When did Entitled become a bad word?

[Umbran]

Whether apples and oranges or not, feeling insulted can be triggered by more than one narrowly defined rationale.

So? How many different ways they may be triggered does not speak to whether any of those feelings are really well justified.

I didn't disregard the last phrase. Umbran didn't state that as the reason for feeling insulted. The reason given was preferring a machine over a persons company. Dropping off the face of the earth certainly seemed like it contributed to the feeling, but it wasn't the stated reason for feeling insulted.

Sorry, but he was correct - it was integral to the point I was making. By removing the explication, you took my point out of context, and the context matters. This is a common way of unintentionally creating a classic strawman, and you're now arguing against something I didn't mean.

In my statements, the way people got the message that someone was choosing a machine over the people was via a player falling off the face of the earth. I was contrasting "falling off the face of the earth" (and by extension, other passive approaches like frequently cancelling at the last minute, coming up with repeated excuses for absence, and the like) with making a graceful exit by discussing the matter with your group like a mature individual.

 

[El Mahdi]

Sorry, but he was correct - it was integral to the point I was making. By removing the explication, you took my point out of context, and the context matters. This is a common way of unintentionally creating a classic strawman, and you're now arguing against something I didn't mean.

In my statements, the way people got the message that someone was choosing a machine over the people was via a player falling off the face of the earth. I was contrasting "falling off the face of the earth" (and by extension, other passive approaches like frequently cancelling at the last minute, coming up with repeated excuses for absence, and the like) with making a graceful exit by discussing the matter with your group like a mature individual.

No he wasn't, and neither are you. I responded to what was written and the way it was written, without attempting to divine intention. That is not a Strawman. I believe you're using the "Strawman" defense as a means to avoid honestly and critically evaluating your manner of communication. I'm not denying that your intention is what you and he are now saying, but that's not the way it was originally presented. The way it was presented, the "dropping off the face of the earth" was a factor. But adding a final and seperate paragraph that focused on the "preferring a machine to you" aspect, made it the crux of your statement. It highlighted that aspect above all other factors. Also, being upset that someone dropped off the face of the earth, and being upset that someone prefers a machine to you are very distinctly different things. Yes they can contribute to eachother, but both can also exist independently. The way you presented it did not imply or establish a contributing link.

The failure in communication was yours. My previous posts still apply to what you actually posted. However, they do not completely apply in light of your clarification.

But my main point is still valid. No one is qualified to pass judgement or determine what is a "justified" response in these situations (feeling insulted). And claiming one is justified in a personal situation, but others are not justified in their situations, is at the least insensitive, and likely exhibiting at least some hypocrisy.

 

[Janx]

El Mahdi, I feel like you're trying to win two arguments at once.

Maybe if we can get you to answer a simple question with a simple yes or no answer. No big words to confuse me.

Example story. made up.

Bob is my friend. We do lots of things together, including our weekly game. One day Bob doesn't show up to the scheduled game. I call, he doesn't answer emails or calls for weeks. I find out from his sister Bobra that he's been holed up in his room playing WoW for three weeks.

Does Bob owe me an apology for bailing on our scheduled event?
[El Mahdi's requested answer here to this question based on the example story]

[now to my answer and opinion]
YES.

Why does he owe me an apology?

Assuming he wishes to actually remain friends and not become enemies. Or at least as criteria for me to allow him to remain my friend.

He made a committment to play in our weekly game. he's my friend, and he totally stood me up. He chose his new cyber friend over his existing friends who helped him move, hide a dead body, and so on.

the descriptive text of "choosing a machine over real flesh and blood friends" is just flavor text and hyperbole. It establishes the emotions that I'm feeling.

One could argue that i could choose a different interpretation of Bob's actions, but you know what, he's a dick. If I tell Bob that every time he stands me up, it hurts my feelings, and Bob keeps doing it, then Bob's a dick.

Bob did a wrong to his friends and he doesn't get to challenge the validity of my feelings or my interpretation of his actions. He only gets to work in the context of continuing the hurtful behavior or respecting his friends' feelings.

If Bob cares about me, and he doesn't want me to feel like he chose a machine over me, then he will have to act like a normal person, apologize and spend time with me even if in a more limited fashion to make room for his new hobby.

 

[El Mahdi]

El Mahdi, I feel like you're trying to win two arguments at once.

Maybe if we can get you to answer a simple question with a simple yes or no answer. No big words to confuse me.

I have answered simply. And I haven't been using any big words. I've stated quite clearly in my posts on this subject what I think of all of this. However, I don't think this is a simple Yes or No situation. I'm sorry if you think I'm muddling the waters rather than giving you what you feel is a straight answer. I am giving you straight answers, but it is not a simple black and white situation. I will however, sum up what I've said about this as simply and straigthforwardly as I can.


1. Nobody is entitled to anyone else's time, friend or not (excepting in the case of legal obligations). Entitlement means you are owed that time, that you have authority and ownership over it...and in this case, You Do Not! You can have an expectation of that time being spent with you, but you are not owed it.

