|
ManOeuvre -> RE: 'If you're a young, white straight man today you're in trouble' (6/29/2016 9:32:08 AM)
|
ThompsonX,
Thanks for replying to the OP's opening salvo with an attempt to address the merit or lack thereof of his argument.
I think it is worth it to consider whether or not the RM's assertion is true. I think your analysis of the OP's relation to the citation is a touch too personal. I don't know the OP, but I wouldn't guess from his post that he is seeking victim status for himself. It looks like he is trying to foster some discussion as to whether this is the case, why is the is the case, whether it is a good or a bad thing, etc.
It seems to me that there is some asymmetry in the way this concern is treated, and that asymmetry is demonstrated in this forum.
Can you imagine if Staleek's and Sloguy's boring insults and insinuations, Dizzy's condescending dismissal, HoneyBears' mind-reading and WM's little photo-barb (none of which I can express any sort of value judgement upon) were directed at someone who was believed to be anything other than a straight, white male?
Can you predict the indignation, righteous or otherwise that would follow?
It seems to me that the decrease in social capital one tends to experience for being belligerent is lessened, regardless of the merits of the argument, when the belligerence is directed at a straight, white male.
The OP contends, as a proxy to the argument in the Irish Times, that heterosexual caucasian males are in the unique position of possessing no victim card in the victimhood-obsessed culture that seems especially prevalent in the education systems in western Europe, north America, Oz and NZ. He adds in his opening post that this phenomenon manifests itself egregiously in that freedom of expression, which some people regard as a basic right, is not evenly enjoyed by members of a society because the victim card may be redeemed to arbitrarily end a discussion.
I think his argument boils down to some animals are more equal than others.
Do you agree or disagree?
Edited for spelling. Staleek was autocorrected to Stalk.
|
|
|
|
