Generational differences in perspective

[MillieDynamite]

Generational differences also affect the types of music, videos, TV shows, movies, and what we read. It isn't just politics. I know people my age who don't look at anything (music, movies, TV shows) made before 1990, people younger than me, nothing before in the 2000s or 2010. Some older than me can't stand anything made (in all areas) after 1990. Knowledge of history is a lost art these days.

 

[Cagivagurl]

@SimonDoom we’ve been round this loop many times before, I have no illusion of changing your mind, it holds vice versa.

This isn’t meant to be an argument, or even a debate. Just offering a different perspective.

First of all, words can clearly do harm. I doubt you would argue about this. Every genocide in history has been proceeded by dehumanizing the subjects of it. Every autocrat uses words to deflect attention from their own misdeeds and to blame some chosen “other” for their followers’ misery. We see this even today in American politics. Indubitably words can cause harm, even mass death. Words are more powerful than you claim.

It is also undeniable that some BBC porn dehumanizes black men. It is also an utter twisting of the realities of slavery, where 99 times out of 100 it was black women being raped by their white male owners. The “danger” of the rapacious, animalistic negro is a 180 degree twisting of what actually happened. Is it not feasible that some black people might just be aware of this and find the BBC trope deeply unpleasant, particularly in a world in which racism against black people is alive and well?

Next, like any intelligent person who believes in what they are saying and wants to convince others, you choose your own words carefully. In particular you employ “offend.” That’s such a loaded word.

I was offended about something here recently, someone on AH making fun of dyslexia. I don’t have dyslexia, I wasn’t personally impacted by what they wrote. I was indeed offended. What do I mean by that? I mean that I am capable of empathizing with someone who does have dyslexia. Of putting myself in their shoes, of figuring out that the “joke” could be hurtful (not offensive, hurtful) to someone with that condition.

I explicitly responded to this via empathy, by sarcastically asking them to make a joke about ASD next time, a condition I do suffer from. I put myself in the position of someone who was the subject of the joke and determined that it could have been hurtful.

When it comes to something like rape porn (see I’m doing it now as well, I could use a euphemism like non consent or - even worse - dubious consent) that doesn’t offend me. It hurts. It hurts viscerally. It hurts deeply and personally that people think sexual assault is a fitting topic for titillation. And you know what, I’m allowed to be hurt. There is nothing wrong with me being hurt by it. There is nothing wrong about me having flashbacks when the topic comes up. That’s not something wrong with me, it’s something that was done to me. And my feelings are totally valid. Asking for some consideration about them does not seem unreasonable. What’s bad about asking people to think about the feelings of others? Isn’t that a positive human thing to do?

Which comes back to words. I support free expression. But I don’t support needlessly hurting other people. Not offending, hurting. There is clearly a tension between these two things I support, and it’s hard to draw the line clearly. But I do not agree that freedom of expression trumps avoiding hurt. They are both laudable things. When two laudable things come into conflict, you have to consider things on a case by case basis, not using sweeping generalizations like “free speech is sacrosanct.” It isn’t, which is why we have legal remedies against untrue and malicious claims. Which is why we have penalties for advertisements that lie. There is no such thing as unfettered freedom of speech, not should there be.

But… I’m not arguing for legal protection. I’m not arguing that writing rape porn should be a felony. I’m simply asking one set of humans to extend some consideration to another, to put themselves in the shoes of victims and to think - am I really making the world a better or a worse place by what I am doing? Am I adding to or subtracting from the sum of human happiness?

I’m not telling anyone what they should decide. I am asking them to think of others as well as themselves. Surely that’s OK to do, isn’t it?

I’m not going to get into a point by point discussion or defense. I don’t think I need to defend anything I have said . And I don’t need to add to it. It’s another point of view, which I believe it’s valuable to state.

To reiterate, I’m not seeking a debate. Just making a statement.

Emily

Exceptionally well said....
I concur 100%...
To use another human being for the purpose of titillation is disgusting. Reducing a person to be nothing more than a cock...
How degrading is that... A man regardless of his colour, ethnicity is a human being. We are the same race... The human race...
I won't get started on non consent. It is the most repugnant subject. To take somebody against their will and then try and turn it into a fun experience for the victim. It disgusts me.
Bravo for standing up Emily...

