cm18

Somewhat related:

Gene Wars - Skip to the 4th video for quicker summery, or watch them all to get a bit more in depth. Basically, there's a line of thought that genes and reproductive strategies drive the current culture war. Those with "K" type reproductive strategies look forward to competition as a way to improve and protect society as a whole, while those with "r" ("spray and pray") type reproductive strategies look for ways to subvert society so as to make it easier to parasitically take advantage of society.

What you are basically suggesting is that the "K"'s get wise and start realizing the tricks of the parasitical "r"'s. But before you can do this, you need to realize who the enemy is and what their characteristics are. It's all reminiscent of Atlas Shrugged (though not as harsh).

pitenius

Quality OC. Like /u/entropysaurus , I'm not certain about every detail -- and this is a problem in social theories, they can become a house of cards.

I see your concern, though. In many of my interactions, I "go big or go home". You mentioned (western) countries where this is a common value. I think it is also popular among Muslims, who have been ramping up what is "jihad-worthy" for the past 200 years. The only counter-example that springs to mind is north India, which often tended to disengage -- until the disengagers (gurus) were pretty much overrun.

I'm not sure that "helping victims" is necessarily a good thing. (I'm tempted to try to coordinate your entire post with the Dharmasastra, but... wrong sub?) For some, pity is something to be despised.

You've given me a lot to think about. Thanks.

magnora

I'm not sure that "helping victims" is necessarily a good thing. (I'm tempted to try to coordinate your entire post with the Dharmasastra, but... wrong sub?) For some, pity is something to be despised.

I would actually be very interested for you to expand on this point. Especially that first sentence.

pitenius

Well, you might not want to interfere in their karmic debt? (That a potentially dark side to some Hindu philosophy. A Buddhist counter-argument is that this is a chance to improve your own karma.)

entropyosaurus

The problem arises however when the most obvious and accessible route to power in our society comes through playing the victim as thoroughly as possible.

i don't think this is right

entropyosaurus

and trump plays the billionaire xenophobe? whats your point

magnora

You don't think the logic is right, or you don't think this is how modern culture operates?

entropyosaurus

I just can't think of an example of someone getting into a powerful position (as measured by wealth or the ability to make significant decisions and delegate orders) through playing a victim. Can you? I think power in US culture is more precisely obtained through greed and selfishness.

mukt

How do you explain how Hillary Clinton reached where she is?

entropyosaurus

I think "being a Clinton" helps, democrats loved Bill for some reason. Yale Law school. Pandering to corporate interests when in politics doesn't hurt either.

mukt

That has not been sufficient for her.
She plays the sexism card in every fucking election. She has tried it this time too.

entropyosaurus

Politicians play every card they can in elections.

mukt

Not every card they can, but every card they need to win.

entropyosaurus

How about every card that helps them.

magnora

Oh yes, there are many examples. Ellen Pao who ran reddit became wealthy and famous through lawsuits of victimhood.

You must understand, I'm not saying being a victim is a route to the top , I am saying being a victim is a route to go from lower class to middle/upper class. So many lawsuits are won by a minority group or woman demonstrating how they were victimized because of their minority status. We even have a whole category of crimes, called hate crimes, that increase penalties for people who attack people who can demonstrate their victimhood belongs to a certain category. Things like child custody, divorce settlements, and other court cases are determined by proper demonstration of victimhood.

No one is going to become the next Bill Gates by playing victim, but even Bill Gates uses this tactic. He's solicited billions by running this Gates Foundation organization which focuses entirely on the idea of helping victims (from poor countries, usually). This is how they gain power, by claiming they're doing something humanitarian. Same reason the US government invades all these middle eastern countries, they say its for "humanitarian reasons" even though it's obviously and aggressive invasion. The Susan G Komen cancer foundation keeps 95% of the money that gets donated to them, they're using the exact same tactic. Empowering themselves by pretending to help victims, or be victims. This is the victim support culture.

entropyosaurus

I think this speaks more to Pao's rise to power than her 2012 discrimination lawsuit:

Pao graduated from Princeton University, the alma mater of her two sisters, with a bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering in 1991. She immediately after attended Harvard Law School with which she earned a juris doctor in 1994.[4] After two years of work, Pao returned to attend Harvard Business School where she received an MBA in 1998. From 1994 to 1996, Pao worked as a corporate attorney at Cravath, Swaine & Moore. In 1998, Pao worked at WebTV.[21] Pao worked at several companies in Silicon Valley including BEA Systems as Senior Director of Corporate Business Development from 2001 until 2005.[12][22] In 2005, Pao joined Kleiner Perkins, an established venture capital firm in San Francisco, as technical chief of staff for John Doerr, a senior partner, a job that required degrees in engineering, law, and business, and experience in enterprise software.

As to the philanthropy of the Bill Gates of the world, I don't think they're playing up victimhood so much as trying to mitigate the negative images of their obvious greed. Pretending to help victims to improve one's own image is not the same as being a victim, or playing the victim. That's "compassion."

No one is going to become the next Bill Gates by playing victim, but even Bill Gates uses this tactic. He's solicited billions by running this Gates Foundation organization which focuses entirely on the idea of helping victims (from poor countries, usually). This is how they gain power, by claiming they're doing something humanitarian.

Bill Gates was a billionaire many times over and had lots of power before he started his foundation.

As to the victim lawsuits question, we live in a very litigious society, and yes that's a way to attempt to milk or game the system. But sometimes lawsuits are justified. I wouldn't say "so many" lawsuits by minorities are won, and that so many of them can just retire because of the settlements or judgments in their favor. Are courts and laws too much a part of US society and culture? Perhaps/probably.

And one last point. Creating the category of hate crimes isn't about enabling victims but trying to end racism in our society. Victims of hate crimes don't personally benefit from the criminal prosecution, it's just that the perpetrators are punished more because society deems racism to be more dangerous than, say, drunken brawls.

magnora

Gates gets donations now and can launder money through the foundation. He makes tons in speaking fees. This is not humanitarian, he's just using that as a reason to gain more power. If he helps some people in the process, great. But he's also getting his fingers in a lot of pies in the process.

People get the categorization of "hate crime" if they're able to convince the jury that is possible. This requires playing up victimhood.

You make good points, but you're talking with too broad a brush to ignore the potential of this existing

entropyosaurus

People get the categorization of "hate crime" if they're able to convince the jury that is possible. This requires playing up victimhood.

Prosecutor's make the decision to classify something as a hate crime based on evidence of intent. Then they have to prove that to the jury. There's no 'playing up victimhood' because, by definition, there was a victim of the crime.

And rich people who donate to the Gates Foundation are not giving him more power but trying to latch on to the positive image that the foundation creates. Bill Gates doesn't need any more money to further his power or to live bigger. And I don't know anything about the money laundering claims, but I wouldn't put it past em.

magnora

If they choose to go for a hate crime charge, they have to play up the hatecrime aspect of it in order to ensure they get the jury to vote the right way.

Bill gates wanted to get in to things like vaccines and population control, and the foundation gives him a good way to do that where he might not be able to otherwise.

entropyosaurus

If they choose to go for a hate crime charge, they have to play up the hatecrime aspect of it in order to ensure they get the jury to vote the right way.

Well ya, they'd have to play up the intent if it exists, like if the perpetrator kept a journal about how much he hates black people, then beat up some random black person for no other reason.

Bill gates wanted to get in to things like vaccines and population control, and the foundation gives him a good way to do that where he might not be able to otherwise.

It's possible, I don't know about his beliefs prior to making billions. But from what I understand, he was just a cut-throat nerdy wannabe computer guy who saw an opportunity to monopolize an OS system he didn't write and grabbed it.