Spot on! Most of the top-down leaders fit this bill.
Some on the lower end of this totem pole do have some disadvantages, but they are incapable of acknowledging their own success.
I have not heard anyone who claims oppression status explain how they got their degree, job, position of leadership, social status, etc. I thought oppression required not thriving and succeeding?
Their scheme breaks down completely when we look at the individual level. The only progressive people I know who aren't white are invariably ones with wealth and status... and then you have all of the WHITE progressives (also tending toward wealth and education). They conceptualize society in terms of groups, but they're not even consistent about this!
The more I think about it the more I come to regard most modern progressive feeling as a kind of emotional reaction, which is rooted in a need to FEEL good (worthy, kind, etc.). When they argue for reducing disparities or abolishing bail or opening borders they feel righteous, and this feeling comes to stand in the place of virtue. If you're honest and kind and hard-working but have the wrong opinions you're still a bad person, according to this scheme.
Of course, if people REALLY believed that American society was riddled with oppression they would (1) surrender some of their exorbitant gains and (2) ask real questions about the nature and dynamics of that oppression. How, exactly, are black people and women being disadvantaged in companies and schools? Surely you would want to know that! But if that question was asked then it would yield answers. It would reveal that there is limited disadvantage... and it would quickly minimize the disadvantage which is there. I would argue that both of those happened long ago but that's just my opinion. The point is that both paths would lead to a place in which this false and treacly concern for certain groups would no longer be reasonable. The feeling of vague and vicarious 'compassion' would dissipate. These people would have to look at their own lives and relationships and behaviors. Very few people really want to do this.
This worldview gives believers the sense that they are especially moral... without having to do anything. It gives them a sense that they're wise and discerning... without having to consider any facts they don't like or ideas they disagree with. It gives them a sense of being other-concerned and selfless... without having to sacrifice anything.
Spot on! Most of the top-down leaders fit this bill.
Some on the lower end of this totem pole do have some disadvantages, but they are incapable of acknowledging their own success.
I have not heard anyone who claims oppression status explain how they got their degree, job, position of leadership, social status, etc. I thought oppression required not thriving and succeeding?
Their scheme breaks down completely when we look at the individual level. The only progressive people I know who aren't white are invariably ones with wealth and status... and then you have all of the WHITE progressives (also tending toward wealth and education). They conceptualize society in terms of groups, but they're not even consistent about this!
The more I think about it the more I come to regard most modern progressive feeling as a kind of emotional reaction, which is rooted in a need to FEEL good (worthy, kind, etc.). When they argue for reducing disparities or abolishing bail or opening borders they feel righteous, and this feeling comes to stand in the place of virtue. If you're honest and kind and hard-working but have the wrong opinions you're still a bad person, according to this scheme.
Of course, if people REALLY believed that American society was riddled with oppression they would (1) surrender some of their exorbitant gains and (2) ask real questions about the nature and dynamics of that oppression. How, exactly, are black people and women being disadvantaged in companies and schools? Surely you would want to know that! But if that question was asked then it would yield answers. It would reveal that there is limited disadvantage... and it would quickly minimize the disadvantage which is there. I would argue that both of those happened long ago but that's just my opinion. The point is that both paths would lead to a place in which this false and treacly concern for certain groups would no longer be reasonable. The feeling of vague and vicarious 'compassion' would dissipate. These people would have to look at their own lives and relationships and behaviors. Very few people really want to do this.
This worldview gives believers the sense that they are especially moral... without having to do anything. It gives them a sense that they're wise and discerning... without having to consider any facts they don't like or ideas they disagree with. It gives them a sense of being other-concerned and selfless... without having to sacrifice anything.
No wonder so many people buy in.