Cagivagurl

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Bravo for standing up Emily...

Standing up to what specifically?

Simon did not advocate racism or rape or anything else of that nature.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I take offence at that!

I meant “will be” sorry for any offense (it has an ‘s’ BTW).

Emily

 

[Cagivagurl]

Standing up to what specifically?

Simon did not advocate racism or rape or anything else of that nature.

You have to read between the lines.
I am simply adding my support to Em's, words.
I detest the denigration of human beings full stop. Regardless of the basis... Age, sex, skin colour, ethnicity, mental disability....
When I see somebody stand up... Speak truthfully.
I will happily stand beside them in the hope we can at some point in time put an end to all the tyranny.

Cagivagurl

 

[pink_silk_glove]

You have to read between the lines.
I am simply adding my support to Em's, words.
I detest the denigration of human beings full stop. Regardless of the basis... Age, sex, skin colour, ethnicity, mental disability....
When I see somebody stand up... Speak truthfully.
I will happily stand beside them in the hope we can at some point in time put an end to all the tyranny.

Between who's lines? Yours? Simon's? Please tell me what I missed between the lines that made Simon's post racist or pro-rape or anything else but pro free expression or pro art.

 

[Cagivagurl]

Between who's lines? Yours? Simon's? Please tell me what I missed between the lines that made Simon's post racist or pro-rape or anything else but pro free expression or pro art.

If you have to ask, then it would be a waste of time explaining.
We shall continue to breathe regardless.
BTW...
There is no racism here on planet earth. We are but one race. The human race.... Aliens may hate us. Who knows. Not I.

 

[EmilyMiller]

General note:

I claimed, uncontroversially, that words can have bad physical outcomes.

I claimed, uncontroversially, that offense is a loaded term, and that hurt may be more appropriate in some contexts.

I claimed that tropes that grossly misrepresent the actual experience of black people under slavery, and which perpetuate lies created by slave owners are quite likely to hurt some black people. If you think this is controversial, I’ll leave it for you to check with your black friends.

I stated (as it pertains to me) that I am personally hurt by the idea of sexual assault being used for titillation.

I suggested that it might be nice if people considered other people’s feelings more.

The above is just a précis. What I said above puts it much better. I’m merely doing this as my words have already been twisted into straw-men.

As I say, I’m making a statement. Beyond this EZ version of what I said (and what I didn't say), I will maintain my position of neither defending my words, nor expanding on them.

Your attention was appreciated.

Emily

 

[pink_silk_glove]

As I say, I’m making a statement. Beyond this EZ version of what I said (and what I didn't say), I will maintain my position of neither defending my words, nor expanding on them.

Your attention was appreciated.

Translation: I am making a statement and no one should rebut it.

There's a whole bunch in these that I could discuss but I'm not allowed. My mistake I thought this was a forum but it turns out it's just Emily's blog. That's that then.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

False framing is, itself, a frequently deployed rhetorical tactic of this generation.

('this' being the current 20-30s). It's a frequently deployed rhetorical tactic, full stop. Probably dates back to when rhetoric was first invented in ancient Sicily, but certainly used in newspapers and debates for the last 100 years.

I'm alarmed at "snowflakism" as a form of illiberalism and intolerance, and as a reflection of the idea--a terrible idea, in my opinion--that one is entitled to be shielded from the expression of views one disagrees with as offensive.

There's a huge difference between what views should be legal (but not exempt from consequences), and what rules people should be allowed to set in private spaces. As the old cliche goes, if you allow Nazi opinions in your bar, you're running a Nazi bar. Is there merit in, for example, a university allowing people to deny established facts, such that Nazi death camps existed? Or should the uni be free to decide what bounds of speech are allowed on its premises? 'Being shielded from' could equally well be described as 'objecting to time being wasted by'.

The concept of "safe spaces," for example, on college campuses.

Like with safer sex, they should be 'safer spaces' - there's no guarantee in life. But people have the right to self-assembly. I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater on this one.

Using the heckler's veto to shout down speakers one doesn't agree with.

