Are we creating a generation of victims?

[Something Amyss]

Did you not read my whole post?

I did. It didn't make the bit I quoted or the rest I alluded to any better. And claiming "diversity for diversity's sake" is usually used to justify the status quo, so pardon me if I seem skeptical that you're so onboard with diversity. The fact that you're responding to anyone, in any circumstances with things like "shut the fuck up" and "games are games" tramples on an issue I thought was more worth addressing. even this illusory evil person who demands diversity for diversity's sake.

But even if you're sincere, the idea of complaining about diversity for diversity's sake as an issue seems utterly petulant. It strikes me as something every bit as ridiculous as the alleged "repression," and rather than tell people to shut up over something I find to be absurd and trivial, I didn't say anything about it. You may notice that's in keeping with the theme of my last post.

One will lead to better and more creative writing, the other will be more of the same shit everyone is already complaining about, but probably worse, because whomever is writing is no longer making what they want.

Yes, assuming that gaming is a creative free enterprise and that the games in question (primarily AAA) aren't the subject of design by committee and focus groups. But that would be disingenuous and completely out of step with reality, so why even bring it up? The fact is, games are commercial products which are designed to pander to gamers. To suddenly take offense that such a practice might happen suggest something else in play.

Suddenly, it's different. Women and minorities need to be "done right" or need the "right story," or even need to be "well-written," while the average white dude is plunked anywhere,whether there's much of a story or not, whether he's well-written or not, whether he even has a character or personality. There are all sorts of roadblocks and caveats that come with female or minority protagonists, and they're all every bit as absurd. And if it really didn't make a difference, there wouldn't be all these exercises in foot dragging. And then, when someone comes along who does want to do a woman or minority, they're subject to the same foot-dragging. That's the beauty of excuses. It's always something else. Always.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Did you not read my whole post? It's about the framing of the idea, more than the idea itself. I want diversity. I DON'T want diversity for diversity's sake. One will lead to better and more creative writing, the other will be more of the same shit everyone is already complaining about, but probably worse, because whomever is writing is no longer making what they want.

Frankly, this sums up my opinion on the entire "womenz in gamez" issue. Thank you for that, sir.

I'd love to see more women in games. I don't really want it to be a "Do it or you're a sexist misogynist sack of MRA scum!" sort of deal either. Hell, I just want it for the better potential for story telling.



To address the OP: I believe so, but, realistically, people aren't all that much more entitled or selfish than they've been in the past...it's just that we all have the means to blare our selfish and entitled opinions at one another via the social equivalent of a loud speaker.

And...I, personally, have a fundamental problem with the quoted idea (NOT the poster!) below:

There's also a general hypocrisy of the notion of thicker skin, since it usually only applies towards things that don't personally bother us. "I'm not offended, so you shouldn't be."

I note the "general" and "usually" parts of the quote, but I've seen the idea repeated without the qualifying terminology...so...what if I fully recognize that the things I'm complaining about myself are ultimately asinine and not necessarily worthy of others' time or respect, nor do they have to be addressed simply because they're a bother to me? Like I do constantly.

Am I then entitled to the idea that others need thicker skins, if I'm aware of my own need to acquire some? What if I think every problem is pointless? Mine included? What if I thought that everyone should make like Atlas and shrug off some of their excess baggage?

I mean, I don't, that'd be unrealistic. We're human, after all, and the baggage/selfishness/entitlement/horribleness/decency/kindness/love are all kinda part of the experience. But at what point does the desire for others to be less inclined toward emotional responses and selfish actions become tenable and at what point does it become...well, selfish and emotional on the part of the desire-er?

I may be overthinking this. Or underthinking, depending on how ya view it, I guess.

 

[Norithics]

Speaking of thick skins, I enjoyed Polygon's recent article, `No Skin Thick Enough` [http://www.polygon.com/2014/7/22/5926193/women-gaming-harassment].

Hurgh, god. Some of that made me want to vomit.

Here's the problem, though. I've dealt with some of the most unbelievable abuse via the internet that you can. I've had people dedicate their time and effort to try and rattle me. I've received threats of death and yes, even rape as well, and I'm a dude. My point, however, isn't something immature like "there see we get it too;" I know I'm an outlier. The reason why I mention it is... the call to action in response to all of this (including the one in that article) is a little, uhm. Lackluster? Hopeful? A bit naive, even?

You can't appeal to scumlords to be better people; if they're already at the point of doing things that should get the police called on them, then it's too late for that. I don't feel like it's fair to put the onus on victims to be tougher, or right. If I had my druthers I'd have a button that just makes a responsible adult show up at their house and shame them (or arrest them as the case may be). But there just doesn't seem to be an alternative. Either you rebuff them soundly with a humbling quip or you quit. Or... try to appeal to their humanity, I guess, but it just doesn't seem like that can work in this context.

I don't disagree that it's heinous, and I would never argue that it's to any good end, but I just don't see another response.

 

[endtherapture]

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

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

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

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

 

[Signa]

snip

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

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

 

[SecondPrize]

There are people who would seek to wear their oppression as a badge for all to see who would seek these things out to raise a fuss, but they're a tiny minority. Most of it is people who are more willing, on the internet, to call shit out. For every instance where someone had to go on the defensive for their answer to a "Do you still beat your wife," type question there are more where someone needs some encouragement to get with the times.

 

[zhoominator]

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

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

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

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

It's funny you post this here when you bring up in another thread how you feel as though you were being discriminated in the work place because of the large female majority and you felt excluded from the "work's culture" because of this. Funny how when it affects YOU it becomes a legitimate problem.

Do you really think that because women have basic human rights that there is no sexism worth discussing? That because black people have basic human rights there are no race issues worth discussing? This is a ridiculous argument as YOU YOURSELF made a bloody thread about it, except pertaining to your gender.

 

[Signa]

Did you not read my whole post? It's about the framing of the idea, more than the idea itself. I want diversity. I DON'T want diversity for diversity's sake. One will lead to better and more creative writing, the other will be more of the same shit everyone is already complaining about, but probably worse, because whomever is writing is no longer making what they want.

Frankly, this sums up my opinion on the entire "womenz in gamez" issue. Thank you for that, sir.

You're welcome. At least SOMEONE understands me.

 

[Batou667]

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

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

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

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

(In my humble opinion.)

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

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

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

 

[Phasmal]

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

Dude, you didn't even reply to me.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Signa]

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

Dude, you didn't even reply to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[cypher-raige]

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

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

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

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

 

[jacob idstrom]

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

 

[Skatologist]

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

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


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





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

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

 

[cypher-raige]

I'll await a response.

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

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

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

I will address a few of your points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spoiler

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do you hang around those kind of people?

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

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

 

[Erttheking]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Erttheking]

snip

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Nowhere Man]

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

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

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

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

(In my humble opinion.)

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

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