Honor, Dignity and Victimhood

[Divinity]

I think what you're missing is still the key bias in the term "victimization culture". Especially since you claim that (Paraphrasing) "Empathy" doesn't work because no culture has a monopoly on it. But no culture has a monopoly on dignity or honor either. You are asserting that people in the victimhood culture do not have honor or dignity (and that people in the dignity culture do not have honor, and people in the honor culture do not have dignity)

Allow me to use an example (one that Manning himself uses):
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...re/406057/

A woman protesting how her rape case was handled by carrying around a mattress being considered a hero is part of Manning's so-called "Victimhood Culture".

"He felt that no term better captured a culture where (his examples) a young woman is celebrated for toting a mattress around to protest how her rape allegation was handled, where students do research to demonstrate that their group is treated worse than a different group, and where white people pretend to be American Indians for the benefits. "

The first example is certainly no micro-aggression, and it's certainly a real issue much like LGBT rights and Black Lives Matter. If you can fit it under "victimhood" culture, you can easily fit the others there as well. The second might be a micro-aggression, though it depends on the circumstances. And the third is merely an example of people taking advantage of whatever they can (not an aggression at all. People have lied about being senior citizens, or their kids age to get cheaper movie tickets all the time).

It's easy to point out the ridiculous. You could do the same with the other two cultures if you actually cared to try. And you could attach negative words to them in place of the positive words you have there.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Cato, thank you so much for finding and promoting this essay. It gave a compelling account of why those in the most egalitarian environments disproportionately feel aggrieved. The paper seems to tacitly endorse the notion that justice depends solely on cultural norms and social power dynamics. Missing is the idea that each culture tries, each in its own way, to reference a universally applicable concept of Justice, with a capital 'J'. The paper describes the nature of each culture but carefully avoids rendering judgement on any. For example, the author doesn't suggest the Honor Culture is too harsh, Dignity Culture too wishy-washy, or Victim Culture too whiny. Perhaps that is the conversation the author hopes to generate.

[Cato]

I think what you're missing is still the key bias in the term "victimization culture".  Especially since you claim that (Paraphrasing) "Empathy" doesn't work because no culture has a monopoly on it.  But no culture has a monopoly on dignity or honor either.  You are asserting that people in the victimhood culture do not have honor or dignity (and that people in the dignity culture do not have honor, and people in the honor culture do not have dignity)

I made no such claim. The reasons for your protestation here are imagined evidenced by the fact that you are the only person attempting a qualitative comparison of the moral cultures described.

The first example is certainly no micro-aggression, and it's certainly a real issue much like LGBT rights and Black Lives Matter.  If you can fit it under "victimhood" culture, you can easily fit the others there as well.  The second might be a micro-aggression, though it depends on the circumstances.  And the third is merely an example of people taking advantage of whatever they can (not an aggression at all.  People have lied about being senior citizens, or their kids age to get cheaper movie tickets all the time).

As you pointed out, rape is not a microaggression. Emma Sulkowicz's mattress protest is not descriptive of the Culture of Victimhood as described by Haidt. Sulkowicz isn't isn't seeking sympathy and protection from insults and slights, she is raising awareness in an effort to seek justice for a violent crime.

It's easy to point out the ridiculous.  You could do the same with the other two cultures if you actually cared to try.  And you could attach negative words to them in place of the positive words you have there.

Who's pointing out the ridiculous? You seem to have unnecessarily wrapped yourself around the axle because of the use of the term 'victimhood'. You are the only one at the moment choosing to consider its use an invective. From the originally linked article:

People increasingly demand help from others, and advertise their oppression as evidence that they deserve respect and assistance. Thus we might call this moral culture a culture of victimhood because the moral status of the victim, at its nadir in honor cultures, has risen to new heights.

Do you understand now? It's an apt description that was carefully explained and not the invective you have been making it out to be.

Edit: I removed content where I challenged Divinity's understanding of the term microaggression. I reconsidered this and thought the challenge to be unwarranted.

[Divinity]

Again, I used examples made by Manning to define Victimhood Culture. Manning, one of the people who originated the term "Victimhood Culture." One of the people who wrote the paper that Haidt mentions at the beginning. And it's relevant because it's the examples he uses to how they coined the term.

[Cato]

Again, I used examples made by Manning to define Victimhood Culture.  Manning, one of the people who originated the term "Victimhood Culture."   One of the people who wrote the paper that Haidt mentions at the beginning.

This is the last sentence of the paragraph you quoted:

“That people seek to advertise or make cases for their victimization and oppression, or in some cases falsely claim membership in oppressed groups, stood out to us as the most fascinating difference from other moral systems,” he wrote.

It's an observation, one which is qualified as a 'fascinating difference'. Where is the invective?

It's an observation which is adequately described by use of the term victimhood. Manning's more complete thought on the matter is also reported in the article:

After brainstorming other terms, he continued, no alternatives captured the distinctions that he and his co-author want to draw. The term “egalitarian culture” could “apply as well to the fragile, touchy equality between honorable gentlemen or to the moral egalitarianism evident in the concept of inherent human dignity or to the egalitarianism of hunter gatherers,” he wrote. "Social justice culture might work, though that seems to have even more baggage than victimhood and to not apply so well to cases that don't involve liberals or progressives.”

He understood the heartburn people would have, considered other options, but maintained its use because he thought it to be the best description of what was being observed. Nobody is saying good or bad or even better or worse; it's an observed difference in the reaction to offense.