7 ms·

> As society has elevated the status of victims past and present, it is unsurprising that passive aggression has become one of the dominant social dynamics of

> As society has elevated the status of victims past and present, it is unsurprising that passive aggression has become one of the dominant social dynamics of our age. I liked this interpretation of events. Celebration of victimhood is surely at an all time high. Should we expect this trend to continue, or will we ("educated" "sophisticated" people in Western society) return to celebrating the powerful and the successful like most other societies before us?

AlecSchueler 3y ago
I think this is a case of equality feeling like oppression for the oppressor. When I champiom the voices of victims I do so because their voices are already quietened. The voices of champions are still by far the loudest even if we do go out of our ways more than ever to include others.
- bequanna 3y ago
  I think the issue here is that people see some benefit from being able to claim victim status so there is a push to expand the definition of what a victim is. If you want to know why people have a problem with this consider that both a genocide survivor and micro-aggression survivor will claim victim status. The latter doing so with a straight face and often more fervor.
  - etchalon 3y ago
    But, aren't both victims? Forcing anyone who has been subjected to anything to do so only if their suffering was as bad, relatively, as another arbitrary example, means the word "victim" has no real use, beyond some imaginary situation of absolute suffering. Anyone could challenge anyone's claim to victimhood just by pointing out a potentially worse situation for someone else.
  - NikolaNovak 3y ago
    I came from a country which was... not particularly liberal or progressive. My dad is pushing 80. So he has at times some pretty old school knee jerk reactions about social progress. About once a decade he asks, somewhat grouchily, "Why are we suddenly talking so much about group X??" And the best answer I came up with, after years of conversations, to foster mutual understanding was: "because it's their turn! We made some progress with group Y, then we tackled group Z, and now we are trying to bring equality to group X. It doesn't detract from groups Y or Z we tackled in the past, the groups A & B that pretty much have power, or groups P & Q we should tackle in the future". In this grossly oversimplifed view of progress, we worked on / fought to give women right to vote and maybe even some rights, then we worked to give all races vote and maybe even some rights, then we turned to give gays and lesbians maybe some recognition and equality, now we are working on trans, etc. It does not take away from me as a tall white male! And giving african american voting rights did not take away from women having voting rights :). It's GOOD to keep going after all inequalities, rather than saying "Group A inequality is worse, so fuck off and shut up". That's not how we progress. Where I'm going with this - it's OK for both genocide survivor, and micro-aggression survivor, to claim victim status! We don't all have to have the same degree, and it's OK to help more and more people and fight for better and better equality :). Another analogy, if you will - when I moved to USA after years of civil war in the old country, my host family tried to use me as a scarecrow to their kids. "Eat your dinner, think of all the people in $COUNTRY who don't have food". That stopped when I indicated, politely & lovingly, that kids in $COUNTRY could not care less whether 9 year old Tommy in Minnesota ate his veggies or not. So as a survivor of civil war (and attempted or successful genocide depending on which side / country / historian you listen to, they're still figuring this out:), let me assure you I am not offended by micro-aggression survivors claiming victim status :)
    - david422 3y ago
      > it's OK for both genocide survivor, and micro-aggression survivor, to claim victim status I think it's actually a pretty good sign of progress that if a society is worried about micro-aggressions it means that they are not worried about larger problems, like genocide.
    - sifd 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - bequanna 3y ago
        Shouldn’t progress simply be defined as equal treatment under the law? Once we get into the mode of granting special privileges for victims (real or imaginary) I think we have a big problem. People should aspire to achieve, not strive to complain about all the reasons (again, real or imaginary) why they couldn’t because they think they’ll get some reward for having the most victim points.
        NikolaNovak 3y ago