Not letting the hecklers in would be creating a 'safe space" though, and you've already said you didn't like those. Can't have it both ways. I generally agree that hecklers should be thrown out, but also that some people deserve to be heckled (not going any further there, this is getting close enough to politics as is!)

Hate speech laws. Blasphemy laws.

Oddly, generally proposed by two different extremes of the political spectrum. It's as if desire for more or less censorship didn't actually match other beliefs.

No. A thousand times no. Art cannot just be nice.

Emily was talking about behaviour and erring on the side of nice. Art is a whole different kettle of haddock.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Emily was talking about behaviour and erring on the side of nice. Art is a whole different kettle of haddock.

I thought that obvious. It clearly wasn’t. Then we all bring our own lens to discussions.

I appreciated your measured post. Thank you.

Emily

 

[Djmac1031]

A few that come to mind include;

1. Non-con seen through the lens of girls being “good” and needing to be seduced (which isn’t so much of an IRL thing nowadays)
2. Interracial being taboo
3. Jokes about sexual orientation
4. Jokes about disability
5. Men crying

I'm REALLY late to this conversation and, being honest, have only breezed through the replies so far.

instead of trying to catch up, I'll just bring it back around and answer these.

Non Con: The first thing I think of is things like Revenge Of The Nerds, where the nerd tricks the Hot Girl into sleeping with him, but it was okay because hey, after she sobered up she said she liked it, right?

Yeah, there was some problematic shit back then, symptoms of an even worse real world view: No didn't mean no. It meant maybe. Or you just weren't trying hard enough.

I'm glad things have advanced at least slightly there. Although we seem to be going backwards again.

Interracial: Look I'm sorry, I just have to say it: if you're writing Big Black Bulls Take The White Woman in 2024 and still think it's not racist, nothing I say will convince you otherwise anyway.

But it's fucking racist as hell.

Jokes about sexual orientation: oh the gay Jokes we used to tell. Used to laugh at. I saw an old Eddie Murphy bit the other day and cringed.

Although honestly, most of it was harmless. Or at least, misguided. I don't think ALL of it was trying to intentionally degrade or humiliate.

On the flip side; if you called someone you didn't know well a "fag," you better be ready to fight, because that was a challenge to one's Manhood.

Again, I'm happy we've come some way there.

Jokes about disability: I think there's an obvious difference between one's meant to be cruel and one's just being funny.

That said, just because I don't find the R word offensive (and honestly I never actually used it in reference to those with mental or physical disabilities, just stupid people) it doesn't mean others don't find it offense and I am mindful of that.

Men crying: see "fag." Because if you cried in public, odds are you were gonna get called one. Or a "pussy."

That one is still an issue today. Although I do see progress.

I dare anyone to call either of the Kelce brothers a fag or a pussy, and they cry publicly quite often.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Is there merit in, for example, a university allowing people to deny established facts, such that Nazi death camps existed? Or should the uni be free to decide what bounds of speech are allowed on its premises? 'Being shielded from' could equally well be described as 'objecting to time being wasted by'.

If you feel that someone is lying. Don't silence the lie. Call it out and debate it. If your enemies want to shout in the wide open. Let them. It's much safer than forcing them underground where you can't see them spread.

As for universities, certainly a private institution is free to make their own rules (at their own risk) but of course here in North America at least, the majority of universities are state run and taxpayer funded sooo ... free speech it is.

 

[Voboy]

I would characterize every single one of these contrasts as an excellent example of reductionism and false framing. It's discouragingly dismissive. This gets it completely wrong, and by framing generational differences this way one a) simplifies the presentation of the issues inaccurately and eliminates all consideration of nuance and complexity, and b) excuses away, through false framing rather than through intelligently grappling with points of view one might disagree with, contemporary habits and patterns that some of us decry.

False framing is, itself, a frequently deployed rhetorical tactic of this generation. I see it all the time, and this post is an example of it.

If you actually pay attention to what the older folks in this thread have been saying about these issues, this doesn't fairly characterize how we think substantively about the issues, like non-con or interracial sex.

You're saying there's nuance. I agree. Sadly, in too many cases, we're not living among people who accept nuance. When surrounded by such extremists (on either side), the wise course is to accept Frank Herbert's proverb: "Silence is often the best thing to say."

There is a justifiable fear, among those of us who are a little bit older, that we live with a Catch-22: we think, rightly or wrongly, that whatever we say will piss someone off. So often, in interpersonal affairs, we just nod and wish we were home.

But then, we run the risk of offending those who think silence breeds consent. So... catch-23. It seems like a no-win.

No. A thousand times no. Art cannot just be nice. Art should sometimes be nasty, transgressive, mean, offensive, satirical, vulgar, perverse, misappropriative. Niceness in art is a horrible principle. Art should spit on niceness.

Well said.

If you have to ask, then it would be a waste of time explaining.

With the greatest respect, this is a cop-out.

If you claim to care, you should want to educate. I hear this formulation a lot, and it strikes me as lazy.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Non Con: The first thing I think of is things like Revenge Of The Nerds, where the nerd tricks the Hot Girl into sleeping with him,

{nerds} ∩ {hot chicks} ≠ ∅

 

[Djmac1031]

{nerds} ∩ {hot chicks} ≠ ∅

hey, you know I don't gets the math.

 

[Cagivagurl]

You're saying there's nuance. I agree. Sadly, in too many cases, we're not living among people who accept nuance. When surrounded by such extremists (on either side), the wise course is to accept Frank Herbert's proverb: "Silence is often the best thing to say."

There is a justifiable fear, among those of us who are a little bit older, that we live with a Catch-22: we think, rightly or wrongly, that whatever we say will piss someone off. So often, in interpersonal affairs, we just nod and wish we were home.

But then, we run the risk of offending those who think silence breeds consent. So... catch-23. It seems like a no-win.



Well said.



With the greatest respect, this is a cop-out.

If you claim to care, you should want to educate. I hear this formulation a lot, and it strikes me as lazy.

It was not a cop out....
You said earlier in your post quoting Frank Herbert...
Say nothing ....
You can't have it both ways...
I'm pretty sure I made my views quite plain in my earlier post.

Cagivagurl

 

[EmilyMiller]

You're saying there's nuance. I agree. Sadly, in too many cases, we're not living among people who accept nuance. When surrounded by such extremists (on either side), the wise course is to accept Frank Herbert's proverb: "Silence is often the best thing to say."

There is a justifiable fear, among those of us who are a little bit older, that we live with a Catch-22: we think, rightly or wrongly, that whatever we say will piss someone off. So often, in interpersonal affairs, we just nod and wish we were home.

But then, we run the risk of offending those who think silence breeds consent. So... catch-23. It seems like a no-wi

Well said.



With the greatest respect, this is a cop-out.

If you claim to care, you should want to educate. I hear this formulation a lot, and it strikes me as lazy.

She was hit by a total straw-man argument, unconnected to the previously polite discussions. If she chose to disengage at that point, then more power to her.

As I say, I don’t want to argue, but it is healthy to consider different perspectives, rather than to assume that there is just one way of thinking.

I think it’s also critically important to apply the same rules and standards to each side of a debate, e.g. with respect to false framing, or the scope of claims made.

It’s also helpful to discuss what was said, as opposed to what it might have been convenient if someone had said (not that I am accusing you of that problem at all).

Emily

 

[Voboy]

You said earlier in your post quoting Frank Herbert...
Say nothing ....
You can't have it both ways...

The context was entirely different, as I think you'll see if you check my post again.

 

[elizaloo]

I’ve said a few times that Lit (or at least AH) seems to skew older.

I agree. Seems quite a few in my age group and older.

A few things recently have got me thinking about this. Do you agree that there are gaps between what older and younger people think about a range of topics?

A few that come to mind include;

1. Non-con seen through the lens of girls being “good” and needing to be seduced (which isn’t so much of an IRL thing nowadays)

I might have a different perspective than most of my generation (born mid 60's) but I grew up in a VERY small Midwestern town and Catholic to boot: I was a virgin at 20 who married a virgin...in retrospect, I knew many of my friends were having sex and it wasn't a big deal to them or anyone else. I guess I just bought into the whole 'stay a virgin till you find 'the one'? I don't know, it's something I've pondered my whole life (I'm 58 now) and I don't have a conclusive answer.

