Are we creating a generation of victims?

[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!

 

[Ten Foot Bunny]

Why is this thread becoming a platform to roundly trash anyone politically left of Glenn Beck? Isn't the politics subforum more fitting to that?

OT, I can't understate how much I loathe the way the word "victim" is tossed around these days. It's becoming shorthand for "I disagree with your point of view, but I don't respect you enough take those points into consideration and so I'm going to dismiss you with the new 'I Win!' button."

And yes, a lame "'I Win' button" is exactly what it's becoming:

1. Person A brings up something they don't like

2. Person B calls them a victim, no backing argument to say way

3. Person A elaborates on their point of view

4. Person B comes back to say, "See? You just proved that I'm right: you're playing the victim." No further elaboration.

5. Persons C, D, and E join in the chorus, with nothing more to say than "Stop being a victim, Person A."

That seems to be how the majority of discussions play out once one side of a debate whips out the "V" word.

 

[Vegosiux]

Why is this thread becoming a platform to roundly trash anyone politically left of Glenn Beck? Isn't the politics subforum more fitting to that?

Escapist's way to liberal and left-leaning for that. And I'm quite happy about that fact.

1. Person A brings up something they don't like

2. Person B calls them a victim, no backing argument to say way

3. Person A elaborates on their point of view

4. Person B comes back to say, "See? You just proved that I'm right: you're playing the victim." No further elaboration.

5. Persons C, D, and E join in the chorus, with nothing more to say than "Stop being a victim, Person A."

That seems to be how the majority of discussions play out once one side of a debate whips out the "V" word.

See, it's persons C, D, and E that Person A needs to convince. And not take for granted. Imagine I'm person C, and I don't know person A or B. What reason do I have to side with either A or B?

 

[Zen Bard]

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.
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."

You are my new hero. Seriously, this is a very well articulated post and it pretty much expresses my thoughts on it.

So much so, that I badgered my older brother to quote your post because someone had to it.
(Just kidding...I'm an only child).

Victims don't complain.

I'm curious about this statement. What do you mean?

To me, complaining is the epitome of the victim mentality. "Life isn't fair!", "Why do these things always happen to ME?", "Someone should DO something about this!"

I guess in some cases you're right. Growing up, I had a neighbor who had been a prisoner in a Concentration Camp and I never heard her complain. But then, I never considered her a victim. To me, she was a survivor.

There's a difference between someone who's suffered and a victim.

 

[generals3]

Are we creating a generation of victims basically, when people should just grow thicker skin?

inb4 flamewar

Are we creating? No. It's already there, and it's really sad actually. Because one day these people will be thrown out of their cushy lives and face real shit. And that's when it will get really painful to watch.

And what's even more sad about this victim attitude is that it doesn't help anyone. People should stop blaming the world for everything and instead start looking at themselves. It's just too easy to always play a victim. Yes sometimes you can truly be a victim but 76.42% of the whining nowadays is just an easy way to blame others for things not going your way. Make your own god damn way.

 

[Redd the Sock]

Why is this thread becoming a platform to roundly trash anyone politically left of Glenn Beck? Isn't the politics subforum more fitting to that?

OT, I can't understate how much I loathe the way the word "victim" is tossed around these days. It's becoming shorthand for "I disagree with your point of view, but I don't respect you enough take those points into consideration and so I'm going to dismiss you with the new 'I Win!' button."

And yes, a lame "'I Win' button" is exactly what it's becoming:

1. Person A brings up something they don't like

2. Person B calls them a victim, no backing argument to say way

3. Person A elaborates on their point of view

4. Person B comes back to say, "See? You just proved that I'm right: you're playing the victim." No further elaboration.

5. Persons C, D, and E join in the chorus, with nothing more to say than "Stop being a victim, Person A."

That seems to be how the majority of discussions play out once one side of a debate whips out the "V" word.

I think you're glossing over point 3 there as in my experience it comes making 2 basic mistakes:

1) points made are always about why YOU want something, not why I should want it. Complaining at it's heart is about trying to get someone to do, say, give, change, or otherwise take some action detrimental to themselves for your benefit. It's actually the antithesis of how we're supposed to try and get anything. There's no effort to woo, to say this is good for you and here's why, or the say it's a small thing being asked for while the asker does the hard work, but rather a legitimate expectation that if you lay out your requests people should be running to give you what you ask for, and anger that it doesn't happen. The idea of victim comes in when the response is all about how unfair you think it is people aren't doing what you'd like them to even though you've laid out no benefit for them to do so for themselves.

2) Points are always about how things are unfair to you and any further effort on your part is unwarranted. I've been down this road far too often, but in the female game character debate, I try and give examples (from my own collection) to get the ball rolling and show the industry there's a market for what is being asked for. I get shot down because the games I list aren't AAA non-JRPGs that scored 10/10 and had massive marketing budgets. At least that's what gets said. I'm more convinced I'm shot down because building a market takes work and time, and who needs that shit. Better to feel sorry for oneself than actually take some steps. I wonder how many people are seriously expecting a pat on the head and waiting for someone to go "don't worry. I'll fix everything while you take a nap."

None of this is to dismiss a point. It's to say your argument sucks because it's all folded around you and takes nothing and no one else into consideration. If you can't form an argument about how the party you're trying to get to give you something will be better off, and address their concerns, you have a bad argument.

 

[EternallyBored]

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!

Well that was a nice bunch of random nonsense that had nothing to do with anything I said, and especially nothing to do with MLK and his views on groups of people that claimed to be behind the cause yet spent all their time saying "not today" and "can it wait a few more years.

You being poor has little bearing on the kinds of people MLK was criticizing, unless you think he was talking about all white people everywhere.

MLK was specifically talking about people who had the power to change things and help out the movement, and even people that say they had already been convinced to help, but when it came time to follow through with their agreements and beliefs, suddenly started finding excuses for why things should stay the way they were. He was talking about people that claimed to want to help Black people become equal to White people in the U.S., but then started making excuses and pulling away anytime the staus quo was threatened.

MLK was frustrated with people who stated that they supported him but were actually more concerned with not causing any conflict between the civil rights movement and the more extreme racists than they were with actual equality.

In the end, MLK was right, the KKK was not the hardest obstacle for the civil rights movement to overcome, it was the apathy of the White "moderates" who were happy with the status quo, and while they stated that they wanted equality, it was hard to get many to actually put actions behind their hollow words. He was tired of the patronizing condescension he was receiving from people that had no idea what it was like to be Black in the 1950's and all they could spout were empty platitudes of racial equality from one end, and constant excuses for why they couldn't possibly help from the other.

 

[Vegosiux]

Well that was a nice bunch of random nonsense that had nothing to do with anything I said, and especially nothing to do with MLK and his views on groups of people that claimed to be behind the cause yet spent all their time saying "not today" and "can it wait a few more years."

I'm not speaking for anyone other than myself, mind. I can't.

You being poor has little bearing on the kinds of people MLK was criticizing, unless you think he was talking about all white people everywhere.

MLK was specifically talking about people who had the power to change things and help out the movement, and even people that say they had already been convinced to help, but when it came time to follow through with their agreements and beliefs, suddenly started finding excuses for why things should stay the way they were. He was talking about people that claimed to want to help Black people become equal to White people in the U.S., but then started making excuses and pulling away anytime the staus quo was threatened.

See. I'm not American. Hell, I wouldn't even know who MLK was if I only relied on stuff I was taught in school. So, no, I don't know who specifically he was talking about. And I dare say, neither do you. You might be able to throw out a better guess, maybe, sure, but you don't know it.

MLK was frustrated with people who stated that they supported him but were actually more concerned with not causing any conflict between the civil rights movement and the more extreme racists than they were with actual equality.

Citation needed. I'm sorry, but that's simply not apparent from that letter.

In the end, MLK was right, the KKK was not the hardest obstacle for the civil rights movement to overcome, it was the apathy of the White "moderates" who were happy with the status quo, and while they stated that they wanted equality, it was hard to get many to actually put actions behind their hollow words. He was tired of the patronizing condescension he was receiving from people that had no idea what it was like to be Black in the 1950's and all they could spout were empty platitudes of racial equality from one end, and constant excuses for why they couldn't possibly help from the other.

"How it was to be black in the 1950's" or "How it was to be black in USA in the 1950's"?

