The Political Left’s view of people in one winners and losers bracket

privelidge

The Political Left views people in groups, not as individuals.  This is why some people are more equal than others and why some people are more valuable than others (i.e., hate crime laws).  In so doing it is then possible to create divides among the people.  People lose their individual identities and become their demographics.

The key is to determine which class of people is most easily manipulated and make them victims of another class.  When a group of people is perpetually told they are victims, they begin to believe it.  Soon every personal interaction is viewed through a filter.  These newly established victims are told to beware not only of obvious slights, but also ‘secret’ ones too.  Soon it “becomes clear and obvious” to them that normal words and expressions are code words oppressors use to communicate between one another.  Victimhood becomes deeply ingrained and passed down from generation to generation.

The goal is to make you believe you need the Political Left to protect you from the Political Right who wants to do you harm and oppress you and those like you, not to mention they hate you!

Why else would so much emphasis be placed on funneling individuals into categories?  Which, by the way, makes it easier to deliver a message to a wide bloc of people.

How does one go about determining privilege anyway?  Is it about raw bottom line statistics only or is there any attempt to control for personal effort and motivation?

By asking who has more or who has less privilege already poisons the well for how individuals view the society they live in.  It plants the seed that they are of a higher or lower caste than their differently classified neighbor and it’s the fault of the perceived higher caste that is responsible for their lot in life.  It begins eroding personal integrity and self-esteem.  It provides an excuse for failure and a burden of guilt for success.

What benefit to society or to an individual could this possibly provide?

(Gawker) — Privilege: so sweet to have. But even sweeter to not have. Privilege has its benefits, but the lack of privilege confers that sweet, sweet moral superiority. With that in mind, we have decided to determine who, exactly, has the least privilege of all.

These days, teary privilege confessionals pour forth from the lips of college students in equal proportion to the fiery critiques of our grossly unjust world that pour forth from the unprivileged masses. None of it, however, is very scientific. This is the privilege bracket. It is like an NCAA bracket, but without the privileged assumption that you know about sports, which are an inherently masculine-dominated, ability-privileged activity. Here, we will pit eight categories of non-privilege against one another, tournament-style. Each round, the least privileged will advance. At the end, only a single category of non-privilege will be left standing. Or, more likely, unable to stand.

Comments

  1. Maybe not completely relevant, but it’s interesting that Gawker owns the extremely pro-abortion Jezebel website.

  2. John,

    I think individual members of these “special groups” should be mortified by the insinuation that the 14th Amendment didn’t protect them to begin with. And if it did, why the need for special laws?

    Lastly, both parties harm this country. The Democrats pass stupid laws that hurt people and Republicans withhold funding for said laws, thus shutting down the government, and thereby hurting people. The two-party system is broken.

    • I dont think the 2 party system is broken, it just needs different people. Any more thn 2 and someone gets into office by garnering only slightly more than a third of the vote.

  3. John,

    You have 300,000 million people in this country and I’ll bet that neither the Democratic or Republican platform is capable of representing a full third of voters. People just vote for whatever party is closest to their ideology.

    Personally, I vote Republican because I hate abortion, despise unnecessary government intrusion, and consider myself a strong social conservative. But I don’t agree with their hawkish military stance or some of their economic views.

    It might not be feasible to have a party to represent every ideology and its nuances, but for crying out loud, there needs to be more choice, if for no other reason than forcing Republicans and Democrats to set aside the partisanship that has consumed D.C. This government shut down is patently ridiculous and I blame the GOP.

    • My point was that of the 316 million Americans, only 10 million vote for president. The more candidates you have the fewer votes they need to win. So assuming there are three, the two major candidates will split 80% and the third the remaining 20. as the years pass, the split becomes more even, with each getting a third or so. The more candidates you add, the fewer votes elect the person. Thats what I dont like. Its bad enough already that only 10 million people vote.

  4. paynehollow says:

    John…

    Why else would so much emphasis be placed on funneling individuals into categories?

    Not sure that I agree or disagree with your point – I don’t know any progressives that especially “put people into categories/groups” any more than conservatives, but maybe I’m just not getting your point – but I’m wondering if you can explain what this looks like? What emphasis specifically is being placed on “funneling individuals into categories” and what does that mean?

    I’m neither agreeing or disagreeing, I just don’t know what you mean by this, in the real world. Maybe some examples?

    Thanks.

    As to this…

    The key is to determine which class of people is most easily manipulated and make them victims of another class.

    I am quite sure I know of no progressive/liberal types who try to find who is “most easily manipulated…” that sounds rather Machiavellian and like deliberate evil, and I would object to that as any kind of rational generalization about either progressives or conservatives. Especially when you offer no evidence to support the claim.

    Any examples of any of this?

    ~Dan Trabue

  5. paynehollow says:

    I mean, both liberals and conservatives try to organize their constituents, but I support that as a good and wholesome thing, even if I might disagree with the particular effort. But I don’t think you’re talking about merely organizing…?

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: