Hurricane Cronesmoon ([info]cronesmoon) wrote,
@ 2008-07-29 13:13:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Discourse
I find it unfortunate that so many of today's youth seem to believe that "suck it up" is a useful contribution to a conversation. It is, often, a conversation-stopper, and I suppose if that's what they're after, then it is useful to them, but it's very disturbing to me. Have they been consistently told by their elders that any suggestion contrary to the status quo is a QQ to which the appropriate response is "suck it up"? If not, where do they get this idea?

The conversation that just brought it to my attention was on a WoW forum, where somebody was suggesting to Blizzard that it might be nice to provide additional methods of grinding rep with a certain faction, since the available method really only works for children or retirees: people with huge blocks of time to devote to it. Players who must fit WoW into their daily lives in one- or two-hour blocks simply can't do it. This seems to me a valid suggestion, and it was being discussed reasonably (or at least with varying degrees of contention but no open hostility) among players, till along came a brat who said, roughly, "Suck it up. If you really want [that item] you'll quit QQing and do what you have to, to get it."

That pretty much stopped the conversation, right there. A couple of people jumped onto the hostility-wagon, rudenesses were compounded, and although the OP was polite and disarming, the discussion was done. I met much the same response the one time I posted a suggestion on the Blizz suggestion-forum; but I don't think the belief that rudeness is an appropriate response to polite suggestions is at all limited to game-players, or even to children. It seems to me common, at least in the US, to discredit ideas not by addressing the facts but by discrediting the person who presents them. It's disheartening, and I can't help wondering how it developed.

And perhaps more important, whether there's any hope of an eventual return to civil and rational discussion. (I suppose that would depend on an eventual return to the concept of education, and that's a whole 'nother subject.)

(22 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]greyorm
2008-07-29 07:35 pm UTC (link)
That's a behavior that goes back centuries, though: the ad hom is a very common logical fallacy because it's so easy to argue, it puts the opponent on the defensive, and changes the subject.

"Suck it up" as an instance of ad hom, however, I think is a uniquely American reaction, stemming from our cultural immersion in the idea that people who complain or who want things not to be so tough are just weak, incapable of dealing with the "harsh" supposed-realities. It's very Puritan buckle-down-and-work in nature, as well as very Macho faux-masculine supposed self-reliance and frontier-spirit.

It's therefore hard to dispute because most Americans feel, to some extent, or have been raised to feel even if they've rejected it that the argument is true, and there is a cultural dissonance to the idea that it might not be true at all, making it uncomfortable to challenge for fear of the social repercussions ("if I say that's nonsense, I'll be seen as a weak-willed, lazy whiner").

Very much related to the boys-will-be-boys attitude in terms of "That's just how things are, why are you trying to change them?"

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]cronesmoon
2008-07-29 08:26 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, you're right that the ad hominem fallacy is centuries-old, but I think (I could be wrong) there was a time when rational discourse could be had without it. You know, official debates and that. Persons in certain positions of eminence were expected to, well, think. But then thinkers became "eggheads" (wonder whether anyone here besides me is old enough to remember that?) and thinking became outre. Politicians are ridiculed, for example, for seeking the vote. It is to sigh.

Still, while I believe there were situations and circumstances wherein rational (and civil) discourse even on controversial subjects was expected, I believe it's also true that when discourse failed, ad hominem attacks have always been the "solution."

But the "suck it up" business as Puritan, hm, that's an interesting POV. I hadn't seen it, because I so often see "suck it up" in situations where it's not at all a matter that can be resolved by more earnestness, masculinity, and/or hard work. (Q: "This door doesn't lead anywhere. Maybe we should put one in a wall that doesn't face a solid stone cliff face?" A: "Suck it up. This is where the door was built, and this is where the door should stay.") I think you're right, though. (Real men don't need doors.) Thanks for that insight.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]greyorm
2008-07-29 10:42 pm UTC (link)
You're right about the overall social situation: it has crept into politics and academic discussion in a very public way, or at least seems to have. I often wonder if the increased communication and openness of modern society has led to new forms of stupidity or just hi-lit those already extant and revealed the true extent of the nonsense we were previously ignorant of.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]cronesmoon
2008-07-30 02:18 am UTC (link)
Yeah, hard to guess which it is. Olden Times always look more innocent, more honorable, and not nearly as grim as they really were.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]2ndsoprano
2008-07-29 08:45 pm UTC (link)
Oh, suck it up and deal. (Said with a most evil grin.) People can't be expected to think and be rational, much less civil.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]cronesmoon
2008-07-29 10:20 pm UTC (link)
Lol. You're right. What was I thinking?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]twyleth_teg
2008-07-29 11:13 pm UTC (link)
Oratory and Rhetoric need to be reintroduced into the education system. ...This is what happens. *Nods sagely*