Hell, one of our too many (about 200) mayors is black. As far as I'm concerned, black people are overrepresented on the mayoral level when it comes to Slovenia.

And I don't actually have a problem with it. I do have a problem with being told that I don't care enough about a problem that never historically existed in my immediate vicinity, however.

Now, talking about my immediate vicinity, Serbia and Bosnia have been hit with flooding earlier this year. I wonder how many of you Escapists thought that was important enough that something should be done about it. I know I did what I could to help those people who lost everything they built in their lives because nature decided to fuck them over.

And I didn't dare assume people who didn't contribute were actually happy all that flooding happened and secretly going "HAH!" You just had other shit to deal with. Just like I have other shit to deal with than the black people's rights on a continent I don't even live on.

 

[Promethax]

I went on the internet today and saw things I disagree with.

Now I feel oppressed.

I'm angry about how nobody cares about this very important issue, but if you do care then you're even worse because you can never understand my pain.

Everyone is awful but me.

Me.

 

[EternallyBored]

Well that was a nice bunch of random nonsense that had nothing to do with anything I said, and especially nothing to do with MLK and his views on groups of people that claimed to be behind the cause yet spent all their time saying "not today" and "can it wait a few more years."

I'm not speaking for anyone other than myself, mind. I can't.

That's great, doesn't really change the fact that you went off on some weird tangent about how powerless you are in response to a post that was trying to explain part of the reasoning behind an oft-used quote about the leader of the American civil rights movements views while he was in prison for non-violent protests. We aren't talking about you, period, we are talking about MLK there's zero reason to tell us about how unimportant you think you are.

You being poor has little bearing on the kinds of people MLK was criticizing, unless you think he was talking about all white people everywhere.

MLK was specifically talking about people who had the power to change things and help out the movement, and even people that say they had already been convinced to help, but when it came time to follow through with their agreements and beliefs, suddenly started finding excuses for why things should stay the way they were. He was talking about people that claimed to want to help Black people become equal to White people in the U.S., but then started making excuses and pulling away anytime the staus quo was threatened.

See. I'm not American. Hell, I wouldn't even know who MLK was if I only relied on stuff I was taught in school. So, no, I don't know who specifically he was talking about. And I dare say, neither do you. You might be able to throw out a better guess, maybe, sure, but you don't know it.

That's a bunch of pedantic tripe, yeah, nobody can know the exact thoughts of another person, but Martin Luther King Jr. is a relatively modern historic figure, he's still got friends alive today that talk about him and his beliefs, and he wrote rather extensively on his views about the struggles and challenges of the U.S. Civil rights movement. This isn't some singular quote written by some unknown activist, the quote alone is part of a whole series of writings he did that makes it pretty damn clear exactly who he's talking about, subesequent writings and conversations are consistent with that interpretation, this isn't something I'm pulling out of my ass based on a single quote.

He actually mentioned his struggle with White "moderates" on multiple occassions. So unless you want to posit that his writings and speeches were unclear or somehow should be interpreted differently, history and the public have a pretty damn good view of who he was talking about.

MLK was frustrated with people who stated that they supported him but were actually more concerned with not causing any conflict between the civil rights movement and the more extreme racists than they were with actual equality.

Citation needed. I'm sorry, but that's simply not apparent from that letter.

It's in the quote itself, when he mentions the people preferring the absence of tension and preferring order over justice, and the moderate judges and figures of the time were famous for trying to maintain the status quo between the civil rights movement and the more extreme racist elements of the opposition. A lot of people at the time merely wanted things to stay the way they were, and one of the most popular arguments from the moderates against the civil rights movement was the accusation that the civil rights movement was trying to change the foundations of society too fast, and too soon.

In the end, MLK was right, the KKK was not the hardest obstacle for the civil rights movement to overcome, it was the apathy of the White "moderates" who were happy with the status quo, and while they stated that they wanted equality, it was hard to get many to actually put actions behind their hollow words. He was tired of the patronizing condescension he was receiving from people that had no idea what it was like to be Black in the 1950's and all they could spout were empty platitudes of racial equality from one end, and constant excuses for why they couldn't possibly help from the other.

"How it was to be black in the 1950's" or "How it was to be black in USA in the 1950's"?

Hell, one of our too many (about 200) mayors is black. As far as I'm concerned, black people are overrepresented on the mayoral level when it comes to Slovenia.

