nitrogen
Schrödinger's cat
- Nov 5, 2019
- 339
Just my personal observations&analysis intended to make people pause and think:
To condemn victim-blaming, one has to first identify who's the victim and who' the perpetrator. Now, are victims and perpetrators always easily identifiable? Some are. For instance, a person who gets punched by a stranger in the street simply because of his skin color is a victim of a hate crime. Some are not. Interactions that start off based on mutual needs usually fit into this category; the victim could just be the one who plays the same game as the perpetrator but gets outmaneuvered and ends up being the loser. All parties involved can be victims, or can all be perpetrators, or some can be both a victim and a perpetrator simultaneously, or a victim can turn into a perpetrator as the situation escalates and vice versa. Btw, masochism is a real thing.
People automatically give more credit to the alleged victims, because they appear to be less threatening and more innocent. People can be gullible, irresponsible, or lack common sense due to factors out of their control, but does that make it politically correct to swap out an adjective of a negative connotation (gullible or irresponsible) with another adjective of a neutral connotation (trusting or vulnerable) used to describe them? A dog barks loud at a leopard when its armed owner is nearby - same with people who express politically correct opinions when they know they're backed by the majority. On online forums, politically correct posts get showered by social brownie points and the posters often write in big fonts and indignant tones; while, politically incorrect posts get battered by angry faces.
People need a target to bear the uneasiness they feel and the potentials in themselves that they'd like to alienate from. The target is like a scapegoat (in the Bible, a scapegoat is released into the wilderness, symbolically taking with it all sins and impurities of the people) that may or may not be 100% guilty. It's tempting to look at things in black and white because it's easy. Whereas in reality, most things are in different shades of grey rather than black and white, and it takes two to tango.
Why not just let the (alleged) victims believe they're totally innocent and take no part in their tragedies? Well, when people believe it's completely somebody else's fault, they don't self-reflect and learn enough to sufficiently prevent ending up in the same hot water again in the future. Btw, all humans are in a Skinner Box [4], having our beliefs and moral values shaped by operant conditioning since birth, burned into our core that they become absolute truth.
Humans as social animals, by working as groups, each individual's fitness and survival chances are maximized. Political corruption and business interactions can be brought to light by examining money transfers between parties summarized by the popular catchphrase "follow the money." Interpersonal interactions can be brought to light and traced down to "follow the self." The so-called virtues such as altruism & compassion, upon close examination, might be just ego defense mechanisms to cover up uncomfortable feelings from the self. Endowing the overused word "love" with supreme overexaggerated power and touting compassion as a cardinal virtue seems to have become an established trend/culture that is bound to benefit many and poison some others.
Political correctness is closely tied to collective hypocrisy. The Nobel Laureate James Watson, THE father of DNA, was stripped of his honorary titles over "reprehensible" comments on the link between race and intelligence. Different cat breeds can have different intelligence levels, but different races of homo sapiens can't and that just sounds wrong, sure. Who discovered the link between asbestos and lung cancer, who developed the first high-powered electron microscope, where did the accurate data on human physiological limitations come from? Shhhh.....don't go there, let's just say EVERYTHING that Nazis did was an atrocity that carried zero benefits to human society and they were inhumane animals. Oh, and the medical terms named after Nazi doctors need to be changed. Btw, why is the word "inhumane" used to describe cruel acts while humans and bonobos are the only species on earth that have been found by far to carry out well-organized campaigns of genocides? How are the so-called humane humans nobler than the "low" animals?
There's a social psychology project called Pushed To The Edge that gives insight into how long it takes (the answer is 72 minutes) to turn a regular person into a murderer [3]. But the study subjects/participants weren't randomly chosen. Instead, the candidates took the Asch-style Conformity Test [2] to identify the biddable ones. Yes, people come on different compliant levels, and I bet adept predators know that, and I bet many members give off their compliant levels through the posts they make.
People accuse psychopaths of being liars and manipulators. The thing is, we humans, and of course including "normies", start to lie at as early as age three [1]. Manipulation is everywhere; it's necessary for any society, even animals to function. In this way, it is neither good or bad, but necessary [5]. Even being nice is a form of subtle manipulation. Conflict resolution and courtship behaviors are all about manipulation. But each individual puts their own slant on it based on their good or bad experiences. Then why do people demonize the traits in others they are also present in themselves? In part, because they aren't as skilled and want to even the playfield. It's like physically unattractive women are more likely to be hardcore feminists, especially the type that depicts men in adversarial positions against women and shame other women for adopting traditional gender roles.
Disclaimers:
*I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. Above are just my personal thoughts. PS, people only read what they want to read, and will only believe what they want to believe anyway.
*Please excuse any awkward expressions as English is not my native language.
*I'm only easily bored, not easily offended, so feel free to say whatever you want or give me angry faces as long as it does not violate forum rules. I may or may not respond to avoid leading to fights.
*I'm not calling anybody out.
[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/media-spotlight/201311/when-does-lying-begin
[2] https://opentextbc.ca/socialpsychology/chapter/the-many-varieties-of-conformity/
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/jan/13/derren-brown-pushed-to-the-edge-review
[4] https://www.simplypsychology.org/operant-conditioning.html
[5] Quoting an archeologist who probably doesn't want to be mentioned.
