# When did Entitled become a bad word?



## Janx (Aug 13, 2012)

I suspect this thread touches on politics.  please try to not actually talk about politics or insinuate anything about any political party.

I'm genuinely curious, is all.  And Enworlders have a good track record of knowing more than me.

It seems to me, that in the last decade, the word "Entitled" or "Entitlement" has been used in a negative connotation.

Heck, it just showed up in a thread about MMOs.

I suspect that some speechwriters incorporated the word to prove a point, and it's kind of stuck in the vernacular.

And while "entitled" isn't a word I'd choose to use too often in natural speech, the way its getting used nowadays and the negative connotation it now carries means it has become a shorthand for saying "you aren't allowed to have that or any variation of that because you expect to recieve it."

From the MMO example, I get that you shouldn't expect your friend to stick with you and your hobby instead of going off on his own to play his new MMO hobby.  As the example usage was, you aren't entitled to exclusivity on your friend's free time.

However, what I'm seeing in the usage of the word "entitled" is a complete disregard that maybe you should give somebody something.  Like respect.  Courtesy.  Attention.

After all, if you've been such good friends, helping each other through tough times, gaming, etc, and you've now got this new MMO hobby that takes up 100% of your time, don't you think the people who've been there for you, deserve something?

Maybe your friends don't have a guaranteed right or requirement to your time, attention or respect.  That doesn't mean they aren't worthy of it, needing of it, or owed it by you for all the things they've done for you.

I feel that playing the Entitlement card, while having some valid points, belittles these subtle, important aspects of human relationships.  Given the negative connotation it seems to carry nowadays, maybe it's not helping conversations.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Aug 13, 2012)

It's all those kings, queens, princes, dukes, and other 'titled people lording it over everyone else.


----------



## Kaodi (Aug 13, 2012)

Here in Canada, it was probably when David Dingwall uttered that immortal phrase, " I am entitled to my entitlements. "


----------



## tuxgeo (Aug 14, 2012)

Janx said:


> I suspect this thread touches on politics.  please try to not actually talk about politics or insinuate anything about any political party.
> 
> I'm genuinely curious, is all.  And Enworlders have a good track record of knowing more than me.
> 
> ...




_[Yeah, that's a difficult one -- talking about "Entitlement" without touching politics. Ouch!] 
_
Philosophically, do "rights" inhere within people? Or are "rights," instead, merely bequeathed upon people through social action, with the comcomitant result that they can be as easily revoked through later action? In my estimation, that's part of the issue. 

Frankly, I would change the question this way: 
"Entitlement" isn't the real issue! Rather, that's simply the latest buzzword that is (now being) used to refer to an age-old human problem, specifically the quantity of duty that is due to our friends and our associates. 
(It's something that people have always worried about.)


----------



## Umbran (Aug 14, 2012)

tuxgeo said:


> [Yeah, that's a difficult one -- talking about "Entitlement" without touching politics. Ouch!]




It shouldn't be too hard, because you can take it not from the political angle, but from the personal angle, like the aforementioned thread, which was about personal entitlement, not governmental.


----------



## Mage of Spellford (Aug 14, 2012)

I believe that "entitlement" has negative connotations because in general it refers to an individual or individuals gaining something at the expense of others. If it were zero-sum then it would not be negative, but if a person says that I am "entitled" to have "you" pay for this for me, resentment ensues. I am using pay in the "give up" or "forego" context, not necessarily $

In order for someones entitlement to be met, someone(s) else has to provide for the entitlement. By its nature entitlement means the "provider" has no choice and that means the "entitled" person has an unfair influence over them.

Mk


----------



## Janx (Aug 14, 2012)

Mage of Spellford said:


> I believe that "entitlement" has negative connotations because in general it refers to an individual or individuals gaining something at the expense of others. If it were zero-sum then it would not be negative, but if a person says that I am "entitled" to have "you" pay for this for me, resentment ensues. I am using pay in the "give up" or "forego" context, not necessarily $
> 
> In order for someones entitlement to be met, someone(s) else has to provide for the entitlement. By its nature entitlement means the "provider" has no choice and that means the "entitled" person has an unfair influence over them.
> 
> Mk




Thanks for answering.  I'll try to formulate a counter-pointas we go here.