        In Canada, early in the kindergarten they start teaching kids that "equal" and "just" and "same" aren't always synonyms. A good example they use is when kids of different heights may want to see or reach something; the shorter kid might benefit from a stool. Their situation isn't the same, but the result of this extra effort brings equality. There are still adults that will get very upset about granting the "special privilege" of a stool for the need and benefit "(real or imaginary)" of the shorter kid (I'm not sure if they too get "victim points" due to their pain and suffering over rights and privileges extended to minorities and victims), but I'm hopeful progress can be made over the course of generations :)
      - the_af 3y ago
        > There's an odd one out on your list of progressive causes: agreeing to the demands of the last group on your list actually undoes the progress made for women and lesbians. Not every progressive woman or lesbian agrees with your statement (though some do), so you cannot state this so categorically. In general, giving more rights to downtrodden and mistreated minorities seems right to me. Exceptions to this rule require special justification.
  - AlecSchueler 3y ago
    They are both victims. Whether someone drowns in their bath or drowns in the ocean they have drowned.I can see and accept the tragedy in both circumstances while still understanding the respective gravities of danger between bathing and ocean swimming. I'm not sure what you mean by sharing victimhood with fervor. What emotions do the perpetrators of micro-aggressions exhibit when they commit? I would ask that we question the position of perpetrators as much, if not more, than victims.
- meowkit 3y ago
  Have you stopped to ask why elevating the voices of victims is a worthy thing to champion? How do you evaluate who is a victim? Maybe the positive consequences are obvious, but what are the negative consequences of doing this? Often the real disagreements are the assumptions that are driving the superficial behaviors.
  - the_af 3y ago
    > Have you stopped to ask why Assume the person you're replying to has, indeed, stopped to ask this question. What do you think are the negative consequences of prioritizing the voices of those who have been suppressed, and de-emphasizing the voices of people who more easily get to be heard? And what do you think would be the consequences of not doing so? See? Everyone can play this game. It's best to assume the other person has considered the consequences of doing/not doing this, and decided one is better than the other. It's better to explain why you think that line of thinking is wrong (if that is what you think) instead of doubting the thought processes of the person you're debating with.
  - AlecSchueler 3y ago
    > Have you stopped to ask why elevating the voices of victims is a worthy thing to champion? Yes, I have. > How do you evaluate who is a victim? I use my moral compass. YMMV > Maybe the positive consequences are obvious, but what are the negative consequences of doing this? I'm not sure, can you see some?
- readthenotes1 3y ago
  How do you avoid becoming the righteous White Savior over talking the oppressed?
  - 93po 3y ago
    You show up to support the voices of others without taking time and mental/emotional space yourself.
  - the_af 3y ago
    That is certainly a risk, but no excuse for letting the statu quo stand. In other words "I may get it wrong, therefore I won't do anything" is unacceptable to me.
  - AlecSchueler 3y ago
    Listen more than you talk. Listen to first hand sources. Don't put an expectation on the oppressed to do all the work. Amplify their voices rather than putting your own voice first. I trust that if I listen with an open heart and come from a peace of good intention then I will do the right thing. It's certainly better than any alternative I could imagine for myself.
zozbot234 3y ago
Ressentiment as a trope is just as old as celebration of the powerful and successful. (In fact, the two often go hand in hand; both amount to defenses of the status quo. The whole point of being a victim is that you're not among the oppressors, and conversely.) I don't think either of them is anything near an "all time high".
- lo_zamoyski 3y ago
  Ressentiment is essentially a false morality founded on the envy of the weak toward the strong. It's one thing for strength to be abused, but another thing entirely to hate strength because you are weak. This false morality is what Nietzsche calls "slave morality", which is essentially a coping mechanism for the prideful. Whereas master morality prizes strength over weakness and expresses a straightforward and natural attitude of good and evil, slave morality begins with self-deception. It recasts that which it envies as evil in a game of sour grapes, so that the envious come out on top as the good. This has always existed, sure, but it is also true that victimhood has been elevated and celebrated as virtuous quite notably today. It has become a manipulative instrument to dishonestly extract from and exploit others through false guilt. Nobody of sound mind celebrates victimhood. A victim can take comfort in his innocence when he is victimized, he may have a moral superiority because it is not what is done to us, but what we do that defiles us. He may be pleased that his suffering has advanced some good. But a victim of sound mind doesn't love his victimhood per se, though he may pity the perpetrator for his depravity and moral weakness.
