(December 5, 2015 at 3:49 pm)Divinity Wrote: I think it's fairly simple. If you view a culture negatively, you'll attach a negative word to it's name. If you view it positively you'll attach a positive one. I think this is fairly clear by how people describe the 'culture of victimization'. One could just as easily call it the culture of empathy, and could call the others the culture of apathy or arrogance, or even one of them the culture of privilege. Obviously given that you identify with the culture of apathy, you view their use of the court system as frivolous (and are more likely to point out those examples)
I mean take for example the gay rights movement, black lives matter, and even the new atheist movement. All groups who have started to stand up, rather than happily sit quietly while other groups oppress them. None of these things have come out of the culture of 'honor' or the culture of 'dignity'. It's the so-called culture of 'victimhood' that gave rise to it. They bring attention to the public at large sleights like the inability to get married, the lack of trust, and the lack of respect. Some of them go about it in the wrong way--much like others in the other cultures go about theirs in the wrong way (they did, and do). Some of them go too far, but again that applies to all cultures, and those other cultures could be presented just as negatively if one took the time and care to do so.
The focus of the paper, the subsequent article, and this discussion is the phenomenon of microaggressions and trigger warnings, most frequently demonstrated on college campuses. This is about reactions to actual and more often potential minor insults resulting in offense, perceived or real. I don't understand you conflating this with actual examples of unequal treatment. The American Civil Rights Movement was not advanced on an appeal to victim status in an effort to have black Americans coddled and sheltered from every insult and slight that could potentially come their way, it was a monumental struggle for equal treatment under the law (same for the gay rights movement and black lives matter).
I want to be considerate with your replies, so I'll assume you haven't read the article rather than assuming a gross misconception on your part. It's your insistence that the Culture of Dignity is apathetic; none are.
Empathy is fundamental to human morality and nobody has a monopoly on it. Here's an example of the superior empathy displayed by the Culture of Victimhood:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IEFD_JVYd0
This is just one example of the reaction to the Yale Halloween costume controversy. Yale administrators had published a mass email providing suggestions on certain types of costumes that should be avoided. Students complained to the professor couple that live on campus with the responsibility of fostering the student living environment. The link is the resultant email that was an attempt to foster an intellectual approach to the 'controversy'.
Quote:I don’t wish to trivialize genuine concerns about cultural and personal representation, and other challenges to our lived experience in a plural community. I know that many decent people have proposed guidelines on Halloween costumes from a spirit of avoiding hurt and offense. I laud those goals, in theory, as most of us do. But in practice, I wonder if we should reflect more transparently, as a community, on the consequences of an institutional (which is to say: bureaucratic and administrative) exercise of implied control over college students..
https://www.thefire.org/email-from-erika...-costumes/
This ignited the backlash, the above video being just an example.
