Another thing I noticed in the interchange - that tendency to project, either unconsciously or tactically.
I see the core of the "victimhood narrative" as being the concept that victimhood is valorized and is used as justification for more power over others; the more victimized you can portray yourself, the more power you get. But I see …
Another thing I noticed in the interchange - that tendency to project, either unconsciously or tactically.
I see the core of the "victimhood narrative" as being the concept that victimhood is valorized and is used as justification for more power over others; the more victimized you can portray yourself, the more power you get. But I see people on the side which seems to specialize more in this behavior, call anybody who criticizes or objects in any way "playing the victim".
Conservatives have used the term "snowflake" for what they feel are fragile children who will melt at the least offense. But now I see people calling any conservative who criticizes or objects in any way a "snowflake".
I'll skip other examples (like "fragility") and return to your post. Taking offense is also something which can be used to try to acquire power over others. Any criticism or objection in any way to that dynamics, is called "being offended" by it.
The pattern is - ignore the actual dynamics being asserted (victimhood valorization, snowflake fragility, offense taking as power seeking) and just (mis)-use the same word in the other direction. There is no way to criticize or object without being mislabeled as "doing the same thing".
It's a word game, it is not honest good faith engagement.
This reminds me that I decided over a decade ago to stop using the word "whining" to describe other people's actions, because I began to realize that absolutely any complaint, no matter how legitimate or wrongheaded, can be easily smeared and dismissed by labeling it "whining". If you say, "gee the weather is hot today" that can be called whining about the weather. If you say that the concentration of wealth and power among a small elites is alarming, that can be called whining. If you say you were told that the grad schools you applied for have no more positions for white men, that will be called whining. There is not way one can criticize or object to anything which cannot easily be reframed as whining. So now I very rarely characterized anything as "whining"; I find a more substantial characterization, rather than a all purpose disparaging slur.
(More recently, I also don't use "snowflake". And I question myself any time I might be tempted to say that I'm offended, and usually find a better what of expressing myself).
Alas, there are those who wallow in such tactics rather than choosing to avoid them.
"Taking offense is also something which can be used to try to acquire power over others. Any criticism or objection in any way to that dynamics, is called "being offended" by it."
100%. Honestly, it seems to be the primary tactic if social media activism other than insults and blocking. Many people are so reluctant to cause offence that they'll be silent rather than risk being labelled as "mean." And that's precisely why many social justice has gone so far off the rails. Because now, some people are offended by logic and objective reality.
One of the problems I see happening on the left (there are many problems on the right, but that is a different subject) is a kind of rhetorical intoxication coming from reliance on free floating argumentation techniques which are untethered to the substance of an issue under dispute. That's a bit abstract so I'll be more concrete.
If a group is widely allowed to "win" arguments not by countering facts and evidence, but by sanctified use of tactics like stereotyping or ad hominem attacks, they cease to be accountable and then there is no corrective feedback left to keep them more or less "on the rails".
This can come from the normalizing of double standards. In many contexts, people from, or nominally speaking for, a designated marginalized group are not held to the same standard as others. They may be allowed to engage without pushback in rampant negative stereotyping (eg: making broad statements about "whites" or "heterosexuals" or "cisgendered people" etc. which would clearly be seen as absurd and unacceptable if another target was substituted), or engage in essentially ad hominem attacks (invalidating an argument based on who made it rather than on its logic or evidence). The nominal original purpose of this asymmetry was to invite new voices to the table, but the license it gives has been weaponized to allow poor logic and lack of evidence to become unchallengeable in much of the culture.
If you can make nearly any statement you want, without defensible reasoning to support it, and be exempted from any rigor, then going off the rails is pretty much to be expected. If anybody points out problems with it, call them a phobe or bigot or supremacist (which will also not be challenged by your supporters) and you won't need to engage in reasoning.
Let me be clear that I think any population would tend to abuse this privilege of exemption from intellectual accountability, and verge off the rails.
I like to say that even a vehement moral justification does not magically convert a dysfunctional and counter-productive policy into a functional and constructive one.
If something is actually increasing racial problems (as many DEI trainings do), a ringing indictment of the evils of racial bias isn't going to make it suddenly decrease problems, it just causes some people to "look over there" or disconnect their critical thinking so the problems with that thing are covered up. Or no matter how morally justified you are in shooting yourself in the foot, you are still causing harm not benefit by doing so.
Yes, that represents trying to speak for myself, my beliefs, my thoughts, my agency, my observations - rather than put words in the mouths of others, or excessively taking refuge in vague agency like "one says" or "it is to be considered that".
The royal "we" didn't work out very well, so I'm left with singular first person :-)
Others are implicitly invited to choose their own path, perhaps including some similar reflections if they so wish.
I think the message of neo-progressivism would be much improved if they focused on exemplifying their values for emulation by those positively impressed by the results, rather than on attempting to coercively micromanage the behaviors and thoughts of others. The Christians who have most impressed me in my life have been the ones who quietly live their values in plain sight, rather than those who try to control others.
