Monster / sub-human identity

I just got into a pretty heated debate about whether it is just and useful to label certain individuals or groups as sub-human or monsters. It was a debate about Gamergate. Gamegate for those who don't know is IMO basically an online movement of misogynist sexism against women in the gaming industry. It started when a game developer called Zoe Quinn broke up with her boyfriend and his then composed a long, angry blog update accusing her of sleeping with game developers in order to advance her career. Since her game - Depression Quest - was available for free at the time this seemed unlikely, to say the least... and frankly far worse happens in the film industry with big companies bribing news organisations for positive reviews being pretty standard industry practice. I don't think an obscure games developer making text-only stories is much of a threat to the likes of Call of Duty.

Anyway, this snowballed into a situation in which lots of people (mostly male teenagers) sent harassing or outright abusive messages to female game developers and critics like Anita Sarkeesian (who always seem fine to me) forcing some women to move homes or even seek police protection. Not everyone affiliated with the Gamegame movement has engaged in such abusive tactics, but generally it has involved a lot of sexism and nastiness.

ANYWAY:

A group I am / was a member of had a thread about this in which lots of people were saying that the guys who support Gamegate or send abusive messages to these women are scummy and reprehensible and they should be made to feel bad. I'm on board with that if it changes their behaviour! Also, they probably *should* feel guilty - fair enough!

But then one or two members started to say that these people are literally monsters. I said I didn't think it would helpful to think of even bad, oppressive people as monsters because it means you never try to understand where they are coming from (even if it is a totally awful, misguided place) and so it prevents the possibility of change or even accountability. I also think seeing people who do bad things as 'monsters' is potentially dangerous as it can prevent self-reflection... I honestly feel like this is how a lot of *trigger warning* rapes occur... the perp thinks of rape as something involving force committed by monsters, so even though they're having "sex" without someone who is drunk or underage or who hasn't indicated that they want to have sex they can't be a "rapist" because rapists are monsters and they know that they're not a monster.

Also, people are just people. Even really horrible ones. It doesn't mean they shouldn't be shamed, or punished, or even despised, but it doesn't stop them from being human.

Anyway, my assertion that it was a bad idea to call gamegaters monsters was met with a lot of anger and derision - that I was trying to stand up for these horrible men (and teenaged kids) or say that they were the *real* victims... which isn't why I wanted to communicate at all.

It's not even that I care so much that they might have their feelings hurt... more that I don't think it's productive and closes down the possibility for change.

I received a lot of replies, but one of the most notable was someone saying that these guys are literally "sub-human" because they have behaved inhumanely and thus have forfeited their right to be considered a human being. Likewise, those who behave monstrously are literally monsters.

I said that I felt they were still objectively humans because I don't think humanness has to do with being good or decent... humans are lots of different things, many bad. I don't even think that being human is necessarily a value qualifier - it just is. A rabid dog is still a dog (even if we lock it away or shoot it). A teenage boy who says they want to kill a female games developer is probably not a good human... but just because other humans disapprove of or are disgusted by their behaviour (understandably so!) it doesn't magically stop them being humans. I don't think other humans have the right or power to make that distinction.

IDK. I guess I'm very emotionally invested in this, having been abusive... obviously I don't think I'm a good person, but I feel like I'm still a human being. I don't even mean in terms of having human rights (though I donate to Amnesty International so I support those for all humans) but just in terms of what I am.

I mean, how can you exist as a sub-human? Are you allowed to think as a human? Are you not a human at some sub-atomic or cellar level? The classification has so many complex implications.

I realise that I'm being quite literal... but then again I raised this point and some people were insistent that these individuals should no longer be considered as humans and that being a human is something you earn or can forfeit.

IDK. Maybe it's part of an American cultural mindset that I don't relate to? It seems kind of Christian in a Catholic or Puritan sense maybe? i.e. that people are 100% good and 100% evil and the evil ones aren't proper humans. I don't think it's necessarily a healthy mindset but so, so many people seem to have it.

TL;DR - I hate the idea of being a sub-human monster.

Your post raises some exciting questions. Does someone *need* to feel bad if they're behaving acceptably? What difference do our feelings make in relation to ourselves, and others?

