The Joys of Victimhood (1989) • Hacker News Board

Re: The Joys of Victimhood (1989)

#21

Post by nl » Mon, Jan 22, 2018, 1:02 AM UTC

alexandercrohde wrote: post #13

> Such a situation could never have come about without certain fundamental confusions having been firmly established, and these begin with language itself. Victims have traditionally been minority groups, but in fact women, who in the United States are a slight majority, have been deemed victims, whereas the Jews and the Chinese in America, though clearly minorities (and vastly less numerous than blacks or Hispanic p…

Minority status does not define victims, and instead it is about power.

There were a lot less British in India during the Raj than there were Indians. It is pretty clear who the victim was then.

Re: The Joys of Victimhood (1989)

#22

Post by nl » Mon, Jan 22, 2018, 1:04 AM UTC

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #3

I love how he thinks that Israel bulldozing Palestinian neighborhoods and killing civilians doesn't count as oppression because there's more Arabs than Israelis in the general area.

This was written in 1989. Settlements were much less of an issue then, and the demographics were dramatically different.

Re: The Joys of Victimhood (1989)

#23

Post by alexandercrohde » Mon, Jan 22, 2018, 1:08 AM UTC

nl wrote: post #21

alexandercrohde wrote: post #13

> Such a situation could never have come about without certain fundamental confusions having been firmly established, and these begin with language itself. Victims have traditionally been minority groups, but in fact women, who in the United States are a slight majority, have been deemed victims, whereas the Jews and the Chinese in America, though clearly minorities (and vastly less numerous than blacks or Hispanic p…

Minority status does not define victims, and instead it is about power. There were a lot less British in India during the Raj than there were Indians. It is pretty clear who the victim was then.

I'm not sure that explains why Chinese immigrants would be portrayed as victims less than hispanic immigrants, as just one example off the top of my head.

Re: The Joys of Victimhood (1989)

#24

Post by tomcam » Mon, Jan 22, 2018, 1:29 AM UTC

alexandercrohde wrote: post #23

nl wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minority status does not define victims, and instead it is about power. There were a lot less British in India during the Raj than there were Indians. It is pretty clear who the victim was then.

I'm not sure that explains why Chinese immigrants would be portrayed as victims less than hispanic immigrants, as just one example off the top of my head.

Plus there was no Hispanic Exclusion Act

Re: The Joys of Victimhood (1989)

#25

Post by Avshalom » Mon, Jan 22, 2018, 1:33 AM UTC

nl wrote: post #22

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #3

I love how he thinks that Israel bulldozing Palestinian neighborhoods and killing civilians doesn't count as oppression because there's more Arabs than Israelis in the general area.

This was written in 1989. Settlements were much less of an issue then, and the demographics were dramatically different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_Heights#De_facto_annexat...

Re: The Joys of Victimhood (1989)

#26

Post by nl » Mon, Jan 22, 2018, 1:36 AM UTC

alexandercrohde wrote: post #23

nl wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minority status does not define victims, and instead it is about power. There were a lot less British in India during the Raj than there were Indians. It is pretty clear who the victim was then.

I'm not sure that explains why Chinese immigrants would be portrayed as victims less than hispanic immigrants, as just one example off the top of my head.

The article literally uses the British Raj as an example:

Gandhi was the great teacher of the art of victimhood, of setting one's victimization on full public display.

why Chinese immigrants would be portrayed as victims less than hispanic immigrants

Because you can measure outcomes?

But I think the word victim is completely wrong there (although perhaps it was correct in 1989).

Re: The Joys of Victimhood (1989)

#27

Post by nl » Mon, Jan 22, 2018, 1:44 AM UTC

Avshalom wrote: post #25

nl wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was written in 1989. Settlements were much less of an issue then, and the demographics were dramatically different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_Heights#De_facto_annexat...

Indeed.

You'd be aware the the Palestinian state doesn't claim the Golan Heights?

I think that Israel has lost a lot of moral authority in the years since the 1980s.

But I think in 1981 annexing the Golan was a defensible choice: the Syrians had constantly used them as place to launch artillery barrages against Israeli towns like Tiberius.

The 1980s (especially the early 80s) really were different: there were Arab states around Israel who would use their own armed forces to attack, and the PLO hadn't disavowed terrorism.

Now of course times have changes, and Israel no longer can claim that those threats, and settlements have made their problems worse. But Hamas and Hezbollah have capitalized on that, so.. there is plenty of blame to go around.

Re: The Joys of Victimhood (1989)

#28

Post by nl » Mon, Jan 22, 2018, 1:52 AM UTC

tomcam wrote: post #24

alexandercrohde wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that explains why Chinese immigrants would be portrayed as victims less than hispanic immigrants, as just one example off the top of my head.

Plus there was no Hispanic Exclusion Act

Yes, it was weird to completely ignore that.

Almost like it didn't fit into his narrative or something!

Re: The Joys of Victimhood (1989)

#29

Post by owenversteeg » Mon, Jan 22, 2018, 2:04 AM UTC

Look, I see that it's a relevant article today. But I don't think it's saying much, and it has a weird homophobic/racist current running through it. For example, Epstein mocks the idea that the US government exacerbated the AIDS crisis (which it clearly did.) He says slavery ended "more than a century" ago - slavery effectively continued several decades after the Thirteenth Amendment was passed.

Now, I don't like the idea of tearing down a good article just because the author is an asshole. But in this case, I think the article isn't very good, and the author also happens to be an asshole: this is the same guy that was "revolted" by the idea of "fags" (both his words, though he later switched to using "homosexuals".) The same guy that criticized people writing candidly about death, the same guy who constantly thought he was being hunted by "men with strange appetites, men whose minds were twisted". And the same guy who, upon learning an acquaintance was gay, was "angry at being victimized by his duplicity."

Oh, and the same guy who thought it was better for a gay man to commit suicide than act upon his unrealized gay desires. It'd be very interesting to read a good article on victimization from someone who isn't so horrible, though: it is an important topic, and there are many interesting things, which are frequently left unsaid, to be said about it.

Re: The Joys of Victimhood (1989)

#30

Post by dkural » Mon, Jan 22, 2018, 2:12 AM UTC

owenversteeg wrote: post #29

Look, I see that it's a relevant article today. But I don't think it's saying much, and it has a weird homophobic/racist current running through it. For example, Epstein mocks the idea that the US government exacerbated the AIDS crisis (which it clearly did.) He says slavery ended "more than a century" ago - slavery effectively continued several decades after the Thirteenth Amendment was passed. Now, I don't like the…

He lost me when he lumped every non-Jewish group in the Middle East as "200 million Arabs" and equated it with the Palestinians; and tried to justify the mistreatment of Palestinian children. The organization Shovrim Shtika (Breaking the Silence), founded by veterans from the Israeli Defense Forces, have also corroborated these accounts - not just western academics, international observers, and journalists.