- sltkr 3y ago
  Of course ressentiment is constant, but the question is which kind of thinking dominates society? Historically, the pendulum has swung back and forth between what Nietsche labeled master and slave morality. The Roman empire is a typical example of master culture: it's good to be rich and powerful, and it is right for the strong to dominate the weak. There might have been ressentiment among the Barbarians the Romans conquered, but the dominant culture certainly didn't sympathize with them. Then in Europe we get the rise of Christianity, a typical example of slave morality which regards strength and power as evil (the New Testament is full of messages like the meek will inherit the earth, it's easier for a camel to pass through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter heaven, etc.) Then Western civilization swings back to Master morality: the crusades as an early example, later manifest destiny, the white man's burden, the rise of fascism in Europe, etc. Then after WW2 fascism loses its luster and the pendulum swings back. Western colonies which were previously considered mutually beneficial developments are now condemned as exploitative of the less advanced native cultures. People like Columbus who were once lionized for their discoveries and conquests are now condemned as villains. You can view the American civil war as a midpoint of the pendulum's swing: while Negroes, who are poor and uneducated, are not (yet) considered morally superior to Whites, it is no longer morally acceptable to enslave them just because you can. Today, the pendulum has swung fully towards slave morality. You should check your privilege, and shut up, so the oppressed may speak. Representation is important. The rich and powerful are almost by definition evil. Bill Gates and Elon Musk won't be remembered in the same way as Rockefeller or Ford. Racism is no longer racism, as it was in Martin Luther King's time, but now it's prejudice PLUS power (also everyone has racial bias, so by the very definition, the powerful are evil, while the powerless are innocent). So while you can argue that the pendulum has swung back and forth on this topic through history, and it's hard to say if slave morality is currently at an “all-time high”, I think it's undeniably true that we are currently heavily biased towards celebrating the powerless over the rich and powerful.
moreimportantly 3y ago
More importantly the society has sent the clear message that even the law system will bend to this victimhood narrative, and victimhood will be compensated. Is it a surprise that it's so popular today and everyone is jumping on the bandwagon of every cause imaginable.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  > society has sent the clear message that even the law system will bend to this victimhood narrative What examples come to mind that make this a clear message?
- 93po 3y ago
  It’s a bad thing that people engage with empathy and are getting involved in causes to help very real issues?
- slowmovintarget 3y ago
  Engels-style Marxist ideology weaponizes our typical in-group / out-group social dynamics to define those groups solely in terms of oppressor and oppressed. Only the oppressed, the victims, are part of the in-group. It is visceral, effective, compelling, and utterly destructive to civil society. But that's the point: To construct an us-and-them narrative to excuse any evils done to "them" in the name of righteousness. Radicalization operates on the same pattern that gave us the Crusades, that gives us jihad, and that still drives people to full-throated defense of political purges. Defense of the individual, divorced from group dynamics, was the clear, shining achievement of classical liberalism. Personal rights, privileges, and equal treatment under the law regardless of which group you belonged to, or what your status in society is. Our school systems are vigorously working to pull that apart.
BiteCode_dev 3y ago
Victimhood + virtue signaling. Which is the opposite of the old american dream, focused on acting. Historians will have a blast about this.
- SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - BiteCode_dev 3y ago
    No, that's blaming and taking action on it. It's an aweful way of doing it, but it's a very different mechanism.
    - SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
      Then what about the pilgrims, who were historically in America because they were too extreme for UK? They’re all about being a victim. Or the no taxation without representation, protesting the injustice against them?
      - filoleg 3y ago