Hard to say. I don't much want to get into it right now, so:

If anyone is going to defy logic, it will be humanity. To take on slightly cynical approach: How do these peers of yours know they're not minimalizing their own understanding in favor of emotion? Perhaps *they* are the sub-beings for lacking restraint. This is a somewhat black/white outlook to take, but it stands to reinforce what you've said: people can't be labeled. They're only people.

I don't think there's anything worthwhile that I can add to your comprehensive analysis, but in regards to the dilemma: try not to worry about it. You're obviously a bright, critical thinker and are surrounded by others who aren't. In this situation, there's not much to be done about that. If I may be so bold as to ask, are you satisfied with your group in spite of this?

But then one or two members started to say that these people are literally monsters. I said I didn't think it would helpful to think of even bad, oppressive people as monsters because it means you never try to understand where they are coming from (even if it is a totally awful, misguided place) and so it prevents the possibility of change or even accountability.

This is good.

I also think seeing people who do bad things as 'monsters' is potentially dangerous as it can prevent self-reflection... I honestly feel like this is how a lot of *trigger warning* rapes occur... the perp thinks of rape as something involving force committed by monsters, so even though they're having "sex" without someone who is drunk or underage or who hasn't indicated that they want to have sex they can't be a "rapist" because rapists are monsters and they know that they're not a monster.

This is also really good. I love your post!

One has to remember that many otherwise "decent" human beings hide behind the anonymity of the internet and believe they can get away with insults and threats. An 18-year old boy working a job flipping burgers at some fast food joint, maybe slacking with friends over pizza and beers, trying to save up money for a car, playing games on his cell phone, etc, has a pretty ordinary but not an empowered life. When he gets behind his computer, he finds he can wield "power" without anyone else knowing it and takes his frustrations out on ppl online, no restraint whatsoever. Does that make him sub-human or a monster? Not necessarily.

Disempowered ppl have an uncanny way of projecting their disempowerment onto those they view as victims. When you read those insults and threats online (one can also read Reddit for a good fix of that cr*p), one has to think twice about the real motivation behind such vitriol.

Those posters who return the vitriol by saying the insulters are "sub-human" or "monsters" are doing the same thing back. Does that make sense? No. But that's humanity in all its ingloriousness-- we seem to be ruled more by our emotions than our intelligence.

sprock wrote:A group I am / was a member of had a thread about this in which lots of people were saying that the guys who support Gamegate or send abusive messages to these women are scummy and reprehensible and they should be made to feel bad. I'm on board with that if it changes their behaviour! Also, they probably *should* feel guilty - fair enough!

I have to agree with this. Sometimes feeling bad (mental pain) is the only thing we have to change our behaviour. Shame/guilt (if allowed to develop healthily) ought to facilitate the change of behaviour and, when it does not arise within an individual in natural course, other people have to open that door for them.

In a way, awakening that bad feeling, whether it be gently through inviting them to look more consciously at their actions, or harshly by calling them monsters or shitheads (less helpful!), social pressure in other words, can prove a gift to that person who would have otherwise gone their unconsciously merry way. These are nature's signals that we are at risk of losing our place in the tribe.

What I don't agree with is the notion of "once a shithead, always a shithead". It needs to be (and usually is) recognised when someone has consciously changed.

sprock wrote:Also, people are just people. Even really horrible ones. It doesn't mean they shouldn't be shamed, or punished, or even despised, but it doesn't stop them from being human.

It's a statement of biological fact that anyone who fits this description - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#Biology - is human. Take the worst thing a being of that classification has ever done, and all we can really say is humans are capable of doing that.

Monster, however, has no biological classification, as far as I know.

Anyway, my assertion that it was a bad idea to call gamegaters monsters was met with a lot of anger and derision - that I was trying to stand up for these horrible men (and teenaged kids) or say that they were the *real* victims... which isn't why I wanted to communicate at all.

I see this logical fallacy rear its ugly head time and time again. It goes something like this: if you attempt to question the integrity of an argument against something, you must therefore support the thing being argued against.

For example, if you propose, as the CIA did, that the attacks in New York on 9/11 may have been influenced by "blowback", that is the inevitable consequence of the atrocities committed abroad by the representatives of those targeted by the attacks, then many people would consider you in support of the terrorists.

