...most about most special-interests:
That the center of debate tends to revolve around whose victim dick is the biggest.
It's not about who is morally right, it's not about logical consistency, it's about who can make themselves out to be the biggest victim of society.
Within the context of victimhood as moral sanction, Muslims suspected of being terrorists are entitled to fair trials and presumption of innocence by society, but suspected white rapists are not; after all, the vast majority of rape cases are not made up and it's really hard to bring somebody to court and the emotional distress and blah blah blah.
It's -precisely- the same in rape and terrorist cases; the majority of the people brought to court are not innocent. We aren't supposed to structure our court system to punish the guilty, however, we're supposed to structure it to protect the innocent accused.
But the very same people who will happily donate money to the legal defense of a suspected terrorist will accuse those who donate money to the legal defense of a suspected rapist of misogyny.
Those donors would be masculinists, by the way, who fail entirely to buck the system; instead of arguing on the basis of morality, instead they try to claim big-victim-dickhood for the men.
I'm somewhat guilty of that myself at times, as I'll readily admit. I argue on special interest forums and it's an absurd temptation to preempt their game. The incredible success of these ventures is a horrible temptation in future dealings, and I suspect the time I've spent arguing has to some extent begun to characterize my thought patterns.
I can lay out thirty pages of well-reasoned arguments. I know what a well-reasoned argument is, I know when I'm making one. And I'll just be told I'm being insensitive.
Not that I'm wrong - as I said, it was a well-reasoned argument. Not that I'm wrong, but that I have no right to be right.
But if instead I write out half a paragraph laying out why I'm the biggest victim, I get an instant apology. (I'm a wordsmith, and I can make this happen.) I don't prove that they're wrong - instead I tell them they do not have a right to be right. And I get an apology. And that is okay?
No, that is not okay. It's not okay when I do it, and it's not okay when somebody else does it. Right is right.
Special interests need to get over their obsession with victimhood, and get back to the root arguments of morality. It's not -right- for black people to have to drink from a different water fountain than white people, we don't have to make black people into helpless victims to make this point. It's not right that women can't vote, that they can't own property - no victimhood is necessary to stake these claims.
But once special interests run out of the root arguments of morality - once black people can drink from water fountains - the interest in that special interest dries up.
I think that's where victimhood enters into it. It's no longer enough that blacks and whites drink from the same fountain; blacks drank substandard water for eighty years, they need purified water for the next eighty years to compensate them. Women should get two votes instead of just one, and they should be given extra property, for the next two centuries.
Victimhood is a bum deal, however. Nobody respects a victim, they just appease them; their interactions have more in common with fear than with respect, fear of hurting somebody's feelings. That is a condescending mode of human interaction, and it is to be reviled.
Who profits, then?
The spokesmen for the victims, a parasite who auctions off the respect for those he or she claims to be representing in exchange for financial and moral sanction from the population at large.
Now, for those who are horribly offended by everything I just wrote: Did you notice the not-so-subtle jabs at the start of this post towards men? If you didn't, or you thought they were okay, you have absolutely no room to talk to me about sensitivity.