My insight is that academia and activists have demonized power and the pursuit of power unless you are actively oppressed. Therefore power fantasies are bad.
They think power as expressed in hierarchy is automatically oppressive and that violence is inherently wicked (just not when they use it against evil "Nazis", of course). Their conception of patriarchy is a strawman of the worst case scenario a la the Middle East. They are unable to conceive of a hierarchy which rejects egalitarianism and promotes human flourishing on all levels.
To be honest, the typical leftist critique of power is shallow and, what is worse, boring!
"Patriarchy is defined by violence and oppression; strong men oppress weak men and all men oppress women. Thus violence is a virtue in the patriarchal society because it is the modus operandi for societal organisation. Because violence or the capacity to be violent is so highly valued in patriarchal culture, boys are raised to believe violence is a good thing and to be capable of violence is virtuous and manly."
Some people need to be oppressed and of course violence is good, the way a tiger with rending claws and gnashing fangs is good. Of what use is a harmless tiger or a harmless man?
Oppression is bad by definition and so it is not good to be oppressed. Which is not the same as saying that use of force and violence is bad, only that it can be so. Violence and force are just when used in proportionate manners for the right ends but they are oppressive when used disproportionately and for the wrong ends.
The just use of force and violence is never oppressive even if those who suffer it claim otherwise. This is why only loons claim that murderers who are punished are "victims of oppression". It is not oppression; it is just punishment. We speak of criminals being punished and not as being oppressed because we recognize the distinction.
By definition, that which is oppressive is unjust and cruel. Therefore to oppress someone (with or without violence) is unjust and cruel. There is also the implication that oppression is motivated by hatred and the chief intended end is to inflict suffering. Neither this motivation nor this goal create functional societies and hierarchies.
Baked into the feminist understanding of patriarchy is the notion that all its violence and force is oppressive and unjust - designed to inflict suffering and motivated by hatred. They are wrong and this is a strawman of patriarchies throughout history that have not oppressed women and instead embraced both sexes and maintained an order which benefited both according to their different natures.
I don't accept the feminist framing because it is false and because you lose the rhetorical battle when you do.
From my own play of VGs, I'm on the latter side of this equation. Going from a nobody to a somebody is a great feeling. Be it in StarSector--going from a rogue starship captain to someone deciding the fate of dozens of worlds-- or Mount and Blade--developing a force into a cohesive set of professional killers who bat away larger armies like pests. The progression you get in something like D&D as you level up and acquire assets is extremely attractive.
My insight is that academia and activists have demonized power and the pursuit of power unless you are actively oppressed. Therefore power fantasies are bad.
Excellent read.
The wheelchair accessible dungeon is Babylon Bee level satire.
The leftwing critique is exactly why power is good. File under woke more correct.
Not really, their framing is wrong.
They think power as expressed in hierarchy is automatically oppressive and that violence is inherently wicked (just not when they use it against evil "Nazis", of course). Their conception of patriarchy is a strawman of the worst case scenario a la the Middle East. They are unable to conceive of a hierarchy which rejects egalitarianism and promotes human flourishing on all levels.
To be honest, the typical leftist critique of power is shallow and, what is worse, boring!
"Patriarchy is defined by violence and oppression; strong men oppress weak men and all men oppress women. Thus violence is a virtue in the patriarchal society because it is the modus operandi for societal organisation. Because violence or the capacity to be violent is so highly valued in patriarchal culture, boys are raised to believe violence is a good thing and to be capable of violence is virtuous and manly."
Some people need to be oppressed and of course violence is good, the way a tiger with rending claws and gnashing fangs is good. Of what use is a harmless tiger or a harmless man?
Oppression is bad by definition and so it is not good to be oppressed. Which is not the same as saying that use of force and violence is bad, only that it can be so. Violence and force are just when used in proportionate manners for the right ends but they are oppressive when used disproportionately and for the wrong ends.
The just use of force and violence is never oppressive even if those who suffer it claim otherwise. This is why only loons claim that murderers who are punished are "victims of oppression". It is not oppression; it is just punishment. We speak of criminals being punished and not as being oppressed because we recognize the distinction.
By definition, that which is oppressive is unjust and cruel. Therefore to oppress someone (with or without violence) is unjust and cruel. There is also the implication that oppression is motivated by hatred and the chief intended end is to inflict suffering. Neither this motivation nor this goal create functional societies and hierarchies.
Baked into the feminist understanding of patriarchy is the notion that all its violence and force is oppressive and unjust - designed to inflict suffering and motivated by hatred. They are wrong and this is a strawman of patriarchies throughout history that have not oppressed women and instead embraced both sexes and maintained an order which benefited both according to their different natures.
I don't accept the feminist framing because it is false and because you lose the rhetorical battle when you do.
Neg.
Only unjust oppression is "bad."
Not all use is misuse or abuse.
>He either is or becomes powerful.
From my own play of VGs, I'm on the latter side of this equation. Going from a nobody to a somebody is a great feeling. Be it in StarSector--going from a rogue starship captain to someone deciding the fate of dozens of worlds-- or Mount and Blade--developing a force into a cohesive set of professional killers who bat away larger armies like pests. The progression you get in something like D&D as you level up and acquire assets is extremely attractive.
The best thing is to teach character development which is doable to the powerless as a path to greater power in their own lives.
Not self-sabotaging themselves is already a huge improvement.