        > Then what about the pilgrims, who were historically in America because they were too extreme for UK? They’re all about being a victim. Going out into the world (literally to another continent in the pre-plane era) to solve your problems your own way is imo the opposite of victim mentality. Victim mentality would be just complaining and seeing yourself as a victim or trying to use the victim status as a power move to make things go your way. Walking out of the situation and getting things done the way you want to elsewhere, despite it being dangerous and potentially deadly, ain’t a victim move at all tbh.
  - golergka 3y ago
    American which trials were a thing, but a very minor one in historical terms — dwarfed in comparison with Scottish ones. Why would you say that America was founded on them?
guerrilla 3y ago
> Should we expect this trend to continue, or will we ("educated" "sophisticated" people in Western society) return to celebrating the powerful and the successful like most other societies before us? I find this to be a bizarre false dichotomy. Why not, for example, celebrate the virtuous instead? A society that valued kindness, bravery, temperance or whatever would seem a lot better than either of your options. I'm sure other people could think of plenty of other options as well.
- old-gregg 3y ago
  > Why not, for example, celebrate the virtuous instead? Because it's hard to celebrate the intangibles, that is why virtue signaling gets the spotlight instead. But action and achievement are tangible and can be celebrated (if they're good for society). This is not a "bizarre false dichotomy". This is a perfect example of dichotomy: do you celebrate actions or intent?
  - oatmeal1 3y ago
    Celebration is unnecessary.
    - guerrilla 3y ago
      This is an even better point than mine.
  - the_af 3y ago
    > This is a perfect example of dichotomy: do you celebrate actions or intent? Depends. Which actions and which intent do you mean?
oatmeal1 3y ago
False dichotomy.
achrono 3y ago
A widespread sense of entitlement is indeed a mark of high civilization. Of course as a lagging, not leading, indicator. I wonder if things like a sense of certainty in moral convictions also necessarily goes with it -- i.e. a triumphant civilization giving itself a pat on the back for its accomplishments with the recognition that it has after all achieved the capital-T truth. The big question is how low the upcoming trough needs to be for us to get the next peak we expect.
soco 3y ago
I'd say Musk or Trump are quite celebrated in our society, or the Kardashians if you like. And we are definitely not living in different societies, so one of us is definitely missing something. Or maybe the article writer.
ratsmack 3y ago
The industry and institutions of victimhood are well funded and growing. With the free flow of money they are able control much of media and social interaction. It will continue to grow as the money flows into the machine.
93po 3y ago
I don’t believe power should be celebrated. And financial success shouldn’t be either
underseacables 3y ago
The "victim" class has become a political and social weapon. It's label can be used to shame and force others into making accommodations, even if it is to the detriment of others. Coupled with righteousness indignation it has become a potent weapon to silence critics.
benterix 3y ago
> Should we expect this trend to continue, or will we ("educated" "sophisticated" people in Western society) return to celebrating the powerful and the successful like most other societies before us? This feels like a false dychotomy. There are various possibilities, not just two. I'm not in favor of celebrating the powerful and successful as many of them turned out to be sociopaths. I prefer to celebrate people of science, who through their talent and hard work advance our civilization, including victims, the powerful, and all the rest of us.
drewcoo 3y ago
> Should we expect this trend to continue, or will we ("educated" "sophisticated" people in Western society) return to celebrating the powerful and the successful like most other societies before us? False dichotomy. We could celebrate people who exhibit some tenet of higher principles, people we find inspiring. That's often not the same as victimhood or success. I wonder if overuse of false dichotomies is a subset of the passive aggression surge.
TheCleric 3y ago
I honestly don't understand this attitude. There is without doubt members of our society who have been victimized. How we respond to that as a society is important. Part of the goal of any society should be to look out for others, otherwise what's the point of society? I'm not advocating for the "celebration" of victims, but rather to minimize victimization in society. I also would not advocate for celebrating the "powerful" (as that is essentially useless as evaluating whether someone is worthy of adulation). I would celebrate the people who have the most benefit for society: those who are kind, compassionate, and make the people around them even more so.