To condemn victim-blaming, one has to first identify who's the victim and who' the perpetrator. Now, are victims and perpetrators always easily identifiable? Some are. For instance, a person who gets punched by a stranger in the street simply because of his skin color is a victim of a hate crime. Some are not. Interactions that start off based on mutual needs usually fit into this category; the victim could just be the one who plays the same game as the perpetrator but gets outmaneuvered and ends up being the loser. All parties involved can be victims, or can all be perpetrators, or some can be both a victim and a perpetrator simultaneously, or a victim can turn into a perpetrator as the situation escalates and vice versa. Btw, masochism is a real thing.
People automatically give more credit to the alleged victims, because they appear to be less threatening and more innocent. People can be gullible, irresponsible, or lack common sense due to factors out of their control, but does that make it politically correct to swap out an adjective of a negative connotation (gullible or irresponsible) with another adjective of a neutral connotation (trusting or vulnerable) used to describe them? A dog barks loud at a leopard when its armed owner is nearby - same with people who express politically correct opinions when they know they're backed by the majority. On online forums, politically correct posts get showered by social brownie points and the posters often write in big fonts and indignant tones; while, politically incorrect posts get battered by angry faces.
People need a target to bear the uneasiness they feel and the potentials in themselves that they'd like to alienate from. The target is like a scapegoat (in the Bible, a scapegoat is released into the wilderness, symbolically taking with it all sins and impurities of the people) that may or may not be 100% guilty. It's tempting to look at things in black and white because it's easy. Whereas in reality, most things are in different shades of grey rather than black and white, and it takes two to tango.
Why not just let the (alleged) victims believe they're totally innocent and take no part in their tragedies? Well, when people believe it's completely somebody else's fault, they don't self-reflect and learn enough to sufficiently prevent ending up in the same hot water again in the future. Btw, all humans are in a Skinner Box [4], having our beliefs and moral values shaped by operant conditioning since birth, burned into our core that they become absolute truth.
Humans as social animals, by working as groups, each individual's fitness and survival chances are maximized. Political corruption and business interactions can be brought to light by examining money transfers between parties summarized by the popular catchphrase "follow the money." Interpersonal interactions can be brought to light and traced down to "follow the self." The so-called virtues such as altruism & compassion, upon close examination, might be just ego defense mechanisms to cover up uncomfortable feelings from the self. Endowing the overused word "love" with supreme overexaggerated power and touting compassion as a cardinal virtue seems to have become an established trend/culture that is bound to benefit many and poison some others.
Political correctness is closely tied to collective hypocrisy. The Nobel Laureate James Watson, THE father of DNA, was stripped of his honorary titles over "reprehensible" comments on the link between race and intelligence. Different cat breeds can have different intelligence levels, but different races of homo sapiens can't and that just sounds wrong, sure. Who discovered the link between asbestos and lung cancer, who developed the first high-powered electron microscope, where did the accurate data on human physiological limitations come from? Shhhh.....don't go there, let's just say EVERYTHING that Nazis did was an atrocity that carried zero benefits to human society and they were inhumane animals. Oh, and the medical terms named after Nazi doctors need to be changed. Btw, why is the word "inhumane" used to describe cruel acts while humans and bonobos are the only species on earth that have been found by far to carry out well-organized campaigns of genocides? How are the so-called humane humans nobler than the "low" animals?
There's a social psychology project called Pushed To The Edge that gives insight into how long it takes (the answer is 72 minutes) to turn a regular person into a murderer [3]. But the study subjects/participants weren't randomly chosen. Instead, the candidates took the Asch-style Conformity Test [2] to identify the biddable ones. Yes, people come on different compliant levels, and I bet adept predators know that, and I bet many members give off their compliant levels through the posts they make.
People accuse psychopaths of being liars and manipulators. The thing is, we humans, and of course including "normies", start to lie at as early as age three [1]. Manipulation is everywhere; it's necessary for any society, even animals to function. In this way, it is neither good or bad, but necessary [5]. Even being nice is a form of subtle manipulation. Conflict resolution and courtship behaviors are all about manipulation. But each individual puts their own slant on it based on their good or bad experiences. Then why do people demonize the traits in others they are also present in themselves? In part, because they aren't as skilled and want to even the playfield. It's like physically unattractive women are more likely to be hardcore feminists, especially the type that depicts men in adversarial positions against women and shame other women for adopting traditional gender roles.
Disclaimers:
*I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. Above are just my personal thoughts. PS, people only read what they want to read, and will only believe what they want to believe anyway.
*Please excuse any awkward expressions as English is not my native language.
*I'm only easily bored, not easily offended, so feel free to say whatever you want or give me angry faces as long as it does not violate forum rules. I may or may not respond to avoid leading to fights.
*I'm not calling anybody out.
[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/media-spotlight/201311/when-does-lying-begin
[2] https://opentextbc.ca/socialpsychology/chapter/the-many-varieties-of-conformity/
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/jan/13/derren-brown-pushed-to-the-edge-review
[4] https://www.simplypsychology.org/operant-conditioning.html
[5] Quoting an archeologist who probably doesn't want to be mentioned.
Last edited:
