Some responses to this exemplify a particular disagreement pattern I've been trying to articulate for some time. Someone complains about open disdain for white men, to which someone else responds, sarcastically, that white men "have it so tough" or something to that effect. ->https://twitter.com/sullydish/status/1012711850788753409 …
-
Show this thread
-
The first person's objection to being disrespected is read by the second as claiming victimhood status, which is required for sympathy. Then this interpretation is mocked for being absurd. ->
2 replies 3 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
But that's wrong. It's not a demand for sympathy, it's a demand for basic respect, for the same courtesy that others are considered entitled to. The validity of such a demand isn't dependent on your (disadvantaged) standing in the same way. ->
4 replies 2 retweets 17 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @everytstudies
If this pattern is common, it suggests that many people in disadvantaged demographic groups have been implicitly taught that they deserve basic decency ONLY BECAUSE of that membership. Rather than despite or regardless of it. Seems plausible; and if so, very sad.
2 replies 2 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @everytstudies
I suspect the notion that you deserve empowerment because of “who you are” rather than because “everyone deserves basic civility” is now the norm. This is often explicit, in the sense that ‘despite or regardless of x-disadvantage’ is taken to be insulting.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
the natural conclusion of identity politics is exactly this. defining person's worth by the "what" of them instead of the "who" of them is a seriously bad idea but it's now the mainstream discourse framing of politics and culture.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Yes, I think identity politics may be the result of conflating disadvantage and condition.
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.