AlecSchueler 3y ago

I think this is a case of equality feeling like oppression for the oppressor. When I champiom the voices of victims I do so because their voices are already quietened. The voices of champions are still by far the loudest even if we do go out of our ways more than ever to include others.

bequanna 3y ago
I think the issue here is that people see some benefit from being able to claim victim status so there is a push to expand the definition of what a victim is. If you want to know why people have a problem with this consider that both a genocide survivor and micro-aggression survivor will claim victim status. The latter doing so with a straight face and often more fervor.
- etchalon 3y ago
  But, aren't both victims? Forcing anyone who has been subjected to anything to do so only if their suffering was as bad, relatively, as another arbitrary example, means the word "victim" has no real use, beyond some imaginary situation of absolute suffering. Anyone could challenge anyone's claim to victimhood just by pointing out a potentially worse situation for someone else.
- NikolaNovak 3y ago
  I came from a country which was... not particularly liberal or progressive. My dad is pushing 80. So he has at times some pretty old school knee jerk reactions about social progress. About once a decade he asks, somewhat grouchily, "Why are we suddenly talking so much about group X??" And the best answer I came up with, after years of conversations, to foster mutual understanding was: "because it's their turn! We made some progress with group Y, then we tackled group Z, and now we are trying to bring equality to group X. It doesn't detract from groups Y or Z we tackled in the past, the groups A & B that pretty much have power, or groups P & Q we should tackle in the future". In this grossly oversimplifed view of progress, we worked on / fought to give women right to vote and maybe even some rights, then we worked to give all races vote and maybe even some rights, then we turned to give gays and lesbians maybe some recognition and equality, now we are working on trans, etc. It does not take away from me as a tall white male! And giving african american voting rights did not take away from women having voting rights :). It's GOOD to keep going after all inequalities, rather than saying "Group A inequality is worse, so fuck off and shut up". That's not how we progress. Where I'm going with this - it's OK for both genocide survivor, and micro-aggression survivor, to claim victim status! We don't all have to have the same degree, and it's OK to help more and more people and fight for better and better equality :). Another analogy, if you will - when I moved to USA after years of civil war in the old country, my host family tried to use me as a scarecrow to their kids. "Eat your dinner, think of all the people in $COUNTRY who don't have food". That stopped when I indicated, politely & lovingly, that kids in $COUNTRY could not care less whether 9 year old Tommy in Minnesota ate his veggies or not. So as a survivor of civil war (and attempted or successful genocide depending on which side / country / historian you listen to, they're still figuring this out:), let me assure you I am not offended by micro-aggression survivors claiming victim status :)
  - david422 3y ago
    > it's OK for both genocide survivor, and micro-aggression survivor, to claim victim status I think it's actually a pretty good sign of progress that if a society is worried about micro-aggressions it means that they are not worried about larger problems, like genocide.
  - sifd 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - bequanna 3y ago
      Shouldn’t progress simply be defined as equal treatment under the law? Once we get into the mode of granting special privileges for victims (real or imaginary) I think we have a big problem. People should aspire to achieve, not strive to complain about all the reasons (again, real or imaginary) why they couldn’t because they think they’ll get some reward for having the most victim points.
      - NikolaNovak 3y ago
        In Canada, early in the kindergarten they start teaching kids that "equal" and "just" and "same" aren't always synonyms. A good example they use is when kids of different heights may want to see or reach something; the shorter kid might benefit from a stool. Their situation isn't the same, but the result of this extra effort brings equality. There are still adults that will get very upset about granting the "special privilege" of a stool for the need and benefit "(real or imaginary)" of the shorter kid (I'm not sure if they too get "victim points" due to their pain and suffering over rights and privileges extended to minorities and victims), but I'm hopeful progress can be made over the course of generations :)
    - the_af 3y ago
      > There's an odd one out on your list of progressive causes: agreeing to the demands of the last group on your list actually undoes the progress made for women and lesbians. Not every progressive woman or lesbian agrees with your statement (though some do), so you cannot state this so categorically. In general, giving more rights to downtrodden and mistreated minorities seems right to me. Exceptions to this rule require special justification.
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  They are both victims. Whether someone drowns in their bath or drowns in the ocean they have drowned.I can see and accept the tragedy in both circumstances while still understanding the respective gravities of danger between bathing and ocean swimming. I'm not sure what you mean by sharing victimhood with fervor. What emotions do the perpetrators of micro-aggressions exhibit when they commit? I would ask that we question the position of perpetrators as much, if not more, than victims.
meowkit 3y ago
Have you stopped to ask why elevating the voices of victims is a worthy thing to champion? How do you evaluate who is a victim? Maybe the positive consequences are obvious, but what are the negative consequences of doing this? Often the real disagreements are the assumptions that are driving the superficial behaviors.
- the_af 3y ago
  > Have you stopped to ask why Assume the person you're replying to has, indeed, stopped to ask this question. What do you think are the negative consequences of prioritizing the voices of those who have been suppressed, and de-emphasizing the voices of people who more easily get to be heard? And what do you think would be the consequences of not doing so? See? Everyone can play this game. It's best to assume the other person has considered the consequences of doing/not doing this, and decided one is better than the other. It's better to explain why you think that line of thinking is wrong (if that is what you think) instead of doubting the thought processes of the person you're debating with.
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  > Have you stopped to ask why elevating the voices of victims is a worthy thing to champion? Yes, I have. > How do you evaluate who is a victim? I use my moral compass. YMMV > Maybe the positive consequences are obvious, but what are the negative consequences of doing this? I'm not sure, can you see some?
readthenotes1 3y ago
How do you avoid becoming the righteous White Savior over talking the oppressed?
- 93po 3y ago
  You show up to support the voices of others without taking time and mental/emotional space yourself.
- the_af 3y ago
  That is certainly a risk, but no excuse for letting the statu quo stand. In other words "I may get it wrong, therefore I won't do anything" is unacceptable to me.
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  Listen more than you talk. Listen to first hand sources. Don't put an expectation on the oppressed to do all the work. Amplify their voices rather than putting your own voice first. I trust that if I listen with an open heart and come from a peace of good intention then I will do the right thing. It's certainly better than any alternative I could imagine for myself.

