Thursday 3 September 2015

The Sad Power of Offence

I suspect people reading this will be familiar with the latest DriveThruRPG controversy. But in brief, a rather silly person or group of persons recently created and released a game with a controversy-courting title to do with rape; a fuss was kicked-up in various social media circles about the offensiveness of said title; and as a result DriveThruRPG now has an "Offensive Content Policy". In essence, this policy is to suspend titles from being sold if anybody reports them as "offensive", pending a review by staff.

I don't think there is a particular need to make arguments from a soap box about this. Anybody using words like "censorship" and "freedom of speech" in this context does not really understand the nature of those things; OneBookShelf is perfectly entitled to do as it sees fit with respect to its market and customer base - even if I personally disagree with the decision.

I am more interested in this case as a kind of paradigm example of how being offended has taken on great power in late modernity. In our age, there is almost nothing as rhetorically and politically powerful as the ability to say, with credibility, that this thing offends me. It defines what can and cannot be said on university campuses. It decides what companies can and cannot do to advertise their products and services. It gets Nobel Prize-winning scientists hounded out of their professions for making badly judged jokes. It gets politicians sacked because they said intemperate things when they were students. The rush to seek offence - and to demand action about it - is one of the most significant sociological developments of my lifetime. In the early decades of the 21st Century taking offence is a weapon and victimhood is a trophy. Battles are fought and lost through strategic applications of accusations of micro-aggression and trigger warning. The winners are those who feel a sense of outrage the most keenly and shout about it the loudest; the losers are humiliated and forced to repent. What matters is not truth, but whether words and opinions can be repositioned as sins.

The desire to have the world arrange itself to one's own needs and preferences, to never have to confront anything disagreeable and to be outraged at the prospect of doing so, is an infantile one. It's the desire of the powerless for protection - only somebody who lacks control of their emotions feels the need for it. An adult comfortable in his or her own skin knows that taking offence is a choice that you make. A child doesn't have the power to prevent himself making it.

So I view this latest development as sad, more than anything, because it shows the extent to which a large minority of people in the world of RPGs, just like in all walks of life, are not comfortable in their own skins. They not only aren't in a position of control over their emotions, they don't even want to be, or see anything wrong with that. I think that says something deeply troubling about the society in which we find ourselves - it's a society of people who don't aspire towards self-command but aspire towards ever-more ostentatious displays of outrage in order to exert power over those around them. It's like an inverted existentialism: Sartre's "we are left alone, without excuse" transformed to a world in which there is always an excuse - our emotions are never our own, but the fault of somebody other. Foucault would undoubtedly have had a field day with it, but I've never understood enough about him to figure out what he'd say.

28 comments:

  1. To be fair, Tim Hunt resigned from an honorary position with the UCL after his comment. "Spokeman says dumb thing; stops being spokesman" is hardly "hounded out of their profession."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are plenty of other examples that I'm sure you're aware of if that one's not to your taste.

      Delete
  2. Hunt's not so simple.
    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-timothy-hunt-witch-hunt/

    ReplyDelete
  3. What's all this nonsense? Generic partisan talking points on a gaming blog? Get behind me, Satan! Or, rather, get back in front of me, cockroach clans!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's gaming related. I'm using my discretion within those limits.

      Delete
    2. Ha! Abuse of discretion! Arbitrary and capricious! Witness all the crazies that will emerge.

      (For my part I see this as maybe an unusual problem of these times as far as the the university setting goes. I'm just not seeing it elsewhere. There's always been social censure for saying impolite/unpopular/ugly things or making ads that are too sexy).

      Delete
  4. "The desire to have the world arrange itself to one's own needs and preferences, to never have to confront anything disagreeable and to be outraged at the prospect of doing so, is an infantile one."

    It seems to me that the reactions of others which you find disagreeable and your own reaction to them are two sides of the same coin.

    Your desire to have others not behave as you describe is no more or less infantile than their desires.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure what response you expect to this. "You're a baby." "No, you are!"