Me? I never understood the phrase "Cowboy Up". I'm sure its an attempt at a more, ah, poetical "suck it up" but... cowboy? What does that mean? Muck out stalls up? Brand calves up? Herd cattle up? Hee, git along little doggie up? Really big belt buckle up? Six gun shoot 'em up up?
Frankly I don't see the connection.
:P

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]cronesmoon
2008-07-29 11:51 pm UTC (link)
The connection would be cowboy John Wayne, the original strong, silent type.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]twyleth_teg
2008-07-30 09:44 am UTC (link)
O.o
But ...he talks an awful lot in all the movies I've seen? Sometimes he even sings! [but not nearly as often as say, Roy Rogers or Tex Ritter who burst into song at the least provocation]

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]cronesmoon
2008-07-30 11:39 am UTC (link)
Yes, but he doesn't talk about emotions or needs. Shoot him a little, or break his heart, and he clams right up.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]twyleth_teg
2008-07-31 11:01 pm UTC (link)
Well yes. *Wistful* It makes a nice change from these generic modern movies with their bleeding heart hero-angst-boys and prima donna-plastic princess girls who all look the same, in which every little thing is OMGdrama and sex and blow-it-up eye candy. Plotline? barely. Decent morals? no. Tawdry clothing? check.
I'll take a grainy old B&W John Wayne anyday. :P

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]cronesmoon
2008-08-01 01:21 am UTC (link)
I see why you say that, but bear in mind that a world in which boys don't cry is just as awful in its way as one in which everyone cries too much.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]twyleth_teg
2008-08-03 01:37 am UTC (link)
What about one that uses creative cursing instead? :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]cronesmoon
2008-08-05 10:44 am UTC (link)
Creative cursing can be good.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]palintheist
2008-07-30 04:15 am UTC (link)
I would say it's a side effect of the utter helplessness permeating North American society - the faceless bureaucracy omnipresent in school, work, and taxes, plus the impact of a media which likes to portray Armageddon as next week's headline...

We are making and perpetuating a society in which everyone needs a cat to kick, and a side effect of that, by necessity, would be concealing your emotions so you don't LOOK helpless - and don't appear to be ripe for a boot to the arse.

So suck it up, repress it, grin and bear it, whatever, QQ more, maintain the appropriate jaded façade and brutally tear into people who give you a weak spot by caring about something. Gotta love the sociopathy inherent in the system!

Incidentally, I categorically disagree regarding the WoW rep grind - it's a pain in the ass but it in no way is impossible to accomplish if you only play one or two times a week - it's just slower, and you pretty much have to accept in a game or a hobby that people with less time to devote to it won't progress past the people who choose to devote more.

I got exalted with the Shattered Sun in a month and a bit, just by doing the island's daily quests on a more-or-less regular basis; 45 minutes a day, about four or five days a week. If I had really wanted to grind rep, I would've taken an hour and a half and run an instance.

The pre-Burning Crusade stuff can be harder, but it wasn't retuned properly and probably never will be. C'est la vie.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]cronesmoon
2008-07-30 11:32 am UTC (link)
That's an interesting POV too, and all too likely. I don't know how different our society is in that regard from societies in the past (I think people have always been pretty powerless at the lower levels), but certainly that combined with modern communication could spawn the sociopathy you suggest.

Incidentally, I apparently wasn't clear about the rep grind. Yes, of course it was easy to grind rep with Shattered Sun. You can solo all the dailies there in under an hour, easy. If you didn't have an hour, you could probably do many of them in half an hour. Both my 70s got exalted right away; I wouldn't have thought it even took a whole month. But the person in question wanted rep with one of the factions that requires a dungeon done over and over again.