The fact that the quote was from MLK, and he was talking specifically about the American civil rights movement should make it obvious that we are talking about Blacks in the U.S. It would be dumb to assume that the experiences of all Black people across the globe were identical in the 1950's, so Slovenia has jack to do with anything MLK was talking about, he was specifically talking about his experiences with the fight for civil rights in the United States.

And I don't actually have a problem with it. I do have a problem with being told that I don't care enough about a problem that never historically existed in my immediate vicinity, however.

Now, talking about my immediate vicinity, Serbia and Bosnia have been hit with flooding earlier this year. I wonder how many of you Escapists thought that was important enough that something should be done about it. I know I did what I could to help those people who lost everything they built in their lives because nature decided to fuck them over.

And I didn't dare assume people who didn't contribute were actually happy all that flooding happened and secretly going "HAH!" You just had other shit to deal with. Just like I have other shit to deal with than the black people's rights on a continent I don't even live on.

And again, you miss the point of the quote, MLK isn't taking issue with people who are uninvolved entirely with the situation, he is criticising people who are actively telling people in the Civil Rights movement that they should wait, that they should change their tactics and become more passive, that they should just wait for the majority White population to decide to give Black people equal rights in their own time. He's criticizing people who talk about racial equality, but when the time comes to actually do anything about it, they prefer to maintain order and not rock the boat.

Your flood example sucks, because the quote isn't talking about people in other countries, he's talking about Americans, in America. The equivalent to your flood example would be people in Slovenia talking about how they want to help the flood victims, and how bad they feel for them, but when it actually comes time to help them, they turn around and start talking about how the flood was just the way nature is, and we shouldn't bother cleaning anything up because it might upset the way things currently are.

Even then, that's a stretch, because the civil rights movement isn't a natural disaster that sweeps through and needs to be rebuilt afterwards. The civil rights movement was born out of a 100+ years of segregation, poverty, and discrimination, it was a system propped up by both active racists and the apathetic population that wished to maintain the status quo.

 

[Vegosiux]

First, your quotes got messed up. The staff really should make it a little less messy.

That's great, doesn't really change the fact that you went off on some weird tangent about how powerless you are in response to a post that was trying to explain part of the reasoning behind an oft-used quote about the leader of the American civil rights movements views while he was in prison for non-violent protests. We aren't talking about you, period, we are talking about MLK there's zero reason to tell us about how unimportant you think you are.

See, this is the thing. You might not be talking about me, but why are you talking to me then? And I say "you" as in "anyone" here, not you personally. I dare say that even if you address a crowd, every member of the crowd will act as if you addressed them, personally. That's something an orator should simply learn to deal with.

That's a bunch of pedantic tripe, yeah, nobody can know the exact thoughts of another person, but Martin Luther King Jr. is a relatively modern historic figure, he's still got friends alive today that talk about him and his beliefs, and he wrote rather extensively on his views about the struggles and challenges of the U.S. Civil rights movement. This isn't some singular quote written by some unknown activist, the quote alone is part of a whole series of writings he did that makes it pretty damn clear exactly who he's talking about, subesequent writings and conversations are consistent with that interpretation, this isn't something I'm pulling out of my ass based on a single quote.

He actually mentioned his struggle with White "moderates" on multiple occassions. So unless you want to posit that his writings and speeches were unclear or somehow should be interpreted differently, history and the public have a pretty damn good view of who he was talking about.

Yet, an ignorant and uneducated person like me simply doesn't have to give much of a damn, apparently. As always, you make the claim, you're the one who needs to support it, I'm not doing your homework for you. That sounds rude, I know, but my point is that this is an issue that's basically obvious to you, making you think "How can anyone not understand it?"

See the problem? You're assuming that everyone knows, and you'll think less of people who don't.

It's in the quote itself, when he mentions the people preferring the absence of tension and preferring order over justice, and the moderate judges and figures of the time were famous for trying to maintain the status quo between the civil rights movement and the more extreme racist elements of the opposition. A lot of people at the time merely wanted things to stay the way they were, and one of the most popular arguments from the moderates against the civil rights movement was the accusation that the civil rights movement was trying to change the foundations of society too fast, and too soon.