I will admit that I probably have a political bias.  I hear the word "entitlement" from a group I disagree with, and it now has built up a negative association.  We're not going there, but just to point out where bias from me can come from.


Back to your point, which I'll re-paste here:
"in general it refers to an individual or individuals gaining something at the expense of others"

I think that every nice thing I do for somebody else comes at my expense.  If I help an old lady across the street, it is consuming my time, because she's old and slow.

I am inclined to perform what I call drive-by-acts-of-kindness, whereby it is fairly trivial to do so.  Helping the old lady across the street that I am already going to cross is a minimal expense of time on my part.  If she was not going the same direction, I'd be more put out, and less inclined to help.

Let's get back to doing nice things for people.  Say I help you change your tire on your car on the side of the road.  It's hot, sweaty work in Texas.  I might get hit by a passing car because that kind of thing can happen.

Socially, you owe me.  I helped you, you owe me a favor and a thanks.

Ethically/philosophically/religiously, there is the concept that I should do nice things without expecting anything in return.  Basically, I should NOT expect you to pay me back, when I do my good deed.

Under similar reasonings on human behavior, when somebody helps you, you should thank them, and try to help them in return if you can (or "pay it forward" and help somebody else).

Humans may shortcut this logic process to conclude that, when I help you, even if I don't expect payment, you should pay me back, therefore, I can in effect, expect re-payment otherwise you are socially defective.

This concept isn't such a big deal on a single helpfulness event.  But if I keep helping you and you keep not thanking me and never help me back, you are a Mooch.  Society doesn't much care for Mooches, as they are a sign of a bad friend.

What's this got to do with Entitlement?  It seems to me, the concept of Entitlement is hinging on expectation.  Expectation of the thanks/repayment or of the initial help.

What I fear, however, is phrasing things the way the word gets used, it disregards what the situation was about.  Helping somebody, or being a friend.

Let's windthat to the MMO example, because I see my flavor text might get shifted into politics (not my intent, honest).

In the MMO thread, somebody suggested that not being happy that your friend ditched you to spend his life hugging his MMO is akin to you feeling Entitled to your friend's time.  That's a paraphrase, and not a quote.

When we throw around the word Entitled like it gets used nowadays, I think we lose something.  Sure, your friend does not have to play D&D with you if he likes playing WoW more.  But he does owe you something as your friend for all the friendiness you've given him in the past.  Technically there's no friend-police to make sure he follows up on his debt.  

You are not Entitled to anything from him.  But he does owe you something.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 14, 2012)

> "in general it refers to an individual or individuals gaining something at the expense of others"
> 
> I think that every nice thing I do for somebody else comes at my expense. If I help an old lady across the street, it is consuming my time, because she's old and slow.
> 
> ...




That isn't where entitlement becomes a dirty word.  It becomes so when there is an expectation of the initial help.  Or, putting it differently, when one assumes a duty to exist where none in fact does.

It is good to help the woman across the street.  It is bad when she expects you to because she thinks it is is her right.

IOW, the bad element of entitlement is not about expecting pay_back_, it's about expecting pay forward.

Translating to gaming- which is where I think this was inspired- expectation becomes a problem when a non-GM player expects to be able to do "X" because it is part of the game's assembled books, even if doing "X" would be deleterious to the campaign in question, and was thus excised from the campaign by the GM.  (Or was excised because the GM didn't like "X", or what have you.)

By assuming the mantle of GM, a person assumes a duty to present an enjoyable role-playing experience.  He does not, however, assume a duty to cater to every last one of each player's desires.  This is because there is a corresponding duty by assenting to be a player in a GM's campaign, namely, to abide by the rules & parameters of the campaign as set forth by the GM.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 14, 2012)

Double post.


