Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Joys of Victimhood (1989)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 79 posts

Re: The Joys of Victimhood (1989)

#51

Post by PhasmaFelis »

averagewall wrote: post #47
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…

It was more acceptable to be homophobic back then so you have to cut him a little slack. They wouldn't publish a new article like that today. There isn't some fundamental truth about good and bad things to write - it depends on how people judge you, which depends on the arbitrary changes in culture.

> It was more acceptable to be homophobic back then so you have to cut him a little slack.

No, I don't.

This guy was not writing from an era where homosexuality was hidden and secret and accurate information was impossible to find. By '89, the gay rights movement was in full swing. Any intelligent adult who was still ignorant about what it meant to be gay chose to be ignorant.

Re: The Joys of Victimhood (1989)

#52

Post by PhasmaFelis »

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.

Because Chinese immigrants are treated better than Hispanic immigrants in modern America.

Re: The Joys of Victimhood (1989)

#53

Post by PhasmaFelis »

Taniwha wrote: post #19

Bear in mind this was written in the very same year that the same guy traded on his own "victimhood" after being fired from his 20yr job for writing a homophobic rant.

When these people complain about others being special snowflakes and expecting special treatment, what they really mean is that they deserve special treatment.

Re: The Joys of Victimhood (1989)

#54

Post by 7952 »

mazelife wrote: post #34

When I hear someone (having, by their own description, a front-row seat for these events) reduce the civil-rights movement to this: “What I saw was a number of bad laws called into question and ultimately removed by acts of courage and wise restraint on the part of the victims of those laws.” …as though the white-supremacist, apartheid state that existed in the south at the time was nothing more than a few pesky laws…

This anti-victim view seems to ignore the fact that the actions were actually malicious on the part of the government and various citizens. Homophobia was not not just a legal accident, it involved intentional acts of cruelty. As a society we are very reluctant to acknowledge that fact, perhaps because it goes against the authoritarian leanings that have become so prevalent. It makes people question why government's should have the right to control people in such intimate ways.

Until we acknowledge this malice it is very difficult for people to really forgive the crimes committed against them. Especially when the perpetrators shrug of their acts in such a philosophical way. We will just commit the same crimes against other groups in the future because we haven't learned the lesson. When you hurt someone you must face your own failings head on and not just give excuses. Maybe then we can ask for forgiveness.

Re: The Joys of Victimhood (1989)

#55

Post by engine_jim »

mherdeg wrote: post #10

Epstein's powerful prose captures well the New York intellectual views of a certain culture and a certain generation. It's a fascinating perspective on what people were thinking then. I was equally fascinated by the deep view of the popular psyche shown in his September 1970 essay for Harper's Magazine, featured on its cover ( https://harpers.org/archive/1970/09/homohetero/ ): > Yet if heterosexual life has come to s…

"...heterosexuals driven by abnormal appetites." Like there is any shortage of those.

Re: The Joys of Victimhood (1989)

#56

Post by PhasmaFelis »

poster123 wrote: post #35
mherdeg wrote: post #10

Epstein's powerful prose captures well the New York intellectual views of a certain culture and a certain generation. It's a fascinating perspective on what people were thinking then. I was equally fascinated by the deep view of the popular psyche shown in his September 1970 essay for Harper's Magazine, featured on its cover ( https://harpers.org/archive/1970/09/homohetero/ ): > Yet if heterosexual life has come to s…

It is normal to want grandchildren, and therefore it also normal to be distressed if your children are homosexual.

Not many people disown their kids or send them to abusive camps because they don't want to have children.

Re: The Joys of Victimhood (1989)

#57

Post by krrrh »

averagewall wrote: post #47
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…

It was more acceptable to be homophobic back then so you have to cut him a little slack. They wouldn't publish a new article like that today. There isn't some fundamental truth about good and bad things to write - it depends on how people judge you, which depends on the arbitrary changes in culture.

The same author in a 2015 article I linked to elsewhere in this discussion:

“In 1970, some 45 years ago, I wrote an essay in -Harper’s on the subject of homosexuality. The chief points of my essay were that no one had a true understanding of the origins of human homosexuality, that there was much false tolerance on the part of some people toward homosexuals; that for many reasons homosexuality could be a tough card to have drawn in life; and that given a choice, owing to the complications of homosexual life, most people would prefer their children to be heterosexual. Quotations from that essay today occupy the center of my Wikipedia entry. In every history of gay life in America the essay has a prominent place. When I write something controversial, this essay is brought up, usually by the same professional gay liberationists, to be used against me. That I am pleased the tolerance for homosexuality has widened in America and elsewhere, that in some respects my own aesthetic sensibility favors much homosexual artistic production (Cavafy, Proust, Auden), cuts neither ice nor slack. My only hope now is that, on my gravestone, the words Noted Homophobe aren’t carved.”

Re: The Joys of Victimhood (1989)

#58

Post by dang »

shawndumas wrote: post #5
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.

"Arabs like to say that there are two conflicting narratives of the conflict. The facts are far simpler. It starts in the end of the 19th century. At the time millions of Jews were fleeing Russia and flooding Europe with refugees because of Czar Alexander III "Russia for Russians" program which sanctioned pogroms in order to evict the Jews from the country. This was only the latest in a long history of expulsions of…

Would you please not copy and paste like this into HN threads, let alone such a massive blob, let alone on a divisive topic?

This place is supposed to be for thoughtful conversation, not filibustering.

Re: The Joys of Victimhood (1989)

#59

Post by dang »

gech wrote: post #14
shawndumas wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to HN. I love seeing new members expressing passionate views. Couple of quick questions: Do you always agree with every dictate of the UN? Does objectivity always garner the most votes?

Do you get paid by Israel to make posts? Because I've heard that people do get paid to make favorable posts.

Personal attacks will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all.

Another thing that will get you banned here is using HN primarily for political or ideological battle. That's not what this site is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: it turns out you've broken the guidelines so often and we've given you so many warnings that I've banned your account. If you don't want to be banned on HN, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

Re: The Joys of Victimhood (1989)

#60

Post by dang »

knieveltech wrote: post #16
legostormtroopr wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment isn't going to help with keeping people on a more positive discourse.

This implies it's possible to steer the HN community into positive discourse.

Maybe not, but that doesn't mean it's ok for you to make it worse. Please don't post unsubstantive comments here.

Edit: it looks like you've been using HN primarily for political battle. That's an abuse of the site because it destroys the thing it's supposed to be for, and we ban accounts that do this, regardless of which politics they favor. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN as intended if you want to keep commenting here.

I wrote an explanation of why we ban accounts for this reason here, in case you or anyone wants more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16185062.

Post reply on HN