      Delete
  5. A world in which a million people all exercise their rights to ban the Enemy of the People from their own private business or personal space is no better than a world in which the government does it. In some ways it's worse. I would rather have to purchase Sons and Lovers from the back of the store, or go into the red light district to find it at the dirty book stand because of some set of petty government regulations, than to, say, have my reputation smeared or lose my job because the ever restless zeitgeist has determined that D.H. Lawrence fans are sexists, racists, homophobes, Islamophobes or whatever. In practice there's less intellectual freedom now than at any point in my lifetime, and it impacts many--some of whom are on my "side", some of whom are not. OneBookShelf is simply the sort of tip of the iceberg on this, relatively innocuous in and of itself, but emblematic of the problem. And if course, Ickes (sp?) posturing on it--he is of course against "Bible Belt" censorship and all the rest--makes it all the more dishonest and sick. My two cents. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If this guy showed up delete the post. He's using you as cover to be a real cunt. Your views make sense but there are real shitty humans in the world and cleansing from the earth takes oppressing them. Oppress the fuck out of bad people. This is brutal sure. But also you can't fault others freedom to not want to share any space with pieces of shit. Even if you think of it as all right.

      Delete
  6. I sincerely want to reply to this post, but I have absolutely nothing to add to the conversation. I agree with you on practically every point that you've made here today.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I suspect it is more a combination of kicking up a fuss for gain, and cultural changes.

    Currently doing so is profitable, so more people jump on the bandwagon. It may become so common that everyone will become inured. If it doesn't mostly die off then, folks may rethink their assumptions about mental competence and psychiatric confinement.

    Or maybe it will die off when people are willing to laugh in public at madlibs of the formulaic language of the attacks.

    Tony Stark has problematic views on the Posse Comitatus Act.

    A. Troll

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think people are just little bitches that need to put their heads back up their asses so the rest of us don't have to look at them.

    ReplyDelete
  9. When has posturing as an aggrieved party and seeking redress for offences against you or on behalf of some conveniently silent other NOT been a standard rhetorical tactic? Was has actually changed, if anything, besides the existence of a readily-available peanut gallery?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You only need to spend some time on a given university campus in the English speaking world to notice a long list of things that have changed, John.

      Delete
    2. I've done so, and I still hold the view I always have: people complain about things changing to a much greater degree than they actually change.

      Delete
  10. I'd like to tweak your view a little, actually: it's not about personally being offended, so much as demonstrating that someone has given offense. I could be a cisgender heterosexual male WASP in the US, in a position of unassailable cultural privilege, and still attack someone else for saying something "offensive" in a racist or sexist (etc.) mode. It obviously wouldn't be on my own behalf; I might have a solid grasp on why what that person said broke the rules, but it wouldn't be a keen personal pain for me.

    In contrast, I could be part of a traditionally-oppressed minority and viciously tear into someone who said something "offensive," not because I was a sad little whiner who wasn't comfortable in my own skin, but because I was fed up with my minority being oppressed, and finally had enough confidence to speak out about it and attempt to punish the people who were systematically denying me my full rights and privileges as a member of a supposedly free and equal society. This is the kind of usage that gives the "culture of offense" its power in the first place - because pointing out and stamping out systemically-ensconced prejudicial behavior is something we still need to do.

    The distribution of these charges is hardly equal or just. People in highly visible and powerful positions can get pounced on for a single error or slip and punished disproportionately, while the worst offenders on the street level often go completely unscathed. But on the other hand, the backlash against "offense" often comes from a deeply racist/sexist/FoxNewsy place where people want to go on enjoying and celebrating their prejudices, and inflicting them on others, without needing to worry about feeling the sting of society frowning at them. I'm not saying anyone here falls into that group, of course; I'm just saying that it's a complicated issue that is connected to all sorts of issues beyond one online retailer carrying one product or line of products.

    TL;DR: I think it might be useful to view the issue from a slightly different angle than the discussion above has been coming from. Charges of "offense" are not leveled on a one-to-one correspondence with thin-skinned whiners becoming unable to deal with their emotions; rather, this issue is just one example of a great turbulence that comes with sweeping (and overall positive) societal change.