----------



## Janx (Aug 14, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That isn't where entitlement becomes a dirty word.  It becomes so when there is an expectation of the initial help.  Or, putting it differently, when one assumes a duty to exist where none in fact does.
> 
> It is good to help the woman across the street.  It is bad when she expects you to because she thinks it is is her right.
> 
> IOW, the bad element of entitlement is not about expecting pay_back_, it's about expecting pay forward.




that sounds pretty clear.

It was off-putting to me, because of my pre-existing bias to the word Entitlement, and hearing it said in a way that sounded dismissive to the person who's friend disapeared to play an MMO.

My friend can quit D&D to play an MMO 24x7, but that's a little whacked, and not nice to do to your friends.  Calling me Entitled makes it sound like I'm the one with the problem. (note: in the MMO thread, I was not involved in that part of the conversation, I'm just using myself as an example).

Using the grannie at the crossing light example, she doesn't have a right to guaranteed help in crossing the intersection.  but something's wrong with society if everybody walks past her without offering to help.

If Entitled is the new word to describe extremism in expecting of others, there should be a comparable word to describe callous disregard for others feelings and needs.

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.


----------



## Janx (Aug 14, 2012)

tuxgeo said:


> _[Yeah, that's a difficult one -- talking about "Entitlement" without touching politics. Ouch!]
> _
> Philosophically, do "rights" inhere within people? Or are "rights," instead, merely bequeathed upon people through social action, with the comcomitant result that they can be as easily revoked through later action? In my estimation, that's part of the issue.
> 
> ...




I'm inclined to think that Rights (like the Bill of Rights) are something that society bequeathes to itself as some minimum standard.

It's not like Gravity is a Right.  Gravity is enforced by reality.  I can't suspend your right to fall down off a cliff and make you levitate.

If we ignore your Rights, we are abusing your rights.  I'd say that defines treatment and abilities you are Entitled to (ex: free speech).

Your second statement probably nails my problem with the word "Entitlement"  It's become a buzzword to further a political cause.  When I hear it outside of that, I hear political undertones.  It bugs me.

It would be nice if we could all avoid using it, and maybe use a variety of words again.  Maybe words that more tactfully get to the point, rather than boxing it up in a one-size-fits all catch-phrase.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 14, 2012)

Janx said:


> My friend can quit D&D to play an MMO 24x7, but that's a little whacked, and not nice to do to your friends.  Calling me Entitled makes it sound like I'm the one with the problem. (note: in the MMO thread, I was not involved in that part of the conversation, I'm just using myself as an example).




Yes.  And perhaps I can phrase it in a way that makes it seem a bit more clear:

Say you agreed to play in a game.  That's a social agreement - having made it, the other people should be allowed to have some expectation that you'll hold up your end.  Call it entitlement if you will, but you effectively gave them that entitlement to your time.  Which doesn't say you can never leave a game you joined, or have to pass on occasion - reasonable games make allowances for life.  But, do it with a little respect for your fellow gamers, rather than just drop off the face of the planet.

And, honestly, don't expect that real-world people won't be somewhat insulted with a statement that comes close to, "I prefer the machine's company to yours."


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 14, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Yes. And perhaps I can phrase it in a way that makes it seem a bit more clear:
> 
> Say you agreed to play in a game. That's a social agreement - having made it, the other people should be allowed to have some expectation that you'll hold up your end. Call it entitlement if you will, but you effectively gave them that entitlement to your time. Which doesn't say you can never leave a game you joined, or have to pass on occasion - reasonable games make allowances for life. But, do it with a little respect for your fellow gamers, rather than just drop off the face of the planet.
> 
> And, honestly, don't expect that real-world people won't be somewhat insulted with a statement that comes close to, "I prefer the machine's company to yours."





caveat: any "you", "I", "they", etc. in the following post is meant as a generic "you", etc., and not designating any specific person.



That last sentence of the above quote, I feel is the whole problem in a nutshell: people seeing it as that person prefers a machine to them. MMO's can be a social hobby as well, and they aren't necessarily saying the above assumption. Thay can just as well be saying, among other possibilities as well, _"I want to hang out with people in a different environment than you prefer." _It's not necessarily a personal insult towards anybody, and just as likely simply a preference for another environment.

But when someone starts thinking of this in that manner (i.e.: feeling insulted that their friend prefers a machine to them), then that is definitely a sense of entitlement...a sense of entitlement about something which they are _not_ entitled to.

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...?

Also, I find the quoted post quite confusing. This is from the same person that can't understand how customers would feel insulted by WotC for saying they can't be trusted and taking away pdf's; but now says they wouldn't be surprised if people felt insulted by a friend wanting to play MMO's rather than tabletop games...

People's tastes change. People like variety. Friends will not always want to do what you want to do, or when you want to do it. Friendship is a two way street. You have to work at finding time to hang out, and yet at the same time, you do not have a right or entitlement to that friends time. If your friend no longer likes tabletop games, or maybe just not as much as you do, then meet them halfway. Go play an MMO with them...or not. Your friend likely has other friends also, and may be hanging out with them on an MMO. You are not entitled to a monopoly of their time, or entitled to any demands on their time.

And if one feels insulted by that, then one has a lot of growing up yet to accomplish.


----------



## Janx (Aug 14, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> That last sentence of the above quote, I feel is the whole problem in a nutshell: people seeing it as that person prefers a machine to them. MMO's can be a social hobby as well, and they aren't necessarily saying the above assumption. Thay can just as well be saying, among other possibilities as well, _"I want to hang out with people in a different environment than you prefer." _It's not necessarily a personal insult towards anybody, and just as likely simply a preference for another environment.




while you cite  [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION]'s last sentence, you disregard the very last phrase about "dropping off the face of the planet."

It's actually key to the whole conversation.

Let's say you now like MMO's and were in Umbran's game.  If you called him up and said, "hey, you're game's alright and all, but I'm really liking this new MMO, so I'm going to focus on that."  then you've been a good guy, and Umbran's got nothing coming to him because you communicated, were polite and honest.

But if you just quit answering calls, texts or emails, and "disappeared off the face of the planet" then that is rude.  And you would owe Umbran an apology.

This is the latter situation that Umbran is talking about.



El Mahdi said:


> But when someone starts thinking of this in that manner (i.e.: feeling insulted that their friend prefers a machine to them), then that is definitely a sense of entitlement...a sense of entitlement about something which they are _not_ entitled to.
> 
> Remember, that one time, somebody asked me not to use the phrase "wallet rape" anymore.  And I stopped.  Same deal.  Please try to explain your thinking (at least in this thread), without relying so much on the word Entitle.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 15, 2012)

> If Entitled is the new word to describe extremism in expecting of others, there should be a comparable word to describe callous disregard for others feelings and needs.




There are LOTS of words!

Besides callous, we have words like hard-hearted, unsympathetic, cold-hearted, cold...the thesaurus is full of 'em!


----------



## ggroy (Aug 15, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Yes.  And perhaps I can phrase it in a way that makes it seem a bit more clear:
> 
> Say you agreed to play in a game.  That's a social agreement - having made it, the other people should be allowed to have some expectation that you'll hold up your end.  Call it entitlement if you will, but you effectively gave them that entitlement to your time.  Which doesn't say you can never leave a game you joined, or have to pass on occasion - reasonable games make allowances for life.  *But, do it with a little respect for your fellow gamers, rather than just drop off the face of the planet.*
> 
> And, honestly, don't expect that real-world people won't be somewhat insulted with a statement that comes close to, "I prefer the machine's company to yours."




Most of the time, I usually give the DM and the group two weeks notice that I will be leaving the game for good.

If any of them demands a further explanation, I ask them to phone me personally.  Over the years, I have only had one DM which has phoned me about it.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 15, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> That last sentence of the above quote, I feel is the whole problem in a nutshell: people seeing it as that person prefers a machine to them. MMO's can be a social hobby as well, and they aren't necessarily saying the above assumption.




If we are talking about comparing face-to-face gaming to MMO gaming, as the tech currently stands, I think you'll have a hard sell getting people to accept that the MMO actually provides a superior social experience.  This doesn't say that it isn't superior for a given individual, but taking into account how things are apt to look to others is the soul of communication.



