People seem to really struggle to reason about the fact that the same person can be both privileged and oppressed without these things in any way cancelling out. If they're ingroup, people ignore that they're privileged, if they're outgroup people ignore that they're oppressed.
-
Show this thread
-
I think this is partly because people (across the board, this isn't just a social justice thing) take adversity as granting moral authority. Admitting your privilege feels like giving up moral authority. Admitting someone's oppression feels like granting them moral authority.
2 replies 2 retweets 27 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @GeniesLoki
I do not think this is a timeless pattern. This pattern is a result of which groups Won (ie, our cultural ancestors) and how they Won. Ie, by reframing Attack as Defense.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110002805 …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @forshaper
I think adversity has been widely considered a sign of moral authority, what varies historically and geographically is whether you need to overcome the adversity in order to gain that authority.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GeniesLoki @forshaper
e.g. "I worked hard to get where I am!" will always be treated as a greater sign of authority than having been gifted your position.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GeniesLoki
...I don't think so. I think that's very western European in origin.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Hmm. Plausibly. At the very least it's certainly not a *recent* thing.
-
-
Replying to @GeniesLoki
Yes. I'm guessing it's quite old, but not the oldest, and that it was mostly only massively popularized and propagated alongside Anglophone supremacy.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.