Why all the elitism hate?

[Alterego-X]

elitism (ɪˈliːtɪzəm, eɪ-)

? n
1. a. the belief that society should be governed by a select group of gifted and highly educated individuals
b. such government
2. pride in or awareness of being one of an elite group

In media discussions, elitism is usually used similar to the second meaniing, as a generic insult for people who like different things than us, and are vocal about their conviction that this is an objective quality, not just their personal opinion. (E.g: PC gaming elitists who think that PC is better than consoles, Anime elitists who think that anime is better than western animation, retro elitists who think that the old works were better than new ones.) It's mostly a synonym of "arrogance", it's more of an attitude than a belief system.

But there is also a more specific definition, described above, the actual worldview that is based around wanting a system that rewards competence. In it's widest interpretation, when applying it for society as a whole, that definition also became hated, because it's the opposite of modern egalitarianism. It would mean that some people should have less legal rights than others.

But in some aspects of culture, it is still present and accepted. For example, sports are based around giving more rewards and better positions to those who demonstrate better abilities. The educational system rewards students with good grades with scholarships and other benefits, acknowledging that (at least in the microcosm of the educational system), thea ARE better than others.

Analogously, true media elitism would be wanting artists, critics, fans, hobbyists, or any similar group of "insiders", who can be identified as more competent in their familiarity with the medium than the generic masses, to have a bigger voice in the prouction of art.

So, when we dismiss arrogant people as "elitists", are we only using the new definition, while acknowledging that "the elitist theory" makes sense, (just like we dismiss "entitlement" while acknowledging that we are all entitled to certain things), or is the traditional definition included in the insult as well, and we actualy believe that all sorts of elitism are bad, and that media should be as egalitarian as politics, never ever implying that some audiences are more deserving than others?

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Elitist societies became aristocracies. It isnt right that any one group should totally rule over another group. The stupid still have a right to decide how their life should be lived and have a say in what happens in their countries otherwise we have a case of "You must be this smart to have freedom". And that concept is inherently dangerous.

Also the cornerstone of elitism is that YOU assume you are the special snowflake in the elitist group. What if youre not? Would you want to be part of the underclass? There are MILLIONS of people in your country smarter than you and me. Dont assume youre going to be the one on top.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

When the term gets brought up in arguments, it's mostly a clash of both people with inferiority and superiority complexes.

Which is silly, especially considering the topic of said arguments.

Elitism has nothing to do with what platform you fucking play video games on.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: The majority of arguments are based off personal opinion (Xbox vs Ps3, PC vs Mac).
This is what people refer to when they talk about "Elitism" the view that "Just because I play my games on a PC, I'm somehow a better person than you." and this is the version people disagree with.

For discussion of the other definition...
Who are we to determine which of us is considered truly gifted?
Just because a person has a high IQ (for example) doesn't mean they aren't capable of doing some very stupid things.

 

[Alterego-X]

Elitist societies became aristocracies. It isnt right that any one group should totally rule over another group. The stupid still have a right to decide how their life should be lived and have a say in what happens in their countries otherwise we have a case of "You must be this smart to have freedom". And that concept is inherently dangerous.

Also the cornerstone of elitism is that YOU assume you are the special snowflake in the elitist group. What if youre not? Would you want to be part of the underclass? There are MILLIONS of people in your country smarter than you and me. Dont assume youre going to be the one on top.

That's all right for POLITICAL elitism, when we are talking about things like voting rights, and as I said, that's already obviously discredited, but the idea of elitism also applied to several minor systems in a society, where not being part of the elite doesn't rob you of your freedom. (e.g: capitalism itself. A truly egalitarian world would also be communist, but )

How the term is thrown around on gaming forums, and similar places, is also only describing a minor system, art and entertainment. That those who are more involved in these, should have more influence on it, than random TV viewers, casual gamers, etc, who often don't have any experience or interest in separating good from bad production values, or clichés from innovation.

For example I, as someone who only watches 2-3 movies in a year, don't expect to be a special snowflake in the Hollywood industry, but that's because I don't care about it to begin with. For all I care, critics and movie buffs and artists could start to overrule box office results to make what THEY consider better instead.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

How the term is thrown around on gaming forums, and similar places, is also only describing a minor system, art and entertainment. That those who are more involved in these, should have more influence on it, than random TV viewers, casual gamers, etc, who often don't have any experience or interest in separating good from bad production values, or clichés from innovation.

Ironically the exact same issue remains. Elitism is very inward facing and is very egocentric. If casuals are denied anything to get them interested in the media how do the in turn become interested in the "hardcore" media? Elitism is a design ethic that wants to keep all members feeling like special snowflakes by totally keeping everyone else out of the club. They do this by ensuring that potential new comers receive nothing of what they want but instead focus entirely on existing fans. Such a system is totally unsustainable.

 

[DoPo]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the people called out as "elitists", truly annoying and pretentious? As in a "PC elitist" will insist that games are only meant to be played on a PC - any other systems are downright offensive and "unworthy". Or something like that. As in, they do take pride being part of an elite group (the glorious PC gamer master race) however, in reality that group isn't actually elite and they are just acting as if they are.

 

[Alterego-X]

Ironically the exact same issue remains. Elitism is very inward facing and is very egocentric. If casuals are denied anything to get them interested in the media how do the in turn become interested in the "hardcore" media? Elitism is a design ethic that wants to keep all members feeling like special snowflakes by totally keeping everyone else out of the club. They do this by ensuring that potential new comers receive nothing of what they want but instead focus entirely on existing fans. Such a system is totally unsustainable.

There are plenty of niche genres and mediums that continue to sustain themselves just fine without becoming mainstream. There will always be new people here and there who grow to be interested in something, even if that thing isn't particularly simplified to be welcoming.

You seem to imply that growth mass popularity are the main goals of medium, that define their value.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the people called out as "elitists", truly annoying and pretentious? As in a "PC elitist" will insist that games are only meant to be played on a PC - any other systems are downright offensive and "unworthy". Or something like that. As in, they do take pride being part of an elite group (the glorious PC gamer master race) however, in reality that group isn't actually elite and they are just acting as if they are.

You see, that's the dilemma here: There are many aspects of PC gaming, that are actually, undoubtedly, more complex, with more potential sophistication, than console gaming. Moddability allows more content, hardware upgrades allow for better graphics, mouses are more precise than gamepads, and keyboards have more keys, etc. Even many of the PC elitist's opponents argue through their own ignorance about these matters, about how PC gaming is "too complicated" and "bothersome" and consoles are "easier" and require less time invested.

The same debate applies to "hardcore" console gaming vs. casual games on phones and in browsers.

We could say, that in a way, all quality is subjective, therefore as long as people enjoy it, simplicistic and complex gaming are entirely equal.

Or we could also say, that while it's not BAD for someone to enjoy games on any level of complexity, getting more and more educated about genre traditions, about how to use hardware, being informed in the events of the game industry, are ultimately things that should be encouraged, after all, this is the direction that we should follow.


Obviously, thinking that you are a BETTER PERSON than others because of your preference in that matter, is idiotic arrogance and should be ridiculed as such. EVEN IF WE WOULD assume that console games/phone games are limited in their complexity, looking down on them would be like looking down on children for being more simple than adults.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

There are plenty of niche genres and mediums that continue to sustain themselves just fine without becoming mainstream. There will always be new people here and there who grow to be interested in something, even if that thing isn't particularly simplified to be welcoming.

You seem to imply that growth mass popularity are the main goals of medium, that define their value.

Of course there are. Because we have casual media to introduce newcomers to a genre before they can become interested in the niche. If we ONLY have niche and NOTHING to even introduce the masses to an idea then it will only serve to alienate potential newcomers to a medium. The thing doesnt need to be simplified itself. It just needs something different that is simple to serve as an introduction of sorts.

Im not saying everything needs to be mainstream. Im saying we need A mainstream to help introduce people to the niche.

Imagine a club where to enter you had to perform a VERY complex handshake. If ONLY that club existed not many would get in. In fact its likely the club wouldnt do very well. However if the club next door had a slightly less complex one and the one next to that ect, people who were interested in entering the hardest club would be able to slowly learn the tricks and tips of how to get familiar with the handshake without having to tackle it all at once.

For example no new gamers would be good at dark souls or other ultra hard games. They might find the game alienating and disproportionately hard against what they expected gaming to be. They need a game thats easier to introduce the concepts of gaming. If we ONLY have ultra hard games where is the ramp that new gamers need to get used to a genre?

I imply that the only value of any media is that people enjoy it. If a media exists only to alienate new people to PREVENT them from enjoying it then the entire thing is paradoxical.

 

[DoPo]

-snip-

But the point is that you are not special for preferring a PC. Also, I only used PC as an example, since there are people who endorse consoles, or even one specific console, in much the same way the "PC elitists" do their system of preference. With that aside, let's get the essence of a system here - it allows you to play games, yes? System limitations aside, the reason to have one is to be able to play games. Hence, there is nothing inherently "better" or "worse" from one system to another. Everything else is personal preference: do you enjoy messing around with your games or prefer them just working? Do you like or ? Do you really want a better framerate or do you not care? And so on and so forth. These elitists are essentially saying "this system is better suited for my desires, hence everything else is inferior". You must agree that this is a bullshit argument. It's like saying "Well, I like my sandwich with cheese, ham and mayo - that means I am better than people who don't eat exactly the same as me."

 

[Hero in a half shell]

elitism (ɪˈliːtɪzəm, eɪ-)

? n
1. a. the belief that society should be governed by a select group of gifted and highly educated individuals
b. such government
2. pride in or awareness of being one of an elite group

I would say that your definition is a bit messed up.

Definition 1 is a proper definition of Elitism:

The idea that to be part of the top echelons of a group you have to display a great knowledge of the subject in hand and be one of the best choices for the job. In things like business or government this means that the only people who get promoted and get into real power are the people who know what they are supposed to do, and are smart enough to do it.

But I would say definition 2 is not another seperate definition, but a pitfall that elitists can fall into: A reason why Elitism can be a bad thing.
Elitism can lead to ego problems, believe in the superiority of one class over another simply because of your preference or knowledge of a particular thing (music style/game console/art etc.) which the Elitist then believes objectively and provably makes them a better person than those that do not share their personal preferences.

I also agree with biscuit trouser about the necessity of a mainstream, and Elitism often berating and looking down on the mainstream despite it's necessity to draw people into the subject.

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

Obviously, thinking that you are a BETTER PERSON than others because of your preference in that matter, is idiotic arrogance and should be ridiculed as such. EVEN IF WE WOULD assume that console games/phone games are limited in their complexity, looking down on them would be like looking down on children for being more simple than adults.

You've basically answered your own question here. There's a world of difference between having discriminating tastes and acting like a supercilious shithead about it. The latter is how we define media elitism among consumers, your parroting of the dictionary definition is just dabbling in disingenuous semantics. You know exactly what people mean when they talk about elitism in this context.

 

[Erana]

In terms of an elitist government, even the greatest humanity has to offer are still human; What's to say that such a system wouldn't immediately fall into vice and rampant nepotism? And being gifted and educated doesn't make you inherently qualified for governing others. Worse, the quantifiers of "Gifted" and "Educated" being so strongly linked to political power that it would cause its own kind of discrimination. If you're familiar with education in even the countries with the greatest of education systems, there is a correlation between poverty and education that would likely further enforce class stratification.

And on a colloquial level, with being on the internet and what-not, elitism is bad because elitists will never be willing to admit that they're wrong, nor acknowledge the strengths and personal preferences of those who feel differently than them. And I don't really think I need to explain why that is bad.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

When the term gets brought up in arguments, it's mostly a clash of both people with inferiority and superiority complexes.

Which is silly, especially considering the topic of said arguments.

Elitism has nothing to do with what platform you fucking play video games on.

Yes it does. I play the XBox, therefore I am playing the superior system. And I take pride in being part of this elite group.

*ducks and raises flame shield*

Alright alright.

People don't use the word elitism 'properly' most of the time (ignoring that of course the meaning of words is constantly under easure so the word elitism will come to mean superiority complex the more we use it as such.) But the new definition doesn't have any less validity than the old one really.

And I think it's perfectly reasonable to be annoyed (I wouldn't go so far as hare) by a person that believes themselves to be superior for no quantifiable reason. PCs are not superior to consoles and consoles are not superior to PCs. They have different merits based on what they are that can be argued until the cows come home but since almost all of the merits are either irrelevent or entirely subjective there would be no point.

Elitism can be a good thing, such as taking pride in yourself. But it can so easily turn into something nasty and arrogant, and to be totally honest I've seen so few cases where elitism has had its traditional definition that I'd be willing to say that the meaning of the word has now totally changed to mean superiority.