> They can just as well be saying, among other possibilities as well, _"I want to hang out with people in a different environment than you prefer." _It's not necessarily a personal insult towards anybody, and just as likely simply a preference for another environment.




Fine, have your version: "I want to go hang out with these other people (who aren't you), in this medium where there's machines between me and them, because I find that superior to being in-person with you."  

Yeah, I can see how that should be hard to take as an insult.  



> But when someone starts thinking of this in that manner (i.e.: feeling insulted that their friend prefers a machine to them), then that is definitely a sense of entitlement...a sense of entitlement about something which they are _not_ entitled to.




A couple things got left by the wayside:

Please remember the initial posit - you _agreed_ to play in a game.  You set the expectation, and thus _gave them an entitlement_ to some of your time. 

Also remember how I said this doesn't mean you cannot leave a game - it just means you have to do so with a modicum of respect for the people in the game.  

Those points are key - if you drop them, you're arguing against something I'm not saying.  Intentionally or not, you've created a pretty classic strawman here.




> Also, I find the quoted post quite confusing. This is from the same person that can't understand how customers would feel insulted by WotC for saying they can't be trusted and taking away pdf's; but now says they wouldn't be surprised if people felt insulted by a friend wanting to play MMO's rather than tabletop games...




I understand *how* customers feel insulted by WotC.  I just don't feel it is justified.  

A player's relationship to WotC is a relationship between a business and a consumer, and that's it.  Expecting more than common business practices (right or wrong) from that business is the real poster child for "entitlement".  The relationship between players in a game is far more personal, and there's a different social contract in place.  Apples and oranges, I'm afraid.



> People's tastes change. People like variety. Friends will not always want to do what you want to do, or when you want to do it. Friendship is a two way street. You have to work at finding time to hang out, and yet at the same time, you do not have a right or entitlement to that friends time.




See above about those crucial points you're leaving out.  I repeat:  You made an agreement to be in a game?  Then they do have an entitlement.  You want out of that agreement?  Fine.  Then tell folks respectfully as far ahead of time as possible that you want out, so they can change their plans.  

If I may - the "growing up" thing was unwise.  It ends up effectively, "Anyone who doesn't agree with me is immature," which is both personal, and requires a position of authority to make stick.  You may feel you've got authority from moral high ground.  But, as I've shown, your current moral high ground is a haystack, and inherently unstable.


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 23, 2012)

I've been busy getting ready for school, so I'm just now getting caught up on about a weeks worth of ENWorld.



Umbran said:


> If we are talking about comparing face-to-face gaming to MMO gaming, as the tech currently stands, I think you'll have a hard sell getting people to accept that the MMO actually provides a superior social experience. This doesn't say that it isn't superior for a given individual, but taking into account how things are apt to look to others is the soul of communication.




I agree.  I do believe I'd have a hard time selling most people on the idea that MMO's are a superior form of social experience.

So I guess it's a good thing I didn't make that claim... 



Umbran said:


> Fine, have your version: "I want to go hang out with these other people (who aren't you), in this medium where there's machines between me and them, because I find that superior to being in-person with you."
> 
> Yeah, I can see how that should be hard to take as an insult.




One problem, you're making an assumption that someone won't want to hang out with them at all.  They may have just grown tired of Tabletop Games.  Just because someone prefers MMO's to a Tabletop experience, or their tastes changed in that direction, doesn't mean they necessarily prefer a machine to you.  I'll agree though, that in a real friendship, this should be communicated.  However, people are not perfect and don't always do this.  Making assumptions like this can do nobody any good, especially oneself, and can quite likely make the situation worse.  Before being insulted, it's usually best to find out if an insult actually took place, or being sure of what you're actually insulted about. 



Umbran said:


> A couple things got left by the wayside:
> 
> Please remember the initial posit - you _agreed_ to play in a game. You set the expectation, and thus _gave them an entitlement_ to some of your time.




No.  An expectation certainly, but not an entitlement.