It is crucial, when we take sides in a debate, that we are willing to criticise any words used by those on "our side" that may weaken or cheapen the argument (in the above example, it might be "they hate us for our freedom"). Your explanation as to why you criticised the use of the word monsters should be clear to anyone with a brain capable of being a valuable part of such a debate in the first place - you want the debate to ultimately lead to change...

It's not even that I care so much that they might have their feelings hurt... more that I don't think it's productive and closes down the possibility for change.

I received a lot of replies, but one of the most notable was someone saying that these guys are literally "sub-human" because they have behaved inhumanely and thus have forfeited their right to be considered a human being. Likewise, those who behave monstrously are literally monsters.

All it shows is that humans (assuming their biology remains true to the classification of human) are capable of doing all sorts of things and exhibiting behaviour that is seen in many animals, even mythical creatures based on animals. No surprises there - we are evolved from, and remain part of, the animal kingdom.

I said that I felt they were still objectively humans because I don't think humanness has to do with being good or decent... humans are lots of different things, many bad. I don't even think that being human is necessarily a value qualifier - it just is. A rabid dog is still a dog (even if we lock it away or shoot it). A teenage boy who says they want to kill a female games developer is probably not a good human... but just because other humans disapprove of or are disgusted by their behaviour (understandably so!) it doesn't magically stop them being humans. I don't think other humans have the right or power to make that distinction.

Agreed. To say a biologically classified human is not a human just because they don't always behave in a way we would deem "good" is absurd and likely an emotionally, rather than rationally charged statement.

IDK. I guess I'm very emotionally invested in this, having been abusive... obviously I don't think I'm a good person, but I feel like I'm still a human being. I don't even mean in terms of having human rights (though I donate to Amnesty International so I support those for all humans) but just in terms of what I am.

What you feel/think you are is not necessarily what you are. What you feel/think someone else is is not necessarily what they are.

What makes someone a "bad person" or "good person"? If it is by what they DO then immediately we hit a problem with those labels. People's actions can be linked to specific areas of the brain. Often we find those areas are either underdeveloped or overdeveloped, malfunctioning, influenced heavily by internal or external conditioning factors etc.

There is no such thing as an entirely good or bad person, even if we agree that good and bad objectively exist (which is in of itself a problematic assumption).

I mean, how can you exist as a sub-human? Are you allowed to think as a human? Are you not a human at some sub-atomic or cellar level? The classification has so many complex implications.

If by "sub" they mean "less than", then given that human is a biological classification, the sub-human would have to be absent an aspect of that biological makeup. Simply doing something we might call "bad" does not automatically prove such an absence. It could be found that a particular behaviour was caused by a mutation of some kind, but it would have to be a pretty big mutation to cast them outside of the classification of their birth species.

Behaviour is not a reliable means of classifying species.

I realise that I'm being quite literal... but then again I raised this point and some people were insistent that these individuals should no longer be considered as humans and that being a human is something you earn or can forfeit.

No scientist, whether social or biological, would take such a claim seriously. In fact, a lot of behaviour we consider bad, even murder, can be explained within predictable patterns of human behaviour, given the right brain chemistry, circumstances and life experiences.

IDK. Maybe it's part of an American cultural mindset that I don't relate to? It seems kind of Christian in a Catholic or Puritan sense maybe? i.e. that people are 100% good and 100% evil and the evil ones aren't proper humans. I don't think it's necessarily a healthy mindset but so, so many people seem to have it.

If it is a cultural thing, it would go some way to explaining why the American justice system is so focused on retribution and the assumption of absolute free will as opposed to rehabilitation and the acceptance of the scientific evidence that explains what causes people to behave the way they do.

I hate the idea of being a sub-human monster.

I don't mind the idea of it, since ideas aren't concrete and can be shattered with contrary evidence. It's the reality that would perturb me! Thankfully, there is no such reality in which there exists "sub-human monsters", except in our imaginations.

There does, however, exist a complete ignorance of the facts - humans exhibit this ignorance on a daily basis, as demonstrated by the fellow humans that claim sub-human identity exists.