of the status quo is either not an issue, or isn't large enough to be that concerned with.

 

[Vegosiux]

To extend your analogy, though, if you stand by and ignore a murder, you're not showing yourself in a good light, but you aren't guilty in anything like the same way.

If you try to stop others from preventing a murder, because you support the victim's right not to get murdered, but don't think people should be making a fuss and what can't we all just get along, then things are rather different.

Okay, I feel this is actually the crux of the issue here. I get what you're saying. Standing by and watching someone get murdered most definitely doesn't make you a murderer, but it doesn't make you an angel, either. Still, the blood of the murdered is on the hands of the murderer, not on your hands, and anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong and/or intellectually dishonest.

But here's the thing. You have your own reasons to simply stand by, and I don't know those reasons. It would be unbecoming of me to assume that you just didn't care. Maybe the murderer had kidnapped a family member of yours to tie your hands. Maybe the murderer was an order of magnitude or two stronger than you are, and by putting up a fight, you'd only get yourself killed, as well. Maybe you were dealing with an unrelated, but just as pressing issue, like the house burning down around you. I simply don't know your reasons, and it'd be unfair to you to assume that you simply didn't care, and if I started to nag on you about it, I'd consider it a natural and legitimate response to tell me to shut the hell up, can't I see you're busy.

But here's another thing. If you're actively telling people not to care, not to "make a fuss", that's a different thing than if you're telling them "don't involve me in whatever you're doing". If you're taking the "do what you want, but leave me out of it" route, you're being indifferent. If you go "stop doing what you're doing, this instant", then, as far as I'm concerned you're on-board with active oppression, because you're actively hindering the resistance to it. And I still can't use the word "oppression" and think about videogame protagonists at the same time with a straight face.

The point I'm trying to make here is that there's a difference between not getting involved (or not wanting to get involved) and actively opposing those who do get involved.

 

[Zhukov]

Oh totally.

Y'know, just like how the 20s created a generation of frivolous layabouts.

And the 30s created a generation of dependant charity cases.

And the 40s created a generation of hateful jingoists.

And the 50s created a generation of soft weaklings who didn't know what war meant.

And the 60s created a generation of sexual deviants with no moral values.

And the 70s created a generation of work-shy hippies.

And the 80s created a generation of immature overgrown children.

And the 90s created a generation of feeble milksops who can't find the toilet without the internet.

So now you tell me the 00's have created a generation of complaining victims? Sure. That'll do.

The point being that what every era has really created is a generation of would-be social commentators complaining about the supposed shortcomings of The Youth of Today.

I guess some things never change, eh?

 

[Redd the Sock]

I actually think it has been fully created. We joke about participation trophies, self esteem classes, helicopter parents, and other stuff that seems like a laughable effort to coddle children, but a stark reality is that those kids are now grown ups, and the results scare me. I've been saying that if the current attitude existed a hundred years ago, the Wright Brothers wouldn't have invented the airplane in lieu of sitting around complaining about the lack of an airplane. It's not that people don't have the right to complain about what bothers them, but the solution is always "what someone has has to do / become / change) and never a look at oneself.

Women characters in video games as an example, I keep getting just short of active resistance to the idea that we need to do more than ***** on forums to convince the industry the market for it is viable. (Promote games / buy games) Surprisingly the solution people seem to want is keep talking on forums, call developers sexist, and tell people like me I have a lack of empathy because I'm not telling them what they want to hear, and seem to empathize more with someone wanting to keep their company running than risk it all on the whims of the internet.

I keep getting images of people that at home never get up to get their own snack, but instead badger someone until food is delivered. Everything is unfair. Everything is wrong. Everything is the fault of other people not thinking about them. Empathy, check your privilege, and similar phrases are now the magic words to justify blaming your life on other people while sitting on one's ass feeling sorry for yourself and not trying to improve your situation. If they do want to do something, it's always in the area of a "safe space" or through online conversations where you don't have to face your accused and have an army of twitter support behind you.

This isn't new for me. I liked Occupy Wall street several years ago as an ideal, but in reality, all I saw was a bunch of kids that think shouting about a problem will get it solved for you. When it doesn't, play the victim of mean people card. There's a reason they became a joke no one even tells anymore. They did nothing. They fought the idea of doing anything. They spelled out the generation we created of people that are victims of everything but their own choices. The generation that grew up with nothing but people that thought about nothing but them, and are now unprepared for a world that doesn't.

The internet the last few years leaves me with the same mindset. Every complaint can be reduced to "why didn't you think about me" to which I say, "why the fuck should I."

 

[loa]

Victims don't complain.