Me, I gave up on all rep with any faction that required dungeons as soon as I understood that was what was required. But this person was willing to do dungeons, only it's my understanding that this particular dungeon required blocks of hours to get through. (Five, she said, and that was without wipes, which of course you'd likely get lots of with a pug.) Possibly you gain rep from the effort, and you're suggesting the person who doesn't have time to go all the way through could just quit when playtime was up, but that seems rude to the rest of the group, and even pugs might get wary of such a person. Or maybe she could solo the opening trash a hundred million times, if rep is to be had through killing trash, and if the dungeon is one where you'd have a chance to kill the opening trash before it killed you. Nobody suggested that, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't work.

...people with less time to devote to it won't progress past the people who choose to devote more.

Sure. Or that people who are more willing to spend their playtime in excessively boring ways will "progress past" people who choose a more relaxed attitude. (I put it in scare quotes because I would regard skill rather than purchased items as a measure of progress; but of course the purchased items are easier to see.) That's the nature of any skill, and playing WoW well is a skill.

You won't find me complaining about all the stuff I can't have because dungeons bore me. (Well, occasionally I QQ about the Philosopher's Stone recipe from the Sha'tar, or the druid's swift flight form: but I get over it.) The main thing most of that stuff does for you is gear you up for more dungeons. Since I don't like dungeons anyway, I don't need geared up for more. And I'm skillful enough at the parts of the game I enjoy. No prob.

We've always disagreed about what's fun in this game, and that's okay. I'm full of admiration for people who play it your way.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]palintheist
2008-07-30 11:53 pm UTC (link)
Previously, there were more outlets for outright violence - and you just had the violence in your little town or hamlet or whatever, instead of seeing 24 hour news reports about every single human tragedy worldwide.

I'm kinda surprised more people don't go bonkers, actually - the psychological effect of being constantly tuned into a selective filter of human misery and tragedy peppered with cat-in-tree stories must be fascinating.

I'm curious; do you remember which rep it was she was referring to? I have Exalted with almost all Outland factions [a side effect of my addictive gaming] and the only ones that require dungeons to get also require raiding, which is a bit like saying "I'd really love to be paid, but do I have to actually work forty hours a week too?" If you want rep with raid dungeons for raid gear you have to raid. Period. There's no cosmetic advantage, like a neat mount or interesting outfits or little pets - it's strictly by raiders, for raiders.

Every other faction in Outland can be raised by questing, although the push to Exalted may require a few hour-and-a-half instance runs.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]cronesmoon
2008-07-31 12:22 am UTC (link)
Good point, fewer outlets for violence now. Very good point. And yeah, add overcrowdedness on top of what you mention and it seems amazing that more people don't go bonkers.

No, I don't remember what faction it was, except what she wanted was a gun. (My thought is, skip it: there'll be a better gun somewhere else, for goodness' sake, or you can get along with one not quite so good!)

Sha'tar requires dungeons. Don't know about raids. They have the Philosopher's Stone without which you can't make the ... I forget what it's called, but the next-step-up-stone that you get a recipe for from Shattered Sun. (sigh...I didn't notice that requirement before I bought the recipe from SS, so now it sits uselessly in my alchemy list, forever undoable. I'm so envious of people who have the Sha'tar recipe.) Druid flight form requires a heroic! dungeon that you get a key for by grinding rep with Lower City, which maybe you can do without a dungeon, I dunno. Don't care: my druid will be buying an epic flying mount, since I won't do the dungeon. (He's only 67 just now. I plan to do all the steps of the epic flight quest up to the dungeon, just for completeness, when the time comes.)