...the descriptive text of "choosing a machine over real flesh and blood friends" is just flavor text and hyperbole. It establishes the emotions that I'm feeling.

2. In communication, the things your audience most pick up on and assume as the point of your communication, are the first and last things one says. It's a natural and subconcious truth. When the final point of Umbran's communication was about feeling insulted that one would prefer a machine's company rather than his, then that was the emphasized point being made...and everything else was just explanation or set-up.

3. It's perfectly natural and understandable that someone would be upset, and even feel insulted, if a friend suddenly "dropped off the face of the Earth". It's rude behavior, and even if not meant to be directed at you, it did affect you and therefore is insulting.

4. However, it's not perfectly natural and understandable to turn it into something as personal as "they prefer a machine to me", when there's no evidence confirming that (because you have not talked to your friend to get his take yet), and especially not rational to feel insulted about something that may not even be true. That came about in this scenario because of a percieved entitlement on the tabletop gamers part...an entitlement that he did not possess.


If I was the friend that had "dropped off the face of the Earth" by losing myself in an MMO, and a friend came to me and said:

Dude, you just dropped off the face of the Earth. You said you were going to sit in on our game, and we were expecting you, but when you didn't show it put a crimp in the game. I felt insulted that you'd prefer a machine to me.

My response would be:

As far as your feeling insulted, that isn't my problem. I never said I preferred a machine to you, nor have you asked me if that's the case. And for the record, it's not the case. You made an assumption and took it personally when it really had nothing to do with you.

However, you're right in that I made an obligation to be there, and it was rude an inconsiderate of me to dissapear without an explanation. You have every right to be upset and feel insulted by that. I'm sorry I was rude and inconsiderate to you. For that, I apologize.

Then, hopefully, you both TALK.

TALK without preconcieved expectations. TALK as friends. And TALK about meeting in the middle. Which leads me back to something else I said earlier:

If one wants to spend time with their friend so much, why not go play the MMO with them...? Or is it a case of I don't like MMO's, so I'm not going to hang-out with that friend there (in which case your dislike of MMO's is more important than your friendship), or just a case of they don't want to hang out doing what I want to do, so they really aren't a friend...?

That's the scenario I'd like you to address. The other side of the coin if you will. The scenario as presented in this post is very one sided, and there are at least two sides to this.

Example story. made up.

Bob is my friend. We do lots of things together, including our weekly game. One day Bob doesn't show up to the scheduled game. I call, he doesn't answer emails or calls for weeks. I find out from his sister Bobra that he's been holed up in his room playing WoW for three weeks.

Does Bob owe me an apology for bailing on our scheduled event?

El Mahdi's answer: Yes.

Why does he owe me an apology?

El Mahdi's answer: Because Bob acted in a rude and insensitive manner. He owes an apology for not showing up...period. He does not owe an apology to you for your perception that he prefers a machine to you. That part is all of your own making, and entirely your own problem to deal with.

Assuming he wishes to actually remain friends and not become enemies. Or at least as criteria for me to allow him to remain my friend.

And here we go with the entitlement again. If Bob is your friend (and has been your friend), that likely happened because you have mutual interests, and mutually interesting personalities, and enjoy spending time together (and there may be other reasons also). However, nobody has the right to lay conditions on anyone else as to what one must do to be allowed to remain a friend.

And if one mistake means you now consider your friend as an enemy unless he makes it up to you, then you likely aren't real friends in the first place.

You either accept who and what they are, and choose to be their friend, or you don't.

One does not draw lines in the sand with friends. If you do so, then you no longer have a friendship. What you have is a defacto superior/subordinate relationship. And that just isn't cool.

One could argue that i could choose a different interpretation of Bob's actions, but you know what, he's a dick. If I tell Bob that every time he stands me up, it hurts my feelings, and Bob keeps doing it, then Bob's a dick.

I agree. If Bob kept doing this dickish behavior, even after you've explained that it's hurtful to you, then I would likely cut ties with that friend. But I'd make that decision for me, not for him. I'm not giving them an ultimatum, I'm simply cutting ties with someone who probably wasn't a real friend in the first place...or if they were, they no longer are now. That's sad, but it's just the way it is.



As to the OP subject and question: When did Entitled become a bad word? I don't think the word itself has become bad. There are honest to god, real entitlements that people have...and in my eyes those are good things. It's only bad however, when one is upset for not getting something they felt entitled to, when they were not actually entitled to it. In this situation, it's not the word that's bad, but the entitled attitude being expressed that is bad.

 

[Janx]

Before I bite on the "would I play an MMO with Bob" part, I'll touch base on where you expressed confusion or disagreement over my consideration for whether Bob should remain my friend. Which is ironic, because you later list very specific points where Bob crosses the line and you TOO would not consider him your friend.

