A little more recently there was a provocateur of less celebrity who responded to a
discussion he wasn’t part of to object to the characterization of members of his hobbyist
group as “offended.” His exact words were “please point me to these mythical offended”
group members. Now, this is a group known not only for being on the whole utterly
unpleasable, but also for spending more time complaining about their hobby than doing it.
And the person making this objection has made an entire career out of being offended--
this is a man who is best known for harassing a widely-known fan out of the hobby entirely
because he didn’t like the way she dressed. The proposition of this hobbyist group not
being offended is on the face of it ridiculous, being offended is the primary
characterization they are known for.
discussion he wasn’t part of to object to the characterization of members of his hobbyist
group as “offended.” His exact words were “please point me to these mythical offended”
group members. Now, this is a group known not only for being on the whole utterly
unpleasable, but also for spending more time complaining about their hobby than doing it.
And the person making this objection has made an entire career out of being offended--
this is a man who is best known for harassing a widely-known fan out of the hobby entirely
because he didn’t like the way she dressed. The proposition of this hobbyist group not
being offended is on the face of it ridiculous, being offended is the primary
characterization they are known for.
Again, could this be mere cognitive dissonance? I don’t think so. Rather, I think this is a
categorization difference: for this man “offended” is a special category of anger, of which
only the minorities he harasses are capable. He isn’t offended, he’s merely filled with
justified anger so much and so consistently that he can film, edit, and release a video on
a weekly basis about some new part of pop culture that “the SJWs” or “the feminists” or
“the gays” or whoever is using to “ruin something forever”--there’s a gay character in a
card game, or there’s a movie in which a woman is a superhero, or a trans player was
allowed to compete in a game tournament, or a player in a different games tournament
is openly gay. None of these, for him, count as being offended, they’re about how the
existence of people that aren’t in the same category as him in spaces that he regards as
reserved for him, are specific offenses. “Being offended” is what the people whose
presence he’s angry about do when he gets angry at them for being present.
categorization difference: for this man “offended” is a special category of anger, of which
only the minorities he harasses are capable. He isn’t offended, he’s merely filled with
justified anger so much and so consistently that he can film, edit, and release a video on
a weekly basis about some new part of pop culture that “the SJWs” or “the feminists” or
“the gays” or whoever is using to “ruin something forever”--there’s a gay character in a
card game, or there’s a movie in which a woman is a superhero, or a trans player was
allowed to compete in a game tournament, or a player in a different games tournament
is openly gay. None of these, for him, count as being offended, they’re about how the
existence of people that aren’t in the same category as him in spaces that he regards as
reserved for him, are specific offenses. “Being offended” is what the people whose
presence he’s angry about do when he gets angry at them for being present.
So there’s two classes of people: the Elect who are allowed to be in his hobby, and the
Reprobate who aren’t. When the Elect are angry, it’s always justified per se. When the
Reprobate are angry, it’s “being offended” and is always unwarranted. The Elect are, by
definition, incapable of being offended, because offended is just a quality that the
Reprobate always have, and it’s never a reaction to an injustice because nothing that the
Elect could ever do to the Reprobate would ever be unjustified.
Reprobate who aren’t. When the Elect are angry, it’s always justified per se. When the
Reprobate are angry, it’s “being offended” and is always unwarranted. The Elect are, by
definition, incapable of being offended, because offended is just a quality that the
Reprobate always have, and it’s never a reaction to an injustice because nothing that the
Elect could ever do to the Reprobate would ever be unjustified.
I have some reason to view said individual as a rather cynical plagiarist who just uses his large platform to adopt and milk the gripes of lower tier content producers. He just knows how to play to his crowd.
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing uniquely Calvinist about in-group out-group dynamics. Its not that the ingroup is chosen by god but that the outgroup are interlopers who haven't invested the the 'correct' kind of effort to become a true fan and are supposedly trying to use 'illegitimate' ways to enter the audience.
'Taking offense' is seen as the weapon that the 'SJWs' use to hijack a status that doesn't belong to them, as though some pun based ontology makes 'being offended' the same as 'being on the offensive'. So 'real fans' can't be offended because they're on the 'defensive'. When they complain its legitimate because they're already the target audience while the 'SJWs' are by their own admission trying to broaden the audience and engage in cultural criticism so their critiques are illegitimate due to the 'ulterior motive'.
In Calvinism being elect isn't a privilege because its entirely at the mercy of god and the outgroup are to be shunned for their sin, the special status is a reward in the afterlife so the ingroup can reassure themselves that despite the actual circumstances the outgroup aren't a threat at all. Gatekeeping fandoms derive social status from their fandoms exclusivity so they really are under-threat if the 'SJWs' get what they want by widening the audience. Most Calvinist cults grew out of groups who were marginalized and under-threat and the ideology reassures the members that they are ultimately safe, fandom gate keepers aren't under threat in the slightest so they have to constantly talk about the dangers the 'SJWs' pose in order for them to justify their actions as defensive.
When your group is under threat hypocrisy is 'fair' as long as your opponents are also hypocrites. That's why they love hearing that those they disagree with are emotion driven, irrational and crazy. They make ridiculous claims not because they believe them under any ideology but because they have driven themselves into a paranoid frenzy where saying nonsense is all that they can do to protect them from their opponents. Calvinism re-assures people who can't fight back that god is looking after them, fearmongering about 'SJWs' or 'immigrant hordes coming to end western civilization as we know it' is about marshaling people who are capable of fighting into suspending empathy so they take actions only justifiable defensively.
More exact Christian/'online-right' parallels would be in the 'virtue of suffering' where its claimed that people who weren't ostracized or bullied by society can't be 'true fans' (which with no sense of irony is accompanied by the supposed 'virtuous sufferers' trying to bully and ostracize the 'interlopers') or the literal recreation of Gnostic distinction between 'materials and spirituals/psychics' in the NPC meme (which isn't a literal belief but is appealing for the same narcissistic reasons as Calvinism and Gnosticism).