There were plenty of situations where I was actively being seduced...but I always ended it before it got 'out of hand'. And never got 'dinged' for it...

1. Interracial being taboo

Interestingly enough - in my town this was not a big deal. We had one Black family (town settlers too) in town and there were 5? siblings in the family and were all 'just kids' in my HS. Dated whoever they wanted.

1. Jokes about sexual orientation

Everyone knew our French teacher was gay...I guess some of the 'stupid jocks' made fun of him, but the rest of us just hated him because he graded French 1 & 2 like we were all supposed to be French-speaking natives. The most common grade he gave everyone was a D..

1. Jokes about disability

Same as above - some people used 'retarded' as a slur, but my mom was a BIG fan of washing our mouths out with soap if we said anything mean (I called my brother a jerk and yeah, I can still remember what that bar of Dove tasted like) and most of our friend's moms thought similarly.

Again, small town, the moms were all in Book Club together, teachers/librarians/worked in the local stores...if any kid got up to any sort of mischief including being rude...they'd face mom and dad at home that night over it.

1. Men crying

Can't say I ever saw any man/guy cry, unless it was at a funeral or maybe losing a football game (when the whole team would cry because we were Division or whatever it is Champions for most of my HS years)....but yeah, it wasn't a thing for the most part.

I know younger people are sometimes accused of being woke snowflakes, but do we have significant room for misunderstanding each other in areas like the above?

I guess, in summary - while we may have joked and teased and been 'more insensitive' than the current kids..we also were more proactive as others have said; a bully didn't get away with their tactics..they got laid out after school behind the gym because no one tolerated those kind of shenanigans. Girls might have snarked on each other, but again, there were ALWAYS friends who had your back. She might have gotten 'flushed' in the bathroom or the person sitting behind her in class would snip a bit of hair from her head...there was always payback for poor behavior.

And no one got in trouble...because we handled our own stuff. Crying to mom and dad was anathema..

That's probably the biggest difference I see in kid's behaviors now and then.

Not seeking an argument, certainly not a political one. Just curious.

Emily

Great thought-provoking post..made me think of friends I'd forgotten about years ago...and how we got along or didn't. My kids are 20s/early 30s and they had similar and different experiences than I did...can't imagine how it goes for kids today.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Another general point:

It was said above that a person who took offense to a baseball card depicting someone from the “negro leagues” [sorry if I have the terminology wrong, way before my time]. I’m NOT commenting on the substance of the complaint, from how it was described the merit sounds dubious. What I did want to talk about is being offended by a slur on someone else.

This goes back to me getting annoyed that someone made a joke about dyslexia. I’m about as white as they get (no olive skin in the Italian bit of the family and the rest all North European). So if someone makes a nasty joke about black people and I say I think that is bad, is my claim invalidated. Does “why do you care, you’re not black?” not provide a rebuttal?

Well of course it doesn’t. Because being horrible about people, especially on the basis of melanin levels, is never nice. The question translates as “you are not in the group we are trashing, that makes it OK.” No it doesn’t, because black people are humans too and it’s deeply uncool to be dismissive towards fellow humans.

Emily

 

[Voboy]

As I say, I don’t want to argue, but it is healthy to consider different perspectives, rather than to assume that there is just one way of thinking.

Yes. Or,

You're saying there's nuance. I agree.

But.

Sadly, in too many cases, we're not living among people who accept nuance.

I'm seeing an unsettling amount of that in this thread, on both sides. So this is one of those times when I'll take Frank Herbert's advice, since his point is being proven so readily.

 

[SimonDoom]

('this' being the current 20-30s). It's a frequently deployed rhetorical tactic, full stop. Probably dates back to when rhetoric was first invented in ancient Sicily, but certainly used in newspapers and debates for the last 100 years.

Yes, obviously, but some do it more than others, and I think this generation does it more than mine. Whatever the mistakes in my logic or evidence, I don't think I do this. I'm much more cautious about making arguments like, "If you think X, then you must have bad motives or beliefs." I'm perfectly fine with a very large Overton window. Let's keep the range of acceptable topics to discuss wide. That's not the way some others think. All you have to do is look at the comments in this thread, and which age cohort is making which kinds of comments, to see that I'm right about this.

There's a huge difference between what views should be legal (but not exempt from consequences), and what rules people should be allowed to set in private spaces. As the old cliche goes, if you allow Nazi opinions in your bar, you're running a Nazi bar. Is there merit in, for example, a university allowing people to deny established facts, such that Nazi death camps existed? Or should the uni be free to decide what bounds of speech are allowed on its premises? 'Being shielded from' could equally well be described as 'objecting to time being wasted by'.

Bars and workplaces are one thing. Universities and other public or semi-public forums are another (in the USA, a government-run university is subject to the First Amendment, so it has an obligation to protect First Amendment rights, unlike a bar or a private workplace). In my opinion, universities should permit the broadest possible range of speech. Nothing should be banned. There is no question that this is, in fact, not true of American colleges today. I believe the same thing should be true in a creative forum like this one, which clearly is NOT governed by the First Amendment, although the Site owners have said very clearly that they support freedom of speech.

Not letting the hecklers in would be creating a 'safe space" though, and you've already said you didn't like those. Can't have it both ways. I generally agree that hecklers should be thrown out, but also that some people deserve to be heckled (not going any further there, this is getting close enough to politics as is!)

No it wouldn't. It's a completely different principle. The idea of a safe space is that you should be "safe" from perspectives you find disagreeable. The principle behind limiting the heckler's veto is that the right to offer objectionable viewpoints should be protected from actions that limit speech. Heckling and shouting down are not just speech: they are acts that prevent speech from being heard. Speakers who want to be able to speak without being shouted down don't want to be safe; they just want to be able to be heard, and they don't mind if contrary and very disagreeable opinions are offered in counterpoint. People who seek safe spaces don't want to hear disagreeable opinions. They equate disagreebleness with the lack of safety. These are two completely different concepts. Just ask the people doing the shouting down: they're very clear about it; they want to shut down speech they don't agree with. They admit it.

Oddly, generally proposed by two different extremes of the political spectrum. It's as if desire for more or less censorship didn't actually match other beliefs.

It's not odd at all. Illiberalism and intolerance are common on both the left and right. That's always been true.

Emily was talking about behaviour and erring on the side of nice. Art is a whole different kettle of haddock.

If that's what she meant, then OK. It wasn't entirely clear. This is a forum dedicated to talking about writing, so I think it's reasonable to assume that there's a connection to writing. I try to keep my comments more or less related to the craft of writing and creativity in general because that's what I think the forum is about and I don't want to see it devolve into politics, which will get it bounced to forum hell. I don't know what Emily's initial intent was but I'm much less interested in what people's personal and political beliefs are in general than in how those beliefs manifest in the stories they write and why. The genesis of the topic of this thread, as I saw it, is in the perception that there are different reactions to story subject matter at Literotica by people from different age groups, and Emily wanted to explore the attitudes underlying those different reactions. That's a perfectly legitimate inquiry related to this forum.

 

[tenyari]

The whole 'Cancel Culture' thing pisses me off. So, I fit into what a lot of the older generation refer to as the 'woke' generation - you know, because we're not racist, homophobic, assholes, but the term 'Cancel Culture' is always been used by people who don't really understand it or what it means.

Wingnut #1: How dare you say such an offensive thing, I'm posting a video of you on my app of choice.
Wingnut #2: You and your woke generation are so full of cancel culture. What about my Freedom of Speech?
Wingnut #1: Say... what are you doing there?
Wingnut #2: Just burning this book so my kids and your kids and everyone else's kids can't read it.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Wingnut #1: How dare you say such an offensive thing, I'm posting a video of you on my app of choice.
Wingnut #2: You and your woke generation are so full of cancel culture. What about my Freedom of Speech?
Wingnut #1: Say... what are you doing there?
Wingnut #2: Just burning this book so my kids and your kids and everyone else's kids can't read it.

The world is a mess. Maybe it’s always been this fucked up, we just didn’t know about it.

Emily