 

[EternallyBored]

But here's another thing. If you're actively telling people not to care, not to "make a fuss", that's a different thing than if you're telling them "don't involve me in whatever you're doing". If you're taking the "do what you want, but leave me out of it" route, you're being indifferent. If you go "stop doing what you're doing, this instant", then, as far as I'm concerned you're on-board with active oppression.

The point I'm trying to make here is that there's a difference between not getting involved (or not wanting to get involved) and actively opposing those who do get involved.

The MLK quote isn't really talking about either of those things, the MLK quote is lamenting the people who waffle and say "not today" and "can't this wait until more serious issues are solved". MLK was talking about people who say they supported the civil rights movement, but when it came time to actually do anything involving civil rights, they were absent, and constantly coming up with excuses about it "not being the right time".

This was worse than the extremists to MLK because the extremists can be identified and avoided or fought directly, and if they didn't listen and weren't violent, they could be ignored as a lost cause. The "moderates" that he writes about waste the movements time by giving vocal support, but evaporating into the background whenever anything actually needs to get done, MLK isn't saying that those people are somehow morally worse than the lynching KKK members, but that they are more frustrating to deal with. and they are a harder obstacle to overcome because there is no clear way to deal with them, unlike the straight up racists.

During the civil rights movement, King was absolutely right, the greatest opponent to the civil rights movement wasn't the KKK members telling the protesters they needed to die or go back to Africa, it was the judges and business owners who said that they sympathized with the movement, but refused to use their power to change anything because, "we need to think about the potential damage to the order of society" or "I need to think about my bottom line, I can't possibly take such a financial risk".

They weren't people actively opposing change, but they had the power, authority, and money, that always seemed to be unavailable or too soon when it came time to actually opposing the systems in place.

 

[ayvee]

snip

The reason you'll see this response is that, in the absence of actual equality, it can be really difficult (if not impossible) to define what a truly neutral position would actually even be. At least in a broad, non-personal kind of sense. It's really easy to say that you're neutral because you just don't care about something, but in the case of a majority vs a minority, or overturning a status quo, or whatever, your apathy can do a lot more to benefit one position over the other. So while you may not be actively taking a side, you can still end up indirectly supporting one, or at least its goals.

This isn't going to be necessarily true in all cases, but there you go.

 

[Uncle Comrade]

Which is true. Thats not a problem until that person who doesn't really care about it walks into the argument and goes "cmon guise! stop doing and believing in things! its annoying to see people care about things I don't!"

A person is completely fine to not believe something is a problem, or to argue against whether it is a problem or not. That is actual discussion - probably retreaded, but still discussion. Joining conversation simply to go "shut up, you're all stoopid doo-doo heads for thinking!" doesn't deserve any quantity or respect - its narcissism, feeling that because you don't care about it, other people shouldn't, and even that you're owed it by them to follow your wishes. (in general "you", not you, Uncle Comrade, specifically)

Then there's implicit support. If youre not explicitly for or against something, you're defending the status quo by not speaking your mind. You're broadcasting to others, through your inaction, that you're content with the status quo. People can, and do, use that inaction as a means to fight against changes in the status quo.

Absolutely, if there's one thing I hate, it's someone whose argument consists entirely of "No! You're wrong because you're a [whatever]!" That's the opposite of a debate, and it happens way too often (although I'm pleased to say, hardly at all in this thread). I personally would never outright dismiss something someone was genuinely passionate about. [footnote]Unless it were something profoundly stupid, like 'lizard people are stealing our jobs'[/footnote]

That said, there are many different causes, and everyone will have those that matter to them and those they are less concerned about. I just hate to see people (on any side) getting angry at one another, just because they don't all feel as strongly about a certain thing.

 

[Callate]

The number of comments that basically skip straight to "how dare you" is a little distressing. I've always felt that people who feel that they have personally been victims ought to restrain themselves from trying to make others feel ashamed simply for addressing something they feel to be true, or at least worthy of discussion, for rather obvious reasons.

In at least one sense, I think the OP has a point. In America, at least, it often seems like there's a certain sense of "everyone's a victim, everyone is oppressed", with people attesting that their personal sense of victimhood or right to claim it as a mantle is greater than anyone else's. If you disagree, please note that at least one rich person has expressed a comparison of being rich to being a victim of the holocaust, members of the KKK believe that they're "discriminated against", and an Alabama Republican congressman has stated that the Democrats are "declaring war on whites".

In parallel, in a country founded on rebellion (and nursed on Star Wars), people are often eager to brand themselves as rebels and mavericks- no matter how mainstream or establishment their actual bona fides may appear.