Membership on the friends list is something we each DO get to do. You are or are not my friend based on your past behavior, reciprocation and expectations. That doesn't mean I can or should make demands of you. Simply that each person you are friends with has the possibility of ruining things so you are driven to removing them from your friends list (I'm speaking figuratively, not facebook literally). Me killing your dog and eating him while you watch, chained in my basement might be such a justification for taking me off your list of friends. Whether I, in my deluded state, think you are still my friend is a seperate matter.


Now back to Bob and his invitation to play MMO with him.

That might depend. Normally, by all means if my friend discovers a new hobby, I am inclined to try it out as yet another activity we can do together. Even if its not my first choice of activity.

There's some caveats and exceptions to that.

If Bob's new hobby is something I really don't enjoy, I'll propose an alternative that I believe both of us do enjoy. For most folks who lost a player to MMO-addiction, that common activity was probably watching Movies or playing D&D.

For non-addicted people who get a new hobby, it is not unreasonable to assume the old shared interest is still acceptable to both parties. If Bob is not addicted to MMOs he should readily find something both of us enjoy as both of us are finding common ground by walking around the parts we don't have in common.

But in the mind of the addicted person, the ONLY thing they want to do is their addiction. Bob disappearing off the face of the earth to play his MMO is the first sign of an addiction.

That alone is a turn off for me. "hey man, it's really fun" won't convince me that I also won't become sucked into the same behavior I'm already on the impacted end of. I'm extremely wary of anything somebody likes over much (like politics, books, hobbies). Zealotry sets off my radar to stay the smurf away. To this day, I won't read the Pern books because of my over-zealous friend's hyper-promotion of them to me (he also exhibited obsessive/addiction behaviors to the point that gaming in general hurt his relationships).

So for me, if Bob had just discovered an MMO, and casually asked me to try it with him, sure thing. But being on the recieving end of Bob's addiction to MMOs, I won't touch that with a ten foot pole. But I'll be more than happy to find another activity that Bob and I can agree to.

Even if that's as trivial as just eating lunch together sometime.

But I'll bet you money, where I could agree to 100 different non-MMO activities, Bob will ONLY want to do his one favorite thing, play his MMO. So who's really the inflexible one?

 

[ggroy]

In the case of the MMO addict, the friends who are left behind have hurt feelings that they have been totally abandoned by the addict. that's not nice to do, and maybe the MMO player likes his new game better than D&D, but totally ignoring friends is not the same thing.

Over the last few years, I got around this sort of "friends" problem, by playing D&D games with strangers at a gaming store. Outside of the weekly game, I did not interact at all with any of the other players. We did not know one another before the game, and we do not speak to one another outside of the game.

In many ways, this sort of "arrangement" resembles the game being like "strictly business".

 

[Janx]

Over the last few years, I got around this sort of "friends" problem, by playing D&D games with strangers at a gaming store. Outside of the weekly game, I did not interact at all with any of the other players. We did not know one another before the game, and we do not speak to one another outside of the game.

In many ways, this sort of "arrangement" resembles the game being like "strictly business".

I'm glad that's working for you. I don't think it works for everybody. I agree with Monte Cook's observation though, that gaming is better with friends. You avoid the "i can be a jerk to strangers" problem. You also optimize your limited time. I need to spend time with my friends to maintain that relationship. Gaming with them covers that AND it covers having fun gaming at the same time.

 

[ggroy]

You avoid the "i can be a jerk to strangers" problem.

With strangers, this was frequently dealt with in a very harsh direct manner.

If somebody doesn't like how the DM and/or other players are conducting the game, they will just get up and walk out. If there's one or zero players left, the game is more or less kaput.

If the other players don't like a particular person (whether in or out of character), they will do everything to make the game miserable for them. Such tactics include: clerics not giving them any healing, the other player characters beating up on the undesirable player character, not sharing treasure with them, etc ...

From the DM side, I've noticed that there's a lot less DM discretion in such games with strangers. Essentially almost everything has to be "done by the book". Otherwise players will just get up and walk out en mass. I've played in a few games with strangers, where the DM was literally "voted out" by the players.


These are some of the downsides of playing with strangers. Though over the years, I've found some of this stuff is also present when playing with "friends", albeit conducted in a more "passive aggressive" manner (as opposed to direct out in the open).

 

[ggroy]

On the other side of the coin, in practice I've found that playing with "friends" also has its downsides.

Typically problems can manifest themselves in passive-aggressive type behavior, which can end up festering for long periods of time. When the crap finally hits the fan, the subsequent aftermath is that we were on non-speaking terms for many years afterward.

In extreme cases, friends were demoted and made into enemies. Unfortunately some people consider "games are more than just a game". For such individuals, "games are serious business".

 

[Janx]

On the other side of the coin, in practice I've found that playing with "friends" also has its downsides.
:

well, that always depends on the people involved.

I have close friends I have known for 30 years, since second grade. We all game together, and my local group of friends game with them when we get together (I moved about 1500 miles away a good many years ago).

So, if you have my kind of friends, you don't have those kind of problems and last that long.