Umbran said:


> Also remember how I said this doesn't mean you cannot leave a game - it just means you have to do so with a modicum of respect for the people in the game.
> 
> Those points are key - if you drop them, you're arguing against something I'm not saying. Intentionally or not, you've created a pretty classic strawman here.




I haven't dropped anything by the wayside or created a strawman.  In the scenario you describe, nowhere does that entitle one to make the assumption that their friend prefers a machine to you, nor to feel insulted by someone for that.

Now if someone said they were going to play and didn't show, or just dropped off the face of the earth as you said, then feel insulted about them disrespecting you by not having the courtesy to tell you.  However, that is not the same as being insulted because you think they prefer a machine to you, or prefer MMO's to Tabletop Games.  Nobody involved in the posited scenario would have a justifiable entitlement to feel insulted because of someones venue preference. 



Umbran said:


> I understand *how* customers feel insulted by WotC. I just don't feel it is justified.
> 
> A player's relationship to WotC is a relationship between a business and a consumer, and that's it. Expecting more than common business practices (right or wrong) from that business is the real poster child for "entitlement". The relationship between players in a game is far more personal, and there's a different social contract in place. Apples and oranges, I'm afraid.




Whether apples and oranges or not, feeling insulted can be triggered by more than one narrowly defined rationale.  Just because the relationship isn't as personal, doesn't mean that it can't also be insulting.  And we aren't talking about common business practices.  We're talking about a specific situation where a company flat out said they were no longer providing certain products because their customers couldn't be trusted to not pirate them.  Publicly stating to your customer base that they aren't trustworthy, is insulting your customer base.  No matters of perception, no assumptions, it's the very definition of an insult.

But that really isn't the point.  I believe that one can't reasonably have an expectation that it's justified to be insulted about a percieved or assumed reason, and also have the expectation that others aren't justified in their reasons for being insulted.





Janx said:


> while you cite <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->@Umbran <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->'s last sentence, you disregard the very last phrase about "dropping off the face of the planet."
> 
> It's actually key to the whole conversation.
> 
> ...




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.  I'm not in a habit of trying to divine what someone else means in a post (though I have occasionally been guilty of that).  However, in this instance I attempted to respond to what was actually typed in the post, and only what was typed in the post...though I did refer to something Umbran posted about in another thread for comparison, but again, only what he actually posted in that thread.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Sep 2, 2012)

Actually, I think all of you have the right of it.... And that's part of the problem.  Entitlement comes from a persons' feelings, issued forth as a decree for inherent rights.  There are plenty of examples of this (too numerous to mention and some too politically charged to politely include.).

I think the gist of it comes down to perception on the part of both parties:

For instance Bob and Ted both like Laurie...  Bob and Ted are friends, they both agree verbally in their personal communications to each other that they are attracted to said girl.  Bob decides to act and asks Laurie out; Laurie accepts and they date a few times, Bob now feels that he is entitled to Laurie's company...

However, after their couple of dates Laurie thinks Ted is uber hunky and Bob is just a no personality noodle.  She then decides to "suggest" to Ted that they should go out.  Ted agrees - Bob finds out and feels betrayed because Ted is stepping with "his" woman...  (perceived ownership of Laurie (please don't get upset folks, this does not imply unequal rights, just making a point - stay with me.))

On the third date, Bob confronts Ted and Laurie about Ted's "improper" behavior - Ted defers to Laurie who says "Get lost Bob, you're a flake."  Bob takes exception and compares Laurie to a female dog.  At this, Ted takes exception and feels Bob is now entitled to a "knuckle sandwich", which he whole heartedly delivers.  The owner of the restaurant decides they are both entitled to a stay in the local lock up and invites Joe and Frank the police officers to help them with it.  Which they do.  Sandra the judge decides they are both entitled to 4-6 mos in the county pokey and Laurie decides she's entitled to less drama and begins dating Enrique the pool boy (who eventually leaves her for Manuel the hairdresser)....

Lots of folks felt entitled....Only the law had the muscle to back it up, which is why when the word entitlement gets thrown around - politics (i.e. the gov't., law, etc.) usually ends up in the mix.

