This is actually part two of a short series. Here's part one. The first video focuses on the reaction to the work of feminist Anita Sarkeesian, but this video makes some more general, interesting points about why simple remarks like "I'm an atheist" or "I don't drink" can sometimes offend people.
I think this analysis is very helpful for personal introspection re-evaluation of one's opinions, and also for understanding the reactions that you will often get for discussing particular kinds of issues both online and offline.
I agree with what he has to say entirely. It's annoying that people judge you based on a belief or think that you are imposing it on them in some way just because you have the belief and are keeping quiet about it. For instance, I have never really drank much in my life. In my 18-24 age range my doctors told me not to drink because of something weird with my body (it's complicated). Okay, I'll do that or I'll die, sounds pretty straightforward and not that hard. People would ask me at parties if I wanted a drink, and they'd come back with hate towards me and avoid me like the plague like I was judging them. I wasn't, I had a legitimate health condition. That being said, the reason people feel this way is that there ARE people like this: (replace gluten with whatever, alcohol drinking, veganism, atheism, christianity, whatever) So yes there are people who are quietly trying to live their life the way they want, and get judged when asked about it. But likely, it's because people just assume you are in that "group" of those other people that pester the shit out of them for what they do. For instance, I eventually got asked a bit more by a couple of people why I didn't drink, told them it was because of a specific health condition, and they ended up becoming friends of mine. I later found out that they, even though they would drink maybe 1-2 beers a week, were getting constantly judged by their parents about "alcohol is bad, you should never drink alcohol!", and likely it's true for most people like that. I also have known people who preach their gluten intolerance at every chance they get the same way as in that video, vegans who scream bloody murder when you eat meat around them, etc. The problem isn't that one side is bad and one side is good, it's that people identify people in terms of their groups. Either themselves (I'm an american! I'm black! Sister solidarity! Go Red Sox! etc), or others (he's vegan, he's black, she's a woman, he's a muslim). So everything anything that people do who are a part of that group gets tagged as something the whole group likely does (which is where racial/religion intolerance comes from, and why muslims are hated by a lot of westerners because they group ISIL/al-Qaeda with the Koran). It's just a way to filter out large amounts of information/people because there is just SO FREAKING MUCH OF IT now. With the internet we have access to so many ideas, and the population is really ridiculously high. How does the human brain account for that? Filtering by group. The problem is that people don't realize this is happening, it's mostly subconscious, and they don't reflect on themselves. So when a christian hates all muslims, they don't think about the chrisitian neo-nazis trying to murder all black people, they think of themselves as a full representation of their cause. And the rest of the people who don't think this way end up just blind followers, and fall into the groupthink. So a massive ego will lead a cause, spell out a course of hatred toward another group, then all of his followers just fall in line.
There is a definite issue of being judged by the worst of your "group", no matter how loosely that group association is. My partner is vegan, has been vegan for 10 years. He's a very live and let live kind of guy, just does what he does for himself. Recently he got into a heated argument with another vegan over who is "really" vegan, because my partner bought a meatball sub for a homeless person who asked. Just buying meat for someone else was seen as this horrible sin, for lack of a better word, by another vegan. There have been several times that just saying "No thanks, I'm vegan" has been met with "Oh, so you think you're better than me" style reactions. Because no matter how calm he is, there are people in his "group" that are jerks and people who have dealt with enough jerks to see the entire group this way.
I'm also a teetotaler, in my case for religious reasons (I'm a Buddhist). I think the negative associations towards teetotalers comes from traditionally most teetotalers being rather stuck-up preachy evangelical Protestant Christians who mixed up their hate for booze with their hate for beer-guzzling German and Irish Catholic immigrants.
there's this thing called transactional analysis. It was bigger in the 70's but fell out of style, but some of the core concepts are neat. It breaks us into three ego states - the parent, the child and the adult. When we interact with other people, we each take on one of these ego states. In rational conversation we might both take on adult, in play we might both take on child, in learning one person might take on child while another takes on parent. These are learned states that help us quickly determine the power structure of an interaction. I think that when people are in these situations where someone say no, they don't do that thing, it subtly changes the dynamic of the conversation. The first person, the one who offered the thing, sees the transaction as adult to adult. Once the other person says no from a moral standpoint, they are seen as taking a parent role. Now we're in what's called a cross transaction, where one party was expecting a certain ego state but got another. There are really only two reactions to this crossed transaction. The first party could hold fast in their adult ego state and say, "cool", drop the perceived slight and move on. The other option, the option chosen by the loudest of the internet, is to make the transaction even again. They respond to the parent ego state by taking on a child ego state and by throwing a digital temper tantrum. They see the morality of the other person as a characteristic of an adult state and finish the game by taking on a child state. The theory is that this is a remnant of childhood learning. The folks who lash out were, as children, subjugated to moral authority from the parents in their lives (maybe not literal parents, but people who played the role). Once that stance is taken again in their adult lives, they slide from their stance into a child state. I think this is even easier online because the people who yell and fuss use the internet as a playground for their child state, so the transition isn't a state change, but a change of mood for the state they are already in.