Now, none of this is to say that people who have been victims and feel their sense of victimization in a real, oppressive and painful way don't exist; clearly, they do. But I'd argue there's a danger in letting "victimhood" be the sole factor in a discussion against which all other elements must back down or be cudgeled down for their insensitivity and lack of enlightenment. I don't think having been a victim should necessarily give someone the ability to declare something they find offensive to be harmful without further proof, or state out of hand that there's no benefit to something they find offensive to remain (and no detriment to its change or removal), or declare something beyond reproach or criticism because it speaks to an issue related to their sense of victimization. And I think it's a little disingenuous to bemoan a lack of power when broaching a subject brings with it a sense of entitlement to shout others down and an immediate wave of solidarity at one's back.

If one wants to demand "the floor", one should have something more to bring to it than a sense of victimization. I don't think that's too much to ask.

 

[Zontar]

Don't know about victims but people do seem to think they can tell you what to think. Specifically left wingers these days. They are the most pig headed arrogant sort around much worse than their right counter parts. You can't disagree with them or you are an un enlightened bigot they immediately start condescending toward from their supposed moral high ground. I have seen it on this site plenty and some comments that deserved moderation but didn't get it because they are arguing for "equality" while clearly displaying your opinion is not equal.

Oh god how true this is. Here in Montreal there's a great macro-level example of this. The most recent example is the 2012 student protests [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Quebec_student_protests], which had thousands of far left socialists and communists spent months making travel in the downturn core much harder then it already is (and it already is). This isn't the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Quebec_student_protests] first time it has happened [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Quebec_student_protests] and probably won't be the last. Thankfully my CEGEP (like all the English ones) voted against taking part in it, so I didn't need to miss school because of something I disagree with making me need to take more time to finish my education then I otherwise would have. The heights of these peoples selfishness. Tens of thousands needed to spend months more and hundreds, some even thousands more on their education because of these people, and that's only limiting the numbers to those who where outright against it and felt the full burden of it.

This generation got the internet a place for people to semi anonymously moan about what bothers them. People always want to moan but in the real world other people for the most part don't care. Now there are forums with other moaners where we can all moan together making a big massive chorus of moaning. If you frequent these forums you may start thinking this represents more people than it actually does and that the entire world is populated by moaners. It isn't, so if this is how you feel stay off the internet for a while. Sure look the first half of my post is me moaning about moaners. Moanception.

How true this is. I've actually met a person who is the stereotypical type of social justice warrior. As in the type most social justice warriors claim are strawmen made by those against the movement. The guy was genuinely surprised that no one at our collage seemed to be as extremely left wing as him and didn't give two shits about what he had to say. We've had to kick him out of the club area multiple times because of the shouting he does when he argues politics. Arguing politics is ok in the club area, we all do it to some degree every day, even if only to catch up with what's on with the world. With him, however, it always ends up with social justice issues that have been talked about into the ground, and anyone who doesn't conform to his views is a MRA homophobic transphobic fascist. Now I'll admit there is 1 open fascist in the club area's frequent users, but he's outnumbered 3 to 1 by the communists. Anyway, I remember once he called me the listed insult because I said that mathematics and lifestyles show the wage gap to be a much smaller problem then it's hyped up to be, assuming it exists at all. After he called me that he did look the fool though, since my best friend reminded him that, despite my being a conservative, my best friend of a decades time was a liberal supporting man loving self described "gender queer". Now I'm not saying I'm not into a little masochism isn't fine now and again, but it's a little hard for that insult to seem true when it means I should in theory hate my best friend above everyone I know (though you wouldn't be able to tell I don't hate him from our interactions. Like all good best friend)

 

[Vegosiux]

They weren't people actively opposing change, but they had the power, authority, and money, that always seemed to be unavailable or too soon when it came time to actually opposing the systems in place.

If you want my paltry amount of power, money, and authority that I can flex in this world, convince me your issue is more important than whatever I'm dealing with. I know it sounds rough, but the amount of power, money and authority I have is paltry. I can't just give it out freely. See, my reach isn't as far as some people assume it is just because I'm one of those straight white cis people who allegedly just coast through life.

In fact, my reach hardly gets out of my inner circle of people. I have my hands full. Sure, the stuff I am dealing with might seem like nothing to you but this is my life I'm talking about here. I spare what resources and attention I can - if that's not what you expect of me, well, apologies, but I simply can't stretch myself too thin. I tried it before, and it ended up...well...let's not talk about what happens if I stretch myself too thin.

So there's just one request I have for people: Do not take me for granted.

And I think everyone should realize to not take anyone for granted!