Yes, this was meant to be humorous, but, it goes to show that perception does NOT equal truth, and that is where entitlement and emotion usually cross (and ends up in the crapper).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 2, 2012)

I think your tongue feels entitled to reside in your cheek...







That's some multiple entendres there, folks.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 2, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> 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 (Sep 2, 2012)

Umbran said:


> 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 (Sep 2, 2012)

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 (Sep 4, 2012)

Janx said:


> 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.



Janx said:


> ...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:



El Mahdi said:


> 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.





Janx said:


> 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.



Janx said:


> 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.



Janx said:


> 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.




Janx said:


> 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 (Sep 5, 2012)

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 (Sep 5, 2012)

Janx said:


> 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 (Sep 5, 2012)

ggroy said:


> 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 (Sep 6, 2012)

Janx said:


> 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 (Sep 6, 2012)

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 (Sep 6, 2012)

ggroy said:


> 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.


----------



## Nytmare (Sep 9, 2012)

Janx said:


> It seems to me, that in the last decade, the word "Entitled" or "Entitlement" has been used in a negative connotation.




I'd put money on it being that you're just noticing it now cause it's become a buzz word.

I've probably known the word for the nearly four decades I've been alive, and it's had a negative connotation the entire time, based on its usage.  

Someone who is entitled to something would not have the negative connotation, whereas someone who FELT as though they were entitled to something would, because of the subtle "they think that they deserve it, but they don't/haven't earned it" undertone.

It works for any positive descriptive word.  If someone is young, beautiful, rich, and famous and is adored by millions, they're a far cry from the person who only thinks that they're young, beautiful, rich, and famous and expects to be adored by millions.


----------



## Janx (Sep 9, 2012)

Nytmare said:


> I'd put money on it being that you're just noticing it now cause it's become a buzz word.
> 
> I've probably known the word for the nearly four decades I've been alive, and it's had a negative connotation the entire time, based on its usage.
> 
> ...




While trying to steer clear of politics, when I hear somebody use the word, it tends to shift blame, responsibility, and absolve responsibility, social obligation, or generosity.

I certainly agree someone in need, hurt, or wronged, isn't entitled to guarranteed assistance.

But when folks bandy that word about, they toss a whole heapful on the guy who's down, shifting focus from the guy who done wrong, or is in position to help but refuses to.

It's like the richest woman in the world (in Australia) who inherited her billions, complaining that australian workers should accept $2/day pay like their african counterparts so she can make more money.  She also basically says they need to work harder (which most poor people bust their arses just to make ends meet, so she's full of crap).  The long chain of her diatribe is, she's got no empathy for those people and she casts all responsibility and ability to correct their situation onto them.  It's politics and bickering to get into what should be done to help the poor people (like taking her money).

But it's morals and ethics to get into casting all the blame on the guy who's down, when we know the other guy can do something to help.  the start of it is to get folks to stop using terms like Entitled to blame Umbran when it's Bob who's actually exhibited poor human behavior.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 11, 2012)

"When did entitled become a bad word?"

When it stops meaning you.  



I guess I noticed it a number of years ago, when it started to be used as a "line in the sand", you heard a lot of "you are entitled to the following," mostly it was benefits and job related.  Over the years, I have seen those sliding away from that line, you now hear "you are entitled to the following under plan A but, you are entitled to a bit more under plan B".   

Just think when you start putting a price tag on what you are entitled to, you start to resent it.


----------



## Elf Witch (Sep 16, 2012)

I feel that the word entitled can be both positive and negative depending on how it is used.

For example if I agree to DM and you agree to play in my game I feel I am entitled to a little warning if you are not going to show up or even if you are going to quit. 

A negative side to that would be I agreed to DM and I am now entitled that you never miss a session.


Entitled is not always bad it really depends on what you feel entitled about.


----------



## rkarnes (Sep 22, 2012)

This subject is discussed at great length in the fantastic[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Debt-The-First-000-Years/dp/1933633867"] Debt: the first 5,000 Years[/ame]. It is a book about what, and who, you owe your allegiance too, and what it means to be "entitled".


----------

