This introduces yet another politically elite class who derive their social worth by defining the victimhood of others.
If someone can define you as an oppressor, a person who either personally benefited from making victims of others or a member of a class who benefited from the unwilling exploitation of an underclass, you have no moral worth whatsoever. An oppressor can only redeem themself by sacrificing everything they possess for the oppressed.
No wonder I get annoyed by it, the fundamentals pretty much violate every personal belief I have.
If your moral self worth is defined by either your victimhood or your compassion, then those will be the things you defend. Even principles will take a back seat if "it's for the greater good." Taking a stand is less important than reversing current oppression or preventing future oppression.
Again, I want to stress that most modern liberals and progressives are nothing like this.❞
Since I refine ideas, here’s the “modern version” in a nutshell.
“Fighting racism” today isn’t about how you treat people,
it’s about how you advance the cause.
I think that’s why I see most “anti-racist” activity today as very racist, it’s about pulling down and accusing instead of equality. I’m sticking to the old definition.
I believe that a person’s worth is found in the lives they touch. I don’t think the labels matter much.