But, you know, your "I'd really love to be paid" analogy is just plain wrong. Nobody said, "Do I actually have to work forty hours a week too," they said, "Do I actually have to dig ditches? I'd be happy to shovel manure instead, or haul rocks, or clean toilets. I just can't dig ditches." I don't know why all such discussions always bog down on that point. That the available method to grind rep doesn't suit every player's schedule does not necessarily mean the player who asks for an alternative method is lazy, or wants something for nothing, or wants to steal something from serious players. It just means there really maybe could be an alternative way. For heavensake, make it harder, or ickier, or, you know, whatever would make it seem enough nastier than the existing way that nobody who did it the existing way would feel cheated by the people who did it the new way. The point isn't to get out of work, it's to get work one is capable of doing. (Which really doesn't always mean easier, or cleaner, or more fun. Often it means dirtier, and more boring, and takes longer. Just like in real life.)

Of course the person may have been wrong about how long it takes to do that dungeon. And I know she said she wasn't in a good guild for it, so would have to pug: unless she's as poorly geared as my toons, she could probably join a good guild for the purpose. I'm not saying she was right, and I never did. I'm just saying the discussion cannot reasonably be stifled by telling her to suck it up.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Anonymous)
2008-08-05 02:53 am UTC (link)
Hello m. Berry here.

Can't really lay the origin of "Suck it up" on the kids. It was popular in the military of my youth, a distant time of bronze-tipped spears and chariot axles lubricated with sheep dip. It was said to us by our superiors to curtail questioning of their mindless orders. (A draftee army--there were many questions and much mindlessness.)

Later "suck it up" seems to have become popular with athletic coaches and Little League parents of the less nurturing sort. And now, it's everywhere. Well, it came from somewhere and will probably eventually go back there, only to be replaced by some equally noxious phrase.

Speaking of education, I return to the hallowed halls of same next week. As two of my students were just arrested for allegedly having beaten out the brains of an honor student from another school, the classroom will be a bit emptier. No doubt replacements will soon be on hand.

My Team Leader is somewhat miffed at me as I wrote our principal over the summer, comparing the TL unfavorably to Ilse Koch, the Bitch of Buchenwald. And I was being kind. (Really.) But then, summer's a time in which to do things one enjoys.

My favorite former student continues in my life. His own hangs quietly in the balance, as he he hasn't yet decided whether it is better to live than it is to die. I do what I can. Wish he'd tumbled into my life at 7 rather than 17.

Trust you're well. I continue my quixotic book marketing efforts. And have started a new, rather dark tale centered on the lives of students and staff of an alternate high school. Happy ending? (Many people our age lead boring lives. Hard to imagine. :) )

Cheers

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]cronesmoon
2008-08-05 10:43 am UTC (link)
Well, I fully understand "suck it up" as the modern equivalent of "because I said so" from an authority figure, and have no problem with it there. What bothers me is that children of no authority or sense have concluded that it is an appropriate response in a conversation among peers. It is not, in fact, the phrase itself that bothers me, but the notion that using excessive rudeness to stop a conversation among peers is in any way appropriate or valuable.

First we lost the concept of honor, then ethics, now civility? Ick. (And how old-fashioned of me to care.)

Consider reminding your fave former stu that there's always time to try dying later; it's not like he'll miss his chance on that, so where's the rush?

I continue well, and still really do mean to find a way back into sff.net so I can converse with the people there. (Must. Download. Agent.) I do not write fiction anymore, nor miss it very much at all.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2008-08-06 11:44 pm UTC (link)
"Consider reminding your fave former stu that there's always time to try dying later; it's not like he'll miss his chance on that, so where's the rush?"

Yeah, he realizes--intellectually--that there's no rush. But emotionally...

Hauled him off to detox yesterday--15 mg of Xanax with a quart of cranberry-flavored vodka chaser. (Him, not me. Though afterward, I was tempted, let me tell you. Pity I poured all that primo cognac down the drain last Christmas, as such an effective object lesson to him.)

He yet lives, so there's yet hope. If he just weren't so damned likable. Much of the time.

Hey! Some town in ND struck oil! Cool.

Back to query letter writing. (Comes under the heading of writing as catharsis, I do belive. Still... :) )

Pleased to hear you're well.

Cheers,

S.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]cronesmoon
2008-08-07 01:09 am UTC (link)
Man, I am impressed with your patience. Good luck with him. Sometimes they do grow up.

ND has been enjoying an oil boom for some few months now. Mostly in the northwest of the state, as I recall. Not where our school is.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(22 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…