But that's so vague! Of course people are going to ask for more than words and visions when they're asked to fundamentally change the way they see the world, aren't they? To me, it's not about what you want, it's about why I should want it too! Sounds selfish? Yeh, that's how we humans work. If you can honestly say if you never in your life asked "Why should I care", then you are entitled to a cookie free of charge.

The fact that the quote was from MLK, and he was talking specifically about the American civil rights movement should make it obvious that we are talking about Blacks in the U.S. It would be dumb to assume that the experiences of all Black people across the globe were identical in the 1950's, so Slovenia has jack to do with anything MLK was talking about, he was specifically talking about his experiences with the fight for civil rights in the United States.

So I can disassociate myself from this issue that I don't even experience, without anyone assuming I was cowering and/or "supporting the status quo"?

No, I didn't think so. You (and a bunch of others) decided that issue is of paramount importance and the only reason for me to not want to rally behind you are malicious intents on my part, so you're never going to let me live that down.

Jeez I sound paranoid now, or I would, had it not happened before. Not that anyone should give a toss about my life experience.

And again, you miss the point of the quote, MLK isn't taking issue with people who are uninvolved entirely with the situation, he is criticising people who are actively telling people in the Civil Rights movement that they should wait, that they should change their tactics and become more passive, that they should just wait for the majority White population to decide to give Black people equal rights in their own time. He's criticizing people who talk about racial equality, but when the time comes to actually do anything about it, they prefer to maintain order and not rock the boat.

Your flood example sucks, because the quote isn't talking about people in other countries, he's talking about Americans, in America. The equivalent to your flood example would be people in Slovenia talking about how they want to help the flood victims, and how bad they feel for them, but when it actually comes time to help them, they turn around and start talking about how the flood was just the way nature is, and we shouldn't bother cleaning anything up because it might upset the way things currently are.

My flood example simply plays with (and takes the piss out of) this entire "Either you support us, or you're actively destroying us" mentality.

Even then, that's a stretch, because the civil rights movement isn't a natural disaster that sweeps through and needs to be rebuilt afterwards. The civil rights movement was born out of a 100+ years of segregation, poverty, and discrimination, it was a system propped up by both active racists and the apathetic population that wished to maintain the status quo.

"The population" simply didn't want to have things to turn to their detriment. Oh sure, you can talk about sacrifice for the greater good, but it's so easy to say you need to break some eggs to make an omelet when the eggs belong to someone else. People, human beings...they take more convincing than that. Some of them, in fact, many of them are actually going to offer their eggs so that the community won't starve (at least around here). You just need to give them a chance and not take them for granted.

And especially not guilt them. We humans, we like thinking we're in control, and we're doing what we're doing because we choose to. As long as you can maintain that illusion of control, we'll come around. Try to dismantle it, though, and we'll fight with fang and claw.

 

[2xDouble]

Are we creating a generation of victims? No.

See, "creating" is a progressive tense, meaning an ongoing process. The "current" generation is already a generation of "victims" (aka, people who claim no responsibility for themselves, because someone else must have wronged them for anything undesirable to happen). So no, "we" aren't creating victims, we have created victims. They, in turn, are creating and will create victims.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Vault101]

Looking at something and saying "hey...this is bulllshit!" Is not being a victim

Oh hell if anything shutting up because some guy who didn't get it shames you is being a victim

 

[Signa]

I totally think you're right OP. Even when the cause has merit, "victims" usually overstate their problem, causing the whole issue to seem larger than it really is.


Let's take the common one around here lately. Women in video games:

Someone says to me, "I wish there were more games where you play as a woman hero instead of all the whiteguy/brown hair that we've been getting lately."

I agree. It's lacking in imagination, and it makes every game seem the same, regardless of the scenario.

Someone says to me, "I'm sick of all this woman repression in video games. Why do no games properly represent women? Games are sexist, and I can't get immersed in the games I do want to play!"

Shut the fuck up. Games are games, and they are fun, no matter what your avatar is. I'm not a girl or a dog/robot, but Jetforce Gemini alone proves you to be either an idiot or just someone who wants to whine and complain. Any accusations of sexism just means you aren't part of the target audience. You don't see me saying that your Gilmore Girls needs to be changed so that I can enjoy it too!