    I hope, even if you disagree, that this point of view helps you see things from a new angle, and perhaps suggests new ways to deal with such conflicts in the future.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree with the above 100%. Offense is a tricky term because it encapsulates such a broad spectrum of situations, and can be difficult to tell what someone means by "this is offensive" without further elaboration, so as a phrase it's become almost useless. The bus add is "offensive" because it is rather tasteless, but being tasteless is not in and of itself a sin. Anyone who needs to be shielded from the sight of bare bosoms needs to grow up (assuming they aren't an actual child who has been stinted on adequate sex education). On the other hand, it may also be said to be "offensive" because a proudly displayed reference to prostitution creates an unfriendly atmosphere for the women who ride said bus (sexual harassment on public transit being common enough as it is). And since the image is prominently displayed in a public vehicle, it isn't the kind of thing someone can opt into. That's not so much acting like a crybaby as it is asking for common courtesy during your daily commute. There are a lot of reasons one might "take offense" with the sign, but not all of those reasons are equally valid.

      "Offense" as a term is used as a shorthand for "contributes to or causes harm". It's also used as a rhetorical club to punish ideas that one find's personally upsetting. The key lies in determining whether you are asking the world to accommodate a need, as in "I need to feel safe from sexual harassment on public transit," or conform to a preference, "I don't want to have to think about things that upset me".

      Delete
    2. Count me into this camp as well.

      The best post I've read about this situation to date is Bankuei's, over here:

      https://bankuei.wordpress.com/2015/09/04/the-failing-business-of-hate/

      Here's the key sentence, I think, that requires a response from the people whining about the boycott and the publisher's response thereto:

      "If your store sells Klan Regalia, I can choose to not go to your store entirely, and while I know I wasn’t going to buy an Imperial Grand Wizard KKK hood, I also know I don’t want any of my money going to your store because you’re clearly ok with that stuff."

      Delete
    3. I think you're misunderstanding my position. It's not about "sad little whiners". This isn't about whining. It is unequivocably about power - the power to control speech and even opinions of others. That's why I was talking about Foucault.

      This isn't a movement among people who are genuinely oppressed. Do you honestly think that anybody who complained to OBS about this product is "oppressed"? This New Outrageism is a phenomenon within the bourgeoisie. It isn't the little people rising up in revolt. It's the privileged attempting to extend their privilege to the point at which they no longer even encounter anything distasteful. It is the bourgeoisie exerting social control, just as it always does, in a new and different form.

      Now, don't get me wrong: I think that if you are going to create a game called "Tournament of Rapists" or whatever it was, you are deliberately courting controversy and also contributing to a vulgarisation of public life which I personally despise. Ditto for the "Ride me all day for £3" bus adverts. Behaving like an adult cuts both ways. But that's not the subject of this blog post.

      Delete
    4. I'd say that those particular bus advertisements are more than just bad manners (not that they're monumental injustices either, but I feel comfortable saying they shouldn't be on those busses), but there are plenty of other distasteful advertisements that are simply bad advertisements. And while I can't see companies deciding to pull "offensive" adds as any kind of tragedy, it's not exactly an ethical victory either. A company would want to pull any add that wasn't doing a good job of advertising their product regardless of the reason. Nor do I believe that uncouth RPGs oppress anyone - while I would have no wish to buy such a game, I can't say that I would feel the need to kick up a big stink about the thing either.

      When outrage is directed towards the unjust attitudes of people with the power to act on their biases, then I think it can be a force for good. However, as I think more about the issue I find myself coming around to your side. A majority of cultural outrage seems to be directed very inefficiently, and fails to distinguish between people who are behaving rudely or unkindly from people who are directly causing harm. It's also a very blunt instrument: racial inequality in police violence merits a much greater level of outrage and action than, say, the misogynist attitudes of C. S. Lewis.

      Delete
  11. This post is the most insightful commentary about this mess that I've read.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm a socialist and its mainly New Left fellow-traveller sorts that engage in this and see it as legitimate praxis. I will apologise for my tribe.

