Biden Suddenly Declares Travel Bans Aren't Racist

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-27-2021, 10:26 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: People on the right are often criticized for having a victim complex.

For example, the outrage surrounding the term "white privilege" where a white conservative will act like they're being attacked for being asked to acknowledge that they have certain advantages in our country specifically because they are white (it honestly should be called black disadvantage because the privileges white people gain from this social structure are often so basic that I would consider the majority of them basic rights. But "black disadvantage" is a lot bulkier of a term and also doesn't address the other forms of disadvantage that other minority racial groups experience, so we've settled on white privilege with the expectation that people simply understand what the term means. Unfortunately, this often isn't the case.)

Another example, Christians acting like they're under attack because people say happy holidays. Now, this one I would hope is just a media sensationalism, because if people think "happy holidays" is bad then I don't even know what to do with them. This same belief that Christians are under attack can be summed up perfectly in this tweet.

Another example, men (often conservative men) claiming that the term "toxic masculinity" is an attack on men everywhere, when it's actually just a criticism of all of the unhealthy things that society expects and accepts from men (such as using violence to solve problems, the environment we create where rape victims can be questioned about whether or not they just changed their mind or not. And, in addition, it addresses how men feel like they aren't allowed to express emotion or cry because they fear they'd be called "gay." This leads to a lot of unnecessary mental health issues for men that could be avoided if we just removed the stigma of men showing emotions.) 

There are many more examples (rich people, for example, are often defended from criticism by Conservatives despite their obvious privilege as well) but the essence of it is that conservatives will often claim they (or the groups they represent) are under attack when, in fact, they are the majority or "empowered" group in almost every circumstance. On average, white people are, obviously, the most privileged and powerful race in America. On average, men are, obviously, more privileged and powerful than women. On average, Christians are, obviously, the most privileged religious group in America. On average, rich people are, obviously, more privileged than poor people. And so on.

This doesn't mean that those groups are never criticized unfairly. I've seen people attack white people for something when it was unjust just like I've seen with men, Christians and any other privileged group. However, for every unjust attack, there are several magnitudes more just criticisms, even if some of them are just improperly directed or otherwise poorly formed such that it was more of a personal attack rather than a proper criticism of the group being discussed.

"The left," on the other hand, often represents the interests of the unprivileged minority classes and races in this country, LGTBQ+, black people, women, Muslims etc. So their "victim complex" is much more warranted as minority or unprivileged classes are more susceptible to attacks than majority or privileged classes.

In comedy (and other fields, I imagine), there's a term you may have heard of regarding what makes an edgy joke safe or disrespectful. Generally speaking, if a joke "punches up" it is okay for it to be disrespectful. If a joke "punches down," then it will often be interpreted as mean spirited and hurtful. This isn't a universal rule, but it's a generally accepted sweeping statement. In this case, making a joke or criticism of white people, men or Christians would be the equivalent of "punching up" whereas making a joke or criticism of LGTBQ+ people, black people, women or Muslims would be the equivalent of "punching down."

Conservatives often share common lines with privileged groups in this country and, when those privileged groups are criticized for their privilege, conservatives interpret it as an attack on them personally or their group personally rather than a discussion on the rights and privileges our society allows to certain groups of people. As our ability to discuss things grows every year with social media, smart phones etc, the larger the voice of the minority groups in this country have access and ability to levy these criticisms at the privileged classes and, thus, conservatives have begun to form a victim complex surrounding their privileged identities.

Sorry if this was a bit of a bulky way of explaining this, but the TL;DR of it is this:
The term "victim complex" or "victim card" implies an unjust use of viewing an attack or criticism on your class/race/gender/sex as destructive or harmful (being victimized). The groups most likely to be victimized are minority or otherwise unprivileged groups in society. Conservatives, for the most part, represent the majority of the privileged classes in America, at least as far as their talking points and policies go. So when a Conservative criticizes someone on "the left" (who often represents groups who are legitimately under attack in this country) of having a victim complex, it is ironic because that's exactly what Conservatives do except "the left" often has a legitimate claim of being the victim of some attack, whereas the groups that conservatives claim are being victimized often don't.

This is a very well written and argued post.  I can say that the issues most people have, but certainly not all, with the terms "white privilege" and "toxic masculinity" is that they are frequently used as a bludgeon, an epithetic label, or to dismiss the position or arguments of a person by discounting their position as stemming from these labels.  If they were solely used to describe the behaviors or conditions you describe then I don't think there'd be nearly the same amount of push back against them.

[CJD]

(01-27-2021, 11:29 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is a very well written and argued post.  I can say that the issues most people have, but certainly not all, with the terms "white privilege" and "toxic masculinity" is that they are frequently used as a bludgeon, an epithetic label, or to dismiss the position or arguments of a person by discounting their position as stemming from these labels.  If they were solely used to describe the behaviors or conditions you describe then I don't think there'd be nearly the same amount of push back against them.

Thank you.

I agree with you that those terms can often be misused and that's something that we, as a society, are always going to struggle with. When I criticize white privilege, I have to contend with all of the misuses in the past, as those are the memories that are most commonly fresh in my ideological opponent's head. It's much easier to remember the wrong or incorrect uses than the correct ones (it's the same reason you still cringe to this day when you think of that time you said something minorly stupid 15 years ago.) I want to say we should unburden our ideological positions from those who misuse them but that's not a realistic stance because your opponent will certainly not give you that same benefit of the doubt.

One thing I will say is that I often see conservatives say the left misuses the term "racist" more than any word in the English language. One may claim they were making an innocuous statement and was called a racist because of it.

I can't contend with these accusations because I wasn't there when they were called a racist but I would encourage anyone who experiences this to just reflect on the context and circumstances of the discussion. Why did this person interpret what I said as racist? Did I frame it improperly? Did I use a word that has a negative history or connotation? Do I have some kind of blind spot that, while obviously not malicious, may be because I am not wholly educated on their life experience?

Just because someone hears something as racist doesn't mean that it was intended to be, but further discussion or refinement of arguments may help both sides learn why the other interprets the statement as racist or not racist.

And I would encourage leftists to do the same with the right's criticism of them. I often reflect on what about my arguments would make someone think I'm being irrational or unrealistic. Obviously, some of it will be difficult to parse from ideological rhetoric (calling me a communist because I think people should have a baseline for health insurance so people don't die of preventable diseases), but there is still some room to improve not only my thought process but also fine tune my arguments to better illustrate my point. How can I better explain why healthcare is a fundamental requirement for the betterment of society without sounding like I want to abolish money and classes altogether? Things like that.

If a person is constantly being called a racist for expressing a belief that they truly believe is not racist, then I think a similar approach should be taken to evaluate how could someone possibly find this expression racist. How can I remove that portion of the argument while still properly representing my viewpoint?

But I digress. I hope you're right that most people agree with the actual definitions of those terms and just disagree with the application of them. That would make me feel a lot better about the state of the world if that is true.