"Elitism" definition

[Dudel]

Sure, we can do that again if you really want to. It'd be more head-wall-smashing but I got the time to kill with the long weekend. I just thought this thread wasn't the place for such things.

I still hold the same opinions, but I would like to make it clear that I hold the titles of "High Casual" and the like as "elitist" and don't automatically assume people who participate in "High Casual" games are as such. That was kind of a hurdle other people had trouble getting over last time.

[Jorick]

I haven't read most of this thread because reasons so I may be saying things others have already gone over multiple times. Just a fair warning before you get to the body of my needlessly long post.

My definition of elitism is pretty simple and comes in two forms. Anything that places a higher value on a person/group based on a limited attribute or set of attributes is elitist. Conversely, anything that discriminates against a person/group based on a limited attribute or set of attributes is elitist. These are essentially the same exact thing wherein the difference is the perspective and the kind of language used, but some people call them distinctly different things nonetheless. Some say elitism is only the first kind and that the second kind is just called discrimination. I'm of the opinion that they're all part of the same continuum. As an example of my definition, racism is elitism based on race; anything negative said about a race, including the lovely variety of racial slurs we have, is elitism of the "discrimination" kind; things like saying Asian people are generally smarter than other racial groups is elitism of the "higher value" kind.

To apply this to RPG I'll break it down by section and give an example of the two different versions of elitism that exist therein. I'll call them Type 1 (higher value) and Type 2 (discriminatory) from now on to make it less cluttered.

Advanced Elitists
Type 1: "We're better than Casual and Free players because we write longer posts and have better grammar, plots, characters, character development, etc."
Type 2: "Free and Casual players are awful because they write like shit and have a bunch of vampires and high schools and anime trash all over the place."

Casual Elitists
Type 1: "We're better than Free players because we write decently and post full paragraphs at a minimum." "We're better than Advanced players because we have all the same writing quality without the ridiculously huge posts."
Type 2: "Free players are awful because they post one liners and can't write worth a damn." "Advanced players are awful because they're all a bunch of egotistical elitists who pack tons of fluff into their posts like it's some kind of contest for who can have the largest and most pointless post of all."

Free Elitists
Type 1: "We're better than Casual and Advanced players because we have fun without worrying about how big our posts are or whether or not everyone is following all the rules of grammar and such."
Type 2: "Casual and Advanced players are awful because they're a bunch of whiny nitpickers who demand perfect writing skills for something that's supposed to be for fun."

Notice how the paired statements say essentially the same thing in a different way. That's exactly what I mean about there being two different ways of being elitist. Notice too how it's all talking about the people rather than the actual requirements for the section. That's another part of elitism: it's about valuing people more or less than others because of certain attributes.

On a related note, having requirements for a roleplay is not, in fact, elitist. Having standards is not elitism, it's a set of preferences. Looking down upon others is what makes someone elitist. Saying "if you want to join this RP you have to commit to posting X paragraphs minimum with Y standards of grammar at least once every Z units of time" is just putting down the baseline for what you want out of the RP you're running. Saying "you're bad, gtfo of Advanced if you can't meet X, Y, and Z requirements" would make you elitist though. For this reason I say the term High Casual is not elitist, it's simply a quick and easy shorthand for a particular set of requirements the GM wants to see in their RP. It does sound as if it's putting these players above the rest of the Casual players, but that's a problem that's endemic of the site itself; Advanced does indeed sound as if it's better than Casual, and Free being below Casual gives the connotation of less value, High Casual is just adding another step in the ladder rather than creating the problem. Anyway, I find it a little silly because High Casual requirements are without fail at or above the minimum standards for the Advanced section, thus they should just be in that section rather than in Casual, but whatever. People have their reasons for using it (different user base, more exposure, etc.), so they can do so all they like for all I care. The same sort of things about elitism apply to the High Casual folks just as it does to everything else: wanting and following certain guidelines is fine and not elitist, devaluing others because they don't meet those criteria is bad and elitist.

I'll admit to being a little elitist. Some with other definitions would call me very elitist, but this is not so by my own definition. I'm something of a Grammar Nazi and have fairly high standards for RPs. I'm not the kind of person who'll only join Advanced games (though I prefer them), nor will I only join games where everyone is assured to make 10+ paragraph posts every time (though I do make very large posts myself rather frequently), but I'm just shy of that really. If an interest check/OOC OP has a bunch of typos or is generally poorly written I won't join no matter how interesting the plot sounded. If most of the people expressing interest in the game look to be poor writers I won't join it. I've never gone into the Free section for anything other than people linking me to particularly bad threads they want to share for the amusement and one silly little RP I did with people from an Advanced game I was in that was essentially a mockery of Free RP stereotypes. That sort of stuff is why many people have called me elitist in the past. However, I don't generally look down upon people who don't meet my standards. I may not want to play with them but that's not me thinking or saying that I'm better than them, that's me having standards for what I want from roleplaying partners. My bit of true elitism comes to native English speakers whose posts consist of one line full of typos and broken grammar; people to whom English is a second language have a good excuse for not being skilled at the language, unlike those who have used it all their life. Those people I do indeed think less of, thus I'm a little elitist.

So that's my take on it. I could go into the who elitist witch hunt thing or how there are harmful and benign elitists or a number of other related subjects, but I'm off to go do the Thanksgiving thing shortly. This post works well enough as is, I suppose.

[Closetmonster]

Thank you, Jorick, for the definition. Turkey, mashed potatoes, olive balls, and lots of pretty green things before a few rounds of home-made pie can settle a person to a slow crawl, mentally. However, even at a slow crawl, I can say I agree. For the most part. But then, that is the beauty of language. It allows me to say "I agree" and mean, not the specifics of verbage, but the meaning implied by the use, and it is the meaning I most assuredly do agree with.

But it is so easy to say "I agree" and run. So I'll be correct about this: So what I'm hearing from you and from others on this thread as well as many of those on the thread Unlit posted for past reference (serving quite well as a reminder that by way of most of the threads gathered here from 4+ years of forum life, horses can still be beaten while dead as doornails) is...

Elitism is basically a way of us making things "personal." Either by passing judgement without either taking in all of the facts or knowing all of the facts or (heaven forbid) acknowledging all of the facts, OR by placing ourselves or another higher than the unwashed masses by looking upon ourselves (or the others) favorably in a manner which puts others down.

Much more effective definition than mine was and far more impartial. Thank you for that. It helps to have a working definition when I see the word. Then I can make my own personal decision on if I agree or not, then decide if I want to argue it or not. *L* I shall suit up. Rawr! (Luckily for me, I rarely leave the closet - so that will have to be a sound made quiet enough to not attract too much attention.)

[xbriannova]

I think it's the attitude a person that gives that constitutes elitism. I've seen it a few times. Basically, people who strut around thinking they own the place just because of a value they describe as elite that they have. Their attitude is one that is unyielding, totalitarian and selfish. I had one experience that really cemented the definition for me, but what he did is that he basically came into one of my discussion threads, calls my poll a piece of trash and when I did what anyone who started a thread did- basically calling him to leave if he doesn't have anything on the subject, he would deny that his attitude is wrong and just sort of 'contribute' and won't leave.

Elitism, to me, is more easily attributed to people who is in a place (this forum, say) for a long time, but has such unpleasant attitude. If someone's new and displays such attitude, they're either noobs or jerks/asses. I guess since we have a term for that, Elitism remains to be the realm of veterans.

This is my view, and what I've seen so far... Do tell me if my observation is wrong, but as of now, due to the consistency of it happening to me, well, it has led me to this belief.