The new and improved defender of RPGs!

Tuesday, 15 September 2015

The Conditions and Inherent Agenda of Victimhood Culture

So today I was going to post something new about the whole OBS censorship scandal, the Breitbart article on the subject, and what it says about the left and right, but then as it went on I realized it'll make better fodder for my next Everyjoe article.  So, expect that sometime next week.

And now, I don't have enough time to do much of anything else, so I'll share with you another excellent article that could only be seen on a right-wing media outlet these days (because the left has lost any allegiance to any concepts of 'free speech'):  the Atlantic's latest article on Victimhood Culture.

To me the two really interesting points about this are:

a) Victimhood culture can only exist in an environment where there are social superiors (people in authority) that can be appealed to as an answer to slights and have a strong interest in policing said slights. On the one hand, it means that victimhood culture is going to be particularly strong in places like colleges (where administrators and student groups are extremely concerned with things like "student comfort" or "student safety" or with not getting sued) or Internet Forums (where moderators feel like they must have a reason for existing and find that in the exercise of moderator power).  But on the other hand that means that people who want to turn our WHOLE culture into a victimhood-based (rather than honor or dignity based) culture must by necessesity also wish to make our government be just as powerful, controlling and interfering in people's lives as the most ridiculous colleges or worst internet fora.

b) By its very nature, victimhood culture *can only really exist in societies where everyone is already very close to being equal*.  In a society where there are actual REAL marginalized groups, the authorities will inherently not care about those marginalized groups. They will favor the oppressors, which is why the marginalzied are marginalized in the first place. A truly racist society, for example, would never see a Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela complaining to his local police or government that he was deeply offended by something someone said about him that sounded racist and expecting that these authorities would take his side and shame the person he was accusing. It seems absurd to even imagine it.

Victimhood culture only really works in societies where no one is ever really victimized in actualy important ways anymore.

RPGPundit

Currently Smoking:  Neerup Burlington Tomahawk & Burlington's Roanoke

8 comments:

  1. Martin Luther King is a poor example, as is Nelson Mandela. Both faced pretty extreme victimization in their societies. With one ending up in prison and the other assassinated. and neither expected the authorities to take their side. They are part of the reason our societies are more equal,and why the outrage brigade can now complain to their hearts content.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So MLK and Nelson Mandela had the police on their sides? Sounds like you misread the examples.

      Delete
    2. That was my point Efie: Mandela or MLK couldn't ever have gone to the authorities to complain about a microagression they interpreted as racism, because they lived in highly unequal societies (one more than the other, but both still unequal).

      Delete
  2. I guess if I was a victim, I would take an offense at this imagined slight to MLK. As it is a misunderstanding on my part, I and I am not a victim , I dont have to swear retribution or whatever victims say when offended.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's the patriarchy oppressing you, man.

      Delete
  3. So from the article: victim culture can only exist in places that are 'nearly' equal,

    What precisely about 'nearly equal' allows you to conclude the discrepancy is composed only of 'not important' acts?

    ReplyDelete
  4. So from the article: victim culture can only exist in places that are 'nearly' equal,

    What precisely about 'nearly equal' allows you to conclude the discrepancy is composed only of 'not important' acts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The absurdity and triviality of the entire concept of 'unintentional microagressions".

      Delete