zozbot234 3y ago

Ressentiment as a trope is just as old as celebration of the powerful and successful. (In fact, the two often go hand in hand; both amount to defenses of the status quo. The whole point of being a victim is that you're not among the oppressors, and conversely.) I don't think either of them is anything near an "all time high".

lo_zamoyski 3y ago
Ressentiment is essentially a false morality founded on the envy of the weak toward the strong. It's one thing for strength to be abused, but another thing entirely to hate strength because you are weak. This false morality is what Nietzsche calls "slave morality", which is essentially a coping mechanism for the prideful. Whereas master morality prizes strength over weakness and expresses a straightforward and natural attitude of good and evil, slave morality begins with self-deception. It recasts that which it envies as evil in a game of sour grapes, so that the envious come out on top as the good. This has always existed, sure, but it is also true that victimhood has been elevated and celebrated as virtuous quite notably today. It has become a manipulative instrument to dishonestly extract from and exploit others through false guilt. Nobody of sound mind celebrates victimhood. A victim can take comfort in his innocence when he is victimized, he may have a moral superiority because it is not what is done to us, but what we do that defiles us. He may be pleased that his suffering has advanced some good. But a victim of sound mind doesn't love his victimhood per se, though he may pity the perpetrator for his depravity and moral weakness.
sltkr 3y ago
Of course ressentiment is constant, but the question is which kind of thinking dominates society? Historically, the pendulum has swung back and forth between what Nietsche labeled master and slave morality. The Roman empire is a typical example of master culture: it's good to be rich and powerful, and it is right for the strong to dominate the weak. There might have been ressentiment among the Barbarians the Romans conquered, but the dominant culture certainly didn't sympathize with them. Then in Europe we get the rise of Christianity, a typical example of slave morality which regards strength and power as evil (the New Testament is full of messages like the meek will inherit the earth, it's easier for a camel to pass through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter heaven, etc.) Then Western civilization swings back to Master morality: the crusades as an early example, later manifest destiny, the white man's burden, the rise of fascism in Europe, etc. Then after WW2 fascism loses its luster and the pendulum swings back. Western colonies which were previously considered mutually beneficial developments are now condemned as exploitative of the less advanced native cultures. People like Columbus who were once lionized for their discoveries and conquests are now condemned as villains. You can view the American civil war as a midpoint of the pendulum's swing: while Negroes, who are poor and uneducated, are not (yet) considered morally superior to Whites, it is no longer morally acceptable to enslave them just because you can. Today, the pendulum has swung fully towards slave morality. You should check your privilege, and shut up, so the oppressed may speak. Representation is important. The rich and powerful are almost by definition evil. Bill Gates and Elon Musk won't be remembered in the same way as Rockefeller or Ford. Racism is no longer racism, as it was in Martin Luther King's time, but now it's prejudice PLUS power (also everyone has racial bias, so by the very definition, the powerful are evil, while the powerless are innocent). So while you can argue that the pendulum has swung back and forth on this topic through history, and it's hard to say if slave morality is currently at an “all-time high”, I think it's undeniably true that we are currently heavily biased towards celebrating the powerless over the rich and powerful.

moreimportantly 3y ago

More importantly the society has sent the clear message that even the law system will bend to this victimhood narrative, and victimhood will be compensated. Is it a surprise that it's so popular today and everyone is jumping on the bandwagon of every cause imaginable.

ethanbond 3y ago
> society has sent the clear message that even the law system will bend to this victimhood narrative What examples come to mind that make this a clear message?
93po 3y ago
It’s a bad thing that people engage with empathy and are getting involved in causes to help very real issues?
slowmovintarget 3y ago
Engels-style Marxist ideology weaponizes our typical in-group / out-group social dynamics to define those groups solely in terms of oppressor and oppressed. Only the oppressed, the victims, are part of the in-group. It is visceral, effective, compelling, and utterly destructive to civil society. But that's the point: To construct an us-and-them narrative to excuse any evils done to "them" in the name of righteousness. Radicalization operates on the same pattern that gave us the Crusades, that gives us jihad, and that still drives people to full-throated defense of political purges. Defense of the individual, divorced from group dynamics, was the clear, shining achievement of classical liberalism. Personal rights, privileges, and equal treatment under the law regardless of which group you belonged to, or what your status in society is. Our school systems are vigorously working to pull that apart.

BiteCode_dev 3y ago

Victimhood + virtue signaling. Which is the opposite of the old american dream, focused on acting. Historians will have a blast about this.

SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
[flagged]
- BiteCode_dev 3y ago
  No, that's blaming and taking action on it. It's an aweful way of doing it, but it's a very different mechanism.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
    Then what about the pilgrims, who were historically in America because they were too extreme for UK? They’re all about being a victim. Or the no taxation without representation, protesting the injustice against them?
    - filoleg 3y ago
      > Then what about the pilgrims, who were historically in America because they were too extreme for UK? They’re all about being a victim. Going out into the world (literally to another continent in the pre-plane era) to solve your problems your own way is imo the opposite of victim mentality. Victim mentality would be just complaining and seeing yourself as a victim or trying to use the victim status as a power move to make things go your way. Walking out of the situation and getting things done the way you want to elsewhere, despite it being dangerous and potentially deadly, ain’t a victim move at all tbh.
- golergka 3y ago
  American which trials were a thing, but a very minor one in historical terms — dwarfed in comparison with Scottish ones. Why would you say that America was founded on them?

guerrilla 3y ago

> Should we expect this trend to continue, or will we ("educated" "sophisticated" people in Western society) return to celebrating the powerful and the successful like most other societies before us? I find this to be a bizarre false dichotomy. Why not, for example, celebrate the virtuous instead? A society that valued kindness, bravery, temperance or whatever would seem a lot better than either of your options. I'm sure other people could think of plenty of other options as well.

old-gregg 3y ago
> Why not, for example, celebrate the virtuous instead? Because it's hard to celebrate the intangibles, that is why virtue signaling gets the spotlight instead. But action and achievement are tangible and can be celebrated (if they're good for society). This is not a "bizarre false dichotomy". This is a perfect example of dichotomy: do you celebrate actions or intent?
- oatmeal1 3y ago
  Celebration is unnecessary.
  - guerrilla 3y ago
    This is an even better point than mine.
- the_af 3y ago
  > This is a perfect example of dichotomy: do you celebrate actions or intent? Depends. Which actions and which intent do you mean?

oatmeal1 3y ago

False dichotomy.

achrono 3y ago

A widespread sense of entitlement is indeed a mark of high civilization. Of course as a lagging, not leading, indicator. I wonder if things like a sense of certainty in moral convictions also necessarily goes with it -- i.e. a triumphant civilization giving itself a pat on the back for its accomplishments with the recognition that it has after all achieved the capital-T truth. The big question is how low the upcoming trough needs to be for us to get the next peak we expect.

soco 3y ago

I'd say Musk or Trump are quite celebrated in our society, or the Kardashians if you like. And we are definitely not living in different societies, so one of us is definitely missing something. Or maybe the article writer.

ratsmack 3y ago

The industry and institutions of victimhood are well funded and growing. With the free flow of money they are able control much of media and social interaction. It will continue to grow as the money flows into the machine.

93po 3y ago

I don’t believe power should be celebrated. And financial success shouldn’t be either

underseacables 3y ago

The "victim" class has become a political and social weapon. It's label can be used to shame and force others into making accommodations, even if it is to the detriment of others. Coupled with righteousness indignation it has become a potent weapon to silence critics.

benterix 3y ago

> Should we expect this trend to continue, or will we ("educated" "sophisticated" people in Western society) return to celebrating the powerful and the successful like most other societies before us? This feels like a false dychotomy. There are various possibilities, not just two. I'm not in favor of celebrating the powerful and successful as many of them turned out to be sociopaths. I prefer to celebrate people of science, who through their talent and hard work advance our civilization, including victims, the powerful, and all the rest of us.

drewcoo 3y ago

> Should we expect this trend to continue, or will we ("educated" "sophisticated" people in Western society) return to celebrating the powerful and the successful like most other societies before us? False dichotomy. We could celebrate people who exhibit some tenet of higher principles, people we find inspiring. That's often not the same as victimhood or success. I wonder if overuse of false dichotomies is a subset of the passive aggression surge.

TheCleric 3y ago

I honestly don't understand this attitude. There is without doubt members of our society who have been victimized. How we respond to that as a society is important. Part of the goal of any society should be to look out for others, otherwise what's the point of society? I'm not advocating for the "celebration" of victims, but rather to minimize victimization in society. I also would not advocate for celebrating the "powerful" (as that is essentially useless as evaluating whether someone is worthy of adulation). I would celebrate the people who have the most benefit for society: those who are kind, compassionate, and make the people around them even more so.