I heard about this in regards to religion and people's interaction when religion is on topic. It seems that the default state for being part of a religion, (or I suppose political party) - is that there is a tiny minority which is the adult/dictator - and everyone else is the studious child - nodding and agreeing. There is never (at least from my experience) - any adult to adult interaction, because by definition, the main subject (preacher, person discussing and considering from their own perspective) - has the supreme authority on behalf of the deity, and so they are at the top, and others who are learning from them or arguing with them aren't as enlightened as ones-self. If a religious person with actual belief in the book are talking to a non-believer or person of other religion - then they are the adult and the other is an ignorant child, a child acting like an adult, which needs to be shut down without angering them (from their perspective) If two peers are discussing - then they either have the same belief, and so are both children to the belief or acting as an adult in tandem and everyone else is the child; or if they have differing beliefs, then they are adult-child, and may switch roles at times through the conversation. Thoughts? these are my feelings and experiences~
I think the theory is good for simplifying complex structures for quick understanding, but I also have some personal issue with broad statements that encompass whole groups saying - they are this way. I do agree that the default stance in classical religion can be the parent/child (even to the point for forcing everyone to call the man up front "father") but I don't think that's a default state of religion. In my personal experience I've met adult/adult with holy men and felt respected as a peer. On the other hand, I do stray away from a lot of the organized aspects of religion because of their implicit power structure.
I'd hope to never say anything about large groups of people; I'm only one person with one life's worth of experience and my perspective - and I'm always open to having my views changed, or holding more than one contradicting view at the same time, but this is just my thinking.. It's true that when I say "religion" - simply because of my super-conservative fundamentalist Seventh-day Adventist Christian early life, I automatically sway towards considering organised traditional monotheism.. And I have a bias because I was a teacher and church leader and so I feel like I can see inside the minds, hidden intentions, lies, manipulation and double-think of 'religious' people even though I suppose it's possible that I was an anomaly and I /don't/ know what's going on in other's heads..
Your comment made me think of a pdf I recently came across (through Hubski, Reddit? Not sure), called "The Authoritarians" http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf You might be interested, it talks about some of the things you mentioned.
Psych guy, here! There was a very popular book back in the 60s called *Games People Play" which is based on this.
If you think in terms of empiricists vs. non-empiricists there is nothing rational about either of those positions. If you think in terms of "dumbest republicans and dumbest democrats" I still don't think there is anything rational about those positions, although I suppose it might be explained by the laziness of party affiliation. [Democrat should probably be replaced with "spiritualist" or something like that, since the democratic party does not contend that vaccines are dangerous in the way that the republican party contends that climate change is a conspiracy, but you get the idea.] I don't think the large number of independents that believe truly absurd things can be explained without irrationality, in any case. Also, the policy positions held by prominent political figures on the right is not an analog to beliefs held by a small number of fringe elements in hippie communes on the left. This seems to be trying very hard to say, "eh, we're all crazy!" when the crazy is primarily on one side of the coin.
Here's a very good video about Phil Fish that's also by him. I think this video series is the Anita Sarkeesian video that he was planning on doing for a while. And as for the actual video itself, I'm not sure if this explanation is as accurate or prevalent as the video suggests. Take his example of the drinker getting butthurt about the sober person at the party. If his conjecture is correct, then there should be a different in reaction between the sober person being sober because it was a lifestyle choice and the sober person being sober because they lived a sheltered life and wasn't exposed to alcohol. Let's say they had strict religious parents. Then, shouldn't the drinker be far less offended by the sheltered person? Same thing with the vegan example. A white vegan would provoke outrage while an Indian vegan wouldn't? I'm not sure if I fully buy his explanation, and it seems like this video is going to support whatever thesis he's trying to push in his video series.
Your counter-argument doesn't make any sense to me for two reasons: 1) If your parents decided for you that drinking was wrong, the same moral judgment was made, it was just made by some other stranger. 2) The person that feels like they're being judged may not know why someone doesn't drink, but the feeling of being "judged" is more of an introspective, hypothetical thing than "this person is literally judging me." I don't know that I complete agree with this explanation, as a general rule, but I think it is interesting and there could very well be a lot of truth in it.
I've found that this also applies to anybody who gave any sort of negative opinion on Mad Max: Fury Road. Anita Sarkeesian was one of those people. A lot of people turned on her for it, even people who had supported her during the GamerGate debacle. "Oh no, somebody I support thought this wasn't as feministic as everybody says it was. Does that mean that there might be actual problems with the movie? But then I'm a bad person for falsely touting it as feminist and liking something that's meta-problematic! I shouldn't be having this internal debate! I'm a normal person! Everybody except for these few losers thought Fury Road was awesome! I'm angry at Sarkeesian for even daring to question that!" What's funny is that she has both sides of the GamerGate argument arguing against her for that now - both the MRAs and Feminists thought it was an exemplar of feministic filmmaking.
To her credit, Lindsay Ellis repudiated the whole idea of labeling certain works feminist to justify enjoying media.
Plenty of people challenge our opinions online, and while they receive angry comments, very few have stirred up the fury that Sarkeesian has. I agree with this attitude being an issue in how we judge each other in general, but I don't think it relates to women in gaming or Sarkeesian any more then any other issue. I'm curious what his point will eventually play out to over why women in gaming in particular creates such anger and controversy.
Yeah I've seen this problem a lot. I completely agree with this person - we (and I still do it sometimes) tend to put words between the lines that aren't there. But honestly, I think the most prominent issue about this is the fear of invalidation - we were all raised to think that being wrong, failure and such were negative things. And so, subconsciously, we start trying to find any way anyone could hint that these negative things apply to us. Which is exacerbated by people who use heavy sarcasm or other techniques to mean one thing while saying another (which can much too easily become subtle enough to go over people's heads, which makes it so that when they LEARN about it it instils paranoia. People need to be less sensitive and less afraid of not being optimal...
booped to watch later. will edit with thoughts.