    My personal objection is that it is bloody useless for actually addressing any kind of oppression in society if you're relying on institutions to self-censor in order to protect their brand identity - which is what happens on University campuses, in businesses and on sites that distribute RPGs. Businesses are not obligated, despite what the 'free speech' libertarian sorts argue, to stock any one product if it negatively impacts their branding. It's capitalism policing itself - the market doing what markets are supposed to do. The problem comes when institutions are expected to represent a community (be it 'gamers' ,'the OSR' or 'nerds' or whatever identity people want to ascribe to themselves) as then people are fighting over narratives. I personally believe in most cases the political lexicon used is more or less a smokescreen for 'I want gaming to look like this and not like that'. Why people can't grasp that YOUR game can be FATAL Racial Holy War: The Enrapening whereas other people can still roleplay as a transgender Orc finally earning their place in ciscentrist Orc society and that's alright. I personally don't want to game with people who I think are bigots, or purchase games that I find offensive, so I don't. Simple as that really.


    It's an old example - but I find LoFP's art pretty gross. From what I've seen there is a disproportionate and somewhat bizarre focus on depicting gory violence occurring to a central female character. I think elements of that choice and the fact it became the iconic visual style of LoFP show a certain misogynistic streak. It doesn't mean everyone who plays it is a monster or I think it should be pulled from shelves. If people buy Tournament of Rapists, somehow pitch to several people to spend time with them playing the adventure 'Tournament of Rapists' (a difficult water-cooler conversation by all accounts) and complete that game, then I hope they had fun.

    'Gaming' doesn't need to be more inclusive. YOUR group might need to be more inclusive - game companies should be more inclusive (expand the hobby expands their profits at the end of the day) but if the tedious nerds who want to keep the hobby in some Platonic ideal of Gamerdom, that's fine. Let them fade away into tedious sweaty obscurity whilst the hobby expands beyond them.

    You'll note that the figures who engage in these witch-hunts contribute nothing to actually making life better. You'll never see the fuckers on a picket-line or at a rally or actually meeting any of the people they deign to defend from the menace of tasteless indie game supplements. They focus solely on culture, and fixing culture, and ignoring the actual less glamorous injustices that occur daily. I once had an exchange on Twitter where somebody told me it was racist that Daenerys Targaryen was lifted aloft by loads of Africans. I pointed out that the only extras available were Moroccan - should they have denied indigenous Moroccans work to protect your sensibilities? The exchange ended when I pointed out that Daenerys is from Valyria; she's not pretend-European, she's pretend-Asian. I was then told it was very 'privileged' of me to expect people to have read the works that they are deriding publicly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for writing this. I'm by no means an expert on the matter but I think the problem has something to do with the way Marx and Marxism were reinterpreted in the 1960s and 70s. Suddenly it turned out students and intellectuals were actually at the vanguard of the revolution rather than the proletariat, and thanks to the discovery of Gramsci what came to matter was the battle for, or against, cultural hegemony. This has explained the way the Left in general seems to have forgotten about actually trying to make "reality" better, if that makes sense. The preoccupation is with cultural change.

      Delete
    2. Exactly - completely marching around the old Marixst concept of base and superstructure and conveniently putting intellectuals on the forefront of their own philosophy - allowing people to conveniently be advancing world revolution whilst living as a middle-class professional with all attendant privileges.

      There's also the ugly fact that since the 80s the Old Left union-based politics has been in a state of massive electoral defeat, so its tempting to retreat into escapism - but being Lefties we even feel the need to overthrow oppressive structures in our escapism. ;)

      Delete
  13. I do not believ that "this offends me" has gained in power (except perhaps compared to the last ~30 years, but that's up for debate), it was worse before that, except it was wrapped in different words and conventions. Just go and look at the oppressive codes of conduct and behaviour that existed from the 1700s to, say 1960s. Being "offensive" ie. not aligned with societal norms haas always been a social suicide, unless one somehow managed to make a career out of it.

    What _has_ changed is that there are more different norms in place at once now because society is more plural.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know, I think there are some differences, but you make a great point here.

      Thinking about it, just for one example, if you offended the McCarthyites during their time of power, they reacted just as poorly, and with far more negative effect than mere social censure - except instead of claiming personal offense, they simply declared that you probably a Communist.

      Delete
    2. I have a feeling that there are smaller waves too; in that the norms may change from generation, but I'd say that the early 70s and the late 90s could be considered low points in terms of enforcing norms, and the 80s and late 2000s might be comparative high points.

      That does map pretty nicely to the dominance of our two main political parties in the UK, but it might be because of changes in culture, rather than causing it.

      Delete