Another thing I noticed in the interchange - that tendency to project, either unconsciously or tactically.
I see the core of the "victimhood narrative" as being the concept that victimhood is valorized and is used as justification for more power over others; the more victimized you can portray yourself, the more power you get. But I see people on the side which seems to specialize more in this behavior, call anybody who criticizes or objects in any way "playing the victim".
Conservatives have used the term "snowflake" for what they feel are fragile children who will melt at the least offense. But now I see people calling any conservative who criticizes or objects in any way a "snowflake".
I'll skip other examples (like "fragility") and return to your post. Taking offense is also something which can be used to try to acquire power over others. Any criticism or objection in any way to that dynamics, is called "being offended" by it.
The pattern is - ignore the actual dynamics being asserted (victimhood valorization, snowflake fragility, offense taking as power seeking) and just (mis)-use the same word in the other direction. There is no way to criticize or object without being mislabeled as "doing the same thing".
It's a word game, it is not honest good faith engagement.
This reminds me that I decided over a decade ago to stop using the word "whining" to describe other people's actions, because I began to realize that absolutely any complaint, no matter how legitimate or wrongheaded, can be easily smeared and dismissed by labeling it "whining". If you say, "gee the weather is hot today" that can be called whining about the weather. If you say that the concentration of wealth and power among a small elites is alarming, that can be called whining. If you say you were told that the grad schools you applied for have no more positions for white men, that will be called whining. There is not way one can criticize or object to anything which cannot easily be reframed as whining. So now I very rarely characterized anything as "whining"; I find a more substantial characterization, rather than a all purpose disparaging slur.
(More recently, I also don't use "snowflake". And I question myself any time I might be tempted to say that I'm offended, and usually find a better what of expressing myself).
Alas, there are those who wallow in such tactics rather than choosing to avoid them.
"Taking offense is also something which can be used to try to acquire power over others. Any criticism or objection in any way to that dynamics, is called "being offended" by it."
100%. Honestly, it seems to be the primary tactic if social media activism other than insults and blocking. Many people are so reluctant to cause offence that they'll be silent rather than risk being labelled as "mean." And that's precisely why many social justice has gone so far off the rails. Because now, some people are offended by logic and objective reality.
Yep.
One of the problems I see happening on the left (there are many problems on the right, but that is a different subject) is a kind of rhetorical intoxication coming from reliance on free floating argumentation techniques which are untethered to the substance of an issue under dispute. That's a bit abstract so I'll be more concrete.
If a group is widely allowed to "win" arguments not by countering facts and evidence, but by sanctified use of tactics like stereotyping or ad hominem attacks, they cease to be accountable and then there is no corrective feedback left to keep them more or less "on the rails".
This can come from the normalizing of double standards. In many contexts, people from, or nominally speaking for, a designated marginalized group are not held to the same standard as others. They may be allowed to engage without pushback in rampant negative stereotyping (eg: making broad statements about "whites" or "heterosexuals" or "cisgendered people" etc. which would clearly be seen as absurd and unacceptable if another target was substituted), or engage in essentially ad hominem attacks (invalidating an argument based on who made it rather than on its logic or evidence). The nominal original purpose of this asymmetry was to invite new voices to the table, but the license it gives has been weaponized to allow poor logic and lack of evidence to become unchallengeable in much of the culture.
If you can make nearly any statement you want, without defensible reasoning to support it, and be exempted from any rigor, then going off the rails is pretty much to be expected. If anybody points out problems with it, call them a phobe or bigot or supremacist (which will also not be challenged by your supporters) and you won't need to engage in reasoning.
Let me be clear that I think any population would tend to abuse this privilege of exemption from intellectual accountability, and verge off the rails.
I like to say that even a vehement moral justification does not magically convert a dysfunctional and counter-productive policy into a functional and constructive one.
If something is actually increasing racial problems (as many DEI trainings do), a ringing indictment of the evils of racial bias isn't going to make it suddenly decrease problems, it just causes some people to "look over there" or disconnect their critical thinking so the problems with that thing are covered up. Or no matter how morally justified you are in shooting yourself in the foot, you are still causing harm not benefit by doing so.
I noticed in
I see the core
I see people
I see people calling
I'll skip other
I decided
I began to
I very rarely
I find a
I also don't
I question myself
I might be tempted
I'm offended
Yes, that represents trying to speak for myself, my beliefs, my thoughts, my agency, my observations - rather than put words in the mouths of others, or excessively taking refuge in vague agency like "one says" or "it is to be considered that".
The royal "we" didn't work out very well, so I'm left with singular first person :-)
Others are implicitly invited to choose their own path, perhaps including some similar reflections if they so wish.
I think the message of neo-progressivism would be much improved if they focused on exemplifying their values for emulation by those positively impressed by the results, rather than on attempting to coercively micromanage the behaviors and thoughts of others. The Christians who have most impressed me in my life have been the ones who quietly live their values in plain sight, rather than those who try to control others.