Theory

[LordOmnit]

This is just a theory, but it seems to me that if anything regarding social taboos or other "no-no's" comes up, everyone is either quite opposed, or Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr./Prof./St. Unnaturally Understanding And Open-Minded.
Just as a reference, I looked back at the Heart-wrenching Hentai [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.44907] article I took part in discussion of, and was wondering if this was a natural response, and if it really was this simple for something that becomes so complex.
I'm not innocent of either side (although it isn't always a taboo that's being discussed, but that's beside the point), so this isn't me ranting against either one.
Please dissertate.

 

[Chilango2]

Gamers nerd, and other not-quite mainstream groups are funny that way, they of the like to imagine themselves as the very soul of understanding and tolerance, as contrary to the "evil jocks" or whatever the dominant in-group is defined as, but there's also a sense of wanting to exclude certain segments as out-groups within itself as targets of scorn, which is an entirely human impulse in general. Thus, gamer geeks make fun of furries or hentai fans or whatever, they make fun of otakin, etc etc. Or at least, that's my general explanation for the phenomenon your observing (which, I agree exists.). Groups that have found themselves excluded want to think they aren't privy to the faults of their "oppressors" but still have to define their group identity, and there are few easier ways to do that than to label and exclude a particularly strange seeming segment of your motly assortment of people.

 

[Carbon016]

Thus, gamer geeks make fun of furries or hentai fans or whatever, they make fun of otakin, etc etc.

I think you'll find that this exclusion is based on the behavior of the subcultures themselves, not necessarily a necessary instinct to pick on a group of outsiders.

 

[Chilango2]

Well, but all cultures, subcultures do this, to one degree or another. There is always some sort of unacceptable behavior, and therefore anybody who engages in it becomes an outgroup to that culture/subculture. Its obviously expressed in ways particular to the practices and beliefs of that group, but I still believe its a fundamental aspect of group dynamics, after all, groups unite over a shared sense of values, beliefs, or interests (however serious or trivial), and any set of such will either have a natural anti-thesis or will tend to have one created fairly rapidly.

 

[LordOmnit]

Good point. I mean, even in cultures, we have that pesky word subculture to describe further specification or separation. Sure, as a dude living in America, I believe in personal freedom and all that jazz (not that nobody else does, it's just the standard spiel), but I still think it's far from FERPECT. And that makes me a treasonous, unpatriotic bastard to some, but am I really a bad person for it? I'd hope not, otherwise I'm more confused than ever over everything. Like Chilango2 said, if someone has one value, then someone has the exact opposite, to the same extremum of you. So for every group there is, one that has the opposite view to that one. If we really want to get confusingly indepth, then any group has it's own values, and everyone subscribing to the opposite group is a horrible sinner, but the same is true for the former group with respect to the latter. Now, who's right? And let's make it somewhat ambiguous and not say that it's anything that hurts anyone or anything.

 

[Chilango2]

Honestly, in terms of "who is right" I tend to vote for "whoever acts less like stereotypical fanboys," but among other things, that involves less concern over per se rightness or wrongness in matters of taste and/or particularly prone to subjective opinion, like you said, when "it doesn't hurt anybody." Thus, in the XBox vs PS3 vs Wii wars, I often find myself sympathizing with the Wii, because they seem to not have as many religious issues about gaming, graphics, and a polygon count as a metaphor for male virility, and other such nonesense.

Thus, in a larger sense, so long as the stakes are generally unimportant, rightness becomes irrelevant, since honest interpretations can usually back up either view, and the overall quality of the argument offered by each side, rather than its per se merits, becomes the normative metric by which to judge who is "winning." Cetaintly, I myself find it amusing to engage in debates about a irrelevant topic, so long as whoever I am arguing with does not give me a "I am talking to an idiot" headache.

By and large, this is why I like these boards. Its one of the few forums on the internet not made primarily of flames, bile, and religious wars.

 

[KurtNiisan]

By and large, this is why I like these boards. Its one of the few forums on the internet not made primarily of flames, bile, and religious wars.

- And although there is the occasional Monkey Shitfight, I'd tend to agree with you. Other forums and their frequenters had almost put me off Internet forums entirely and I had come to TheEscapist and ZP vowing that I wouldn't post or even bother with the forum here but to my surprise, people here can be quite... civilised

 

[LordOmnit]

Nice to see you again KurtNiisan. I don't think I'll ever get enough of that after that.
Funny, though, since ZP probably brings in the most people, and in itself causes the most controversy and shit-flinging, but everything else can be quite civil.
Although I still have to say, without much of a disagreement, things can't go anywhere by around in slightly bigger circles, but then again (again I'm not innocent of this either) most of the time, it won't end up convincing someone anyways, but at least gives both sides (hopefully) a bit of a revised perspective.

 

[Katana314]

Thus, in the XBox vs PS3 vs Wii wars, I often find myself sympathizing with the Wii, because they seem to not have as many religious issues about gaming, graphics, and a polygon count as a metaphor for male virility, and other such nonesense.

360 vs PS3 vs Wii (vs PC)...
I would say no one's right. Everyone's shown a bit of elitism (Wii: Super Mario Galaxy is an embarrassment to other games! PC: If you can't afford a rig to play Crysis, you can't call yourself a gamer! PS3: Can you see THESE graphics on a 360? 360: Yes.)
And I have to say that whenever Jack Thompson is concerned, I have even seen respected magazines sort of take a "That's ridiculous" stance, refusing to acknowledge even information I find pretty convincing.

Not to say I'm innocent either. I find myself defending HL2 a bit more than I'd like, and...well, I think in some ways this is just something that's associated with all subcultures.

 

[Anarchemitis]

This is just a theory, but it seems to me that if anything regarding social taboos or other "no-no's" comes up, everyone is either quite opposed, or Open-Minded.

I know!
I theorize it's the fact that most won't discern coinciding with the taboo in question as opposed to automatically assuming that everyone except those people are against it. That or, keeping an open mind and idlely watching what few white and presumtuitive black duke it out. (White being for the taboo and black being against.)
annnudah vicious Necro!

 

[Beowulf DW]

It seems to me that taboos are society's way of sweeping an issue under the carpet. Most taboos are subjects that are too uncomfortable or controversal for most people to talk about. As a result, people relegate these issues to taboo, a subject which is never talked about. The reason being that if it were discussed, common morals and attitudes would be challenged, perhaps even successfully.

Most people don't want to have their values and attitudes questioned. If the moral majority is proven wrong, then society as a whole will be required to change. People want to maintain the status quo. What better way to do this than by avoiding the process that would invite change.

 

[MarcusStrout]

I sort of agree with the idea of the social trash canning of tabooed ideas, except that sometimes the way that society harbors its interest in a subject. Sometimes, more disguised than it ever was before, society tabooes something that is really good, and sort of PRESERVE it, take it under its big oppressive wing and force it to blindly become mainstream, work it in some back door somehow.

We are interesting, we humans. Well, I should say "you" humans, but I digress.