benlehman | The Victim test

The Victim test

I've been thinking about this lately. One thing which often comes up in discussions of discrimination is "but I'm discriminated against for being [white, conservative, male, whatever.]" My initial thought range here is "conservative."

I think that a lot of conservatives use this argument (this is me giving them the benefit of the doubt: that they're not just immature losers) is because they see it working with liberals, but don't really understand why. For instance, in some discussions, I'm going to privilege a woman speaking over a man speaking, for any number of reasons. Conservatives see that privileging, and want a piece of it, but don't really understand how to get it.

To be fair, that they are discriminated against is almost certainly true on some level. I cannot imagine any category which someone could belong to which would not cause someone to be biased against them in some way, particularly if we're going to include unconscious bias. The question is: do I have to give a fuck? Or, in other words, are they discriminated against enough that I should care?

I have found my line in the sand for this!

"If, in your society, someone who belongs to said group has suffered un-punished murder at the hands of a group -OR- uninvestigated murder at the hands of the police, explicitly due to them being a member of said group. Furthermore, the more recently this is the case, the more I give a fuck."

So. Gays? Check. Black people? Super-check. Women? Yeah, although not as much as black people. Indians? Jesus Christ.

Jews? Sorta check.

So the question is: has anyone ever been institutionally murdered in the US for being a conservative?

The answer is yes. During the revolutionary war, people were killed -- sometimes in brutal ways -- for the crime of being Loyalists. Now, this was a long time ago. But if a conservative wants to identify themselves with the Loyalist faction (which is, indeed, their intellectual ancestry) I will grant them a privileged voice in appropriate conversations*. But I'm not sure any conservative I know would be willing to do that.

* Offer also extends to communists, who were much more recently institutionally murdered in the US.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Not bad. I'd also grab a couple items from a privilege checklist, but as a general rule, it's pretty good.

Also: geeks? Hell no. Which means I can use it to try and shut up our whinier brethren.

I need to speak up on this considering my past, where I was brutally attacked at 17 just because of the color of my skin. You've met me before. I'm white.

After my jaw was broken in three places by two black punks who thought it would be good fun to "beat up a white honky." To add insult to injury, when I got back to my high school, I was immediately considered "the aggressor" - I must have done something to deserve it, because hey, I'm white. Thankfully, common sense came into play there and it stopped after people figured out I wouldn't pull something like that.

The major complaint that I hear in regards to diversity programs is that instead of simply giving everyone an equal say or consideration, they seem to drown out or dilute an opinion simply because of a person's ethnicity or gender. In your example, why privilege a woman to speak over a man at all? Shouldn't their words be weighed by their personal ideals and what they have to say rather than their gender? Can't two people, who happen to be genetically different, have an equal say on a matter?

I think instead of just having some kind of "pain chart" like what you listed above, one should just keep it simple and try to give everyone an even break, reserving judgment on the individual.

(italics are quotes)

You: Thankfully, common sense came into play there and it stopped after people figured out I wouldn't pull something like that.

Me: To be fair, that they are discriminated against is almost certainly true on some level.

I admit my grammar sucks, but this is what you're describing.

I'm talking about institutional murder. Do you have any doubt that, if you were killed, it would have been investigated with standard police procedure?

I don't.

yrs--
--Ben

In regards to the rumors of my attack, it thankfully ended with my friends. The rumor grapevine still continued but I honestly didn't care about that.

Yeah, in regards to the murder question. I'm pretty sure that I would, but not because of my race or political views. I'd more attribute it to that I have family who was (and some are still in) law enforcement. While it is a different problem of preference altogether, I'm sure that fact didn't hurt in catching the two who did nearly kill me (no exaggeration there, the hospital's chief surgeon worked on me personally, said I was the second worse case he'd seen still alive after the incident.) although the leader of the group got 6 months in the slammer when it came to sentencing after skipping his first court hearing and then being hauled back when he got caught doing carjackings in Santa Cruz.

But how do the actions and crimes of the past somehow rationalize one unrelated person's views as invalid or less than another at this very moment?

Shouldn't any mistreatment done to ANYONE be criticized?

Uh, what?

You're arguing about something I'm not saying.

Here's a basic reading comprehension exercise: restate what I'm saying in your own words, without making fun of it or inserting your own arguments.

yrs--
--Ben

You're stating that, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that certain people who are complaining of being targeted for mistreatment shouldn't have any right to that complaint because their group hasn't had extreme and open atrocities committed upon them.

Am I on the money here?

Nope.

yrs--
--Ben

Could you explain what I'm missing here then?

Sometimes I consider it beneficial to shut up and listen to other people (I know, shocking). Often the people who I am likely to shut up and listen to our also people who have endured categorical group oppression.

Sometimes there are groups of people that try to convince me (and others of similar views) that they should get such a privileged voice, based on whatever criteria. Since any group suffers some form of group-based discrimination from *someone*, you can't just say "anyone who suffers discrimination" or you end up with ridiculous oppression olympics bullshit. I have previously gone with my gut instincts about this.

Now I realized that institutional murder makes a darned good criterion for figuring out whether I should be making sure that someone's voice gets heard (by me, or by others.) For various reasons, which I can go into but I doubt you care about.

Interestingly, this has made me think twice about my previously held gut instincts. Example, conservatives, who in the form of Loyalists really were subject to institutional murder during the Revolution.

I think the question you are posing is such:

Given that there is a certain unavoidable level of discrimination present in the world at large and most societies, at which point, should I [ben] begin to grant others special treatment because of the discrimination they experience?

Right, where "special treatment" in this case is pretty much just "conversational space and the benefit of the doubt in listening."

It sounds to me like what you're saying is that those whose voices have historically been stifled the most are the ones you're going to try harder to listen to. After all, the guy with the megaphone isn't the guy you've got to strain to hear.

The Ruby Ridge incident, in which a right-wing gun enthusiast was besieged by the FBI for a relatively minor gun-related infraction. During the siege several of his family members were killed (as well as a law-enforcement officer). On the far right, this one's a real touchstone; also considered by many to be a dress rehearsal for the Branch Davidian incident a few years later. A multi-million wrongful death suit was settled out of court after the fact. In the minds of many, the people involved have never been fully brought to justice.

Note the multi-million dollar wrongful death suit.

yrs--
--Ben

Millions or no, the guy was a relatively benign proto-wacko at worst, but his wife and children were shot by snipers. The people who organized and carried out that operation weren't put in jail. I'm just providing a counter-example here.

But my real point isn't that conservatives of a certain stripe have any right to cry discrimination, it's that they *fear* discrimination. There's a strong feeling among some on the right that things don't have to change much before conservatives find themselves hauled off in handcuffs and shot; indeed, a suspicion that there are those who are just waiting for the opportunity. It's a feeling that you will find repeated in every identifiable minority group in America whether their experience of brutality is current, recent, or hundreds of years past.

I've been thinking about this all morning. You've clearly struck a nerve.

What I think you're saying here is that you're looking to draw a line for yourself in what claims of discrimination you're going to take seriously, and which you won't, which is a reasonable distinction to make.

Where I disagree is in your assessment of why a conservative would make such a claim in the first place. For "conservative" I'm going to say "person of privileged race and relatively traditional political and social views". That's not a universally valid definition, but I think it works here. Why would such a person ever claim to be discriminated against?

Conservatives view liberty as something that was historically won and must be continually protected. It's something that can vanish in the course of a single generation or less. Conservatives fear this acutely. Marginalizing them, say by telling them they're too privileged for their complaints to carry any weight, is a step towards ultimately depriving them of their liberty.

As for the conservative response to, for example, women claiming discrimination, based on my observations it's not so much a case of "wanting a piece of the pie" as being somewhat bewildered at the approach they're taking. Many conservatives mythologize self-reliance, so asking society to redress its wrongs might seem outré.

Tony, I don't get this. Are you arguing with me? Because, even though you're framing your response like an argument, you're saying something that is unrelated to the things I'm saying.

You're spending a lot of time talking about things that people believe or feel which are not really part of my above assessment. For these purposes, I don't care whether, to someone on the right wing, Ruby Ridge feels just like Leo Frank because it isn't just like Leo Frank.

Secondly, your last paragraph may be true of many self-identified conservatives, but is not true of this particular sub-group, because I'm talking about people who are asking for special treatment based on their political beliefs. Thus, while they may be confused about the actual reasons for such treatment, they're clearly not opposed to receiving it.

yrs--
--Ben

Huh. I thought it was a propos, but I may be completely missing what you're getting at.

I took your post as being about who can and can't legitimately claim to be discriminated against as a matter of public discourse. It sounded like maybe you were saying conservatives didn't have this right.

So I think my answer there is that anybody can claim to have been discriminated against, and it's important to examine those claims. Feeling matter because they are part of the motivation for claims of discrimination: i.e. as opposed to seeing there's pie to be had and wanting to get a piece of it.

If your argument is about who can make a claim for some kind of special treatment or recompense on the basis of being discriminated against, that's a very different matter. Re-reading and trying to understand, I see that maybe that's what you were talking about all along.

Compare to, say, the Diallo killing.

The advanced version is: "If your group suffers in a disaster or other crisis, will your government send an equivalent response of aid and assistance as to most other sectors of society?"

See also: requests for medical supplies in the face of H1N1, and receiving bodybags instead.

There are many other aspects of discrimination. I'm just saying institutional murder is a good place to draw the line in the sand, because it's pretty damn clear.

Definitely. Letting "nature" be the murderer is just the more advanced version of the same problem.

Do these stack?

I remember mumbling at my old company that I fulfilled almost all of their affirmative action requirements. If I were gay then some would have you believe I'm the most employable ever. Hah.

Given that the result is a binary, they don't stack.

Oops! That's me above. LJ didn't log me in.

Arrgh! Livejournal is trying to silence me!

Ben,

I think your litmus test is potentially a fine one. I've got a much easier one, which has so far proven infallible.

If someone says they have a "special right" to be heard, then I believe them and work hard to really hear them.
If their next move is to advocate for someone else being silenced, then I stop listening.

I have a feeling that our two litmus tests are going to bring up a lot of the same results. Thoughts?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The Victim test

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

My attempt

Re: My attempt

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject