Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Dark Echo of Christian Martrydom
Throughout millennia, suffering and sacrifice have always been respected. For example, Simeon the Stylite lived on ever increasingly high pillars alone in the desert to devote himself to G-d. Hindus have a long tradition of torturing their body to advance the strength of their soul. Buddhists have similar traditions of starving themselves to death. (though that’s controversial in Buddhism.)* Shia Islam seems to focus on flagellation and hitting yourself on the head with a sword (Grisly imagery contained in this link.
In animistic traditions, the Cheyenne and Crow tribe practiced a ritual known as the sundance where they pierce their skin and attach themselves to a tall pole. The list goes on; sacrificing your bodily health to attain spiritual prowess is a pretty normal thing.
Personally, I’ve always found the more grisly sacrifices offered up to a higher religious goal a little disturbing. But regardless of personal feelings, such practices are so universal that they illuminate a fundamental human reality. People have long associated suffering with holiness and holiness is part of every culture. I propose that the modern leftist obsession with victimhood is a continuation of the human inclination to make suffering holy. What’s more, there is an odd echo of Christianity in the leftist worship of victimhood.
Jesus Christ was the absolute personification of innocent victimhood and the ultimate in sacrifice. It is no coincidence that following him were untold numbers of martyrs. But people under the sway of the leftist echo of Christianity, confuse victimhood with holiness. If they are a victim, they become more beautiful and nobler. That’s a large part (and a largely unspoken part) of what constitutes identity politics.
Dostoevsky saw a version of this yearning to be a righteous victim in his Book, The Brothers Karamazov. The Brother Ivan pointedly observes that Katerina Ivanovna’s love for his brother, Dmitri, emerges out of a sort of victimhood pride.
And the more he insults you, the more you love him—that’s your ‘laceration.’ You love him just as he is; you love him for insulting you. If he reformed, you’d give him up at once and cease to love him. But you need him so as to contemplate continually your heroic fidelity and to reproach him for infidelity. And it all comes from your pride. Oh, there’s a great deal of humiliation and self-abasement about it, but it all comes from pride.”
Katerina Ivanovna wants to abase herself in order to feel that she is a more a victim and thus, holier than others. This was always a thing but lately, it’s been picking up,
Take the wave of fake hate crimes that are going on in America at the moment. It reminds me of the fake miracle-workers in Europe during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Traditionally, these hucksters would manufacture fake religious artifacts and makeup stories about divine intervention in order to fool religious people. But those flim-flam men and women understood that there was a deeply venerated religion to imitate. You won’t find many Buddhist hucksters in the Europe Middle Ages for example but they’re always a few of them in Buddhist countries.
The veneration of victimhood creates a demand for victims just as the devotion of the divine creates a demand for miracles. This is why college campuses are the main incubator of hate crime hoaxes. They are the most fervent of believers in the holiness of victimhood.
The people themselves who commit the fake hate crimes might be sociopaths indifferent to lying or they might have an unhealthy compulsion to hurt themselves and perhaps worst of all, they might have a perverse idea of what holiness is. Though it must be said that they can be all three.
https://youtu.be/LjZqI6QvUyc?t=346
I suspect that the true believers are the most destructive of the hucksters. They view themselves as actually being holy victims but feel stiffed when people don’t hate them for their minority status. So even as they falsify stories, they believe that they are actually holy in some sense. The lie is justified because it serves a greater and nobler truth. It reminds me of a lyric about mental illness and religion by Johnny Cash.**
Have you come here for forgiveness?
Have you come to raise the dead?
Have you come here to play Jesus
To the lepers in your head?
Dr. Bastiat and I have politely disagreed about the nature of third motivation in the Jussie Smollet case. Dr. Bastiat thinks that Jussie did it in order to obtain more money and fame. I think that while self-promotion was part of his motivation, I think he has an unhealthy spiritual malady where he needs to feel that he is a suffering victim. He wants to play a black Jesus to the Trump voters in his head to paraphrase the late Johny Cash.
Dr. Bastiat also brilliantly noticed this celebration of victimhood in American pop-culture.
My wife and daughters enjoy reality TV shows in which contestants sing and dance in front of judges, attempting to win a prize. Like most competitive endeavors on TV now, from golf to the Olympics, the program includes a brief personal story about each contestant, so you can get to know the competitors a bit. This generally includes a statement by the competitor, in which he/she will explain why they think they should win.
Do they say, “I’ve worked really hard at this, and I hope that my hard work will be adequate to win this competition?” No. They engage in competitive victimhood and self-sacrifice: “So my Mom overdosed when I was 13 and one of her sister’s boyfriends started beating me up so I lived under an overpass and sold my body to make money to buy insulin for my baby brother while I practiced my singing by volunteering in the local children’s hospital and singing to the babies in the NICU. Gosh, I love those kids.” The singing competition matters, but the self-sacrifice rivalry is where the most vicious competition happens. It may seem odd, competing at being non-competitive, but this is how you gain the upper hand in modern America.
The emotional incontinence of the left is partly explained by this reverence. I was working a blue collar job the night Trump got elected. Everyone there was like, “Huh. I didn’t think that would happen.” Then, even the Hillary Clinton supporters, moved on with their lives. This was not at all the case with the educated classes. On the AMU, a group voice chat with fellow Ricochet members, the nurses and the people who worked in law offices told me a story after story of glorious suffering. (It was like they were serving me a large schadenfreude cake frosted with a schadenfreude topping with schadenfreude sprinkles.) But my moral weaknesses aside, those on the left feel it necessary to demonstrate their suffering. It used to be considered good manners to stoically resign yourself to a political loss. But higher education did a fairly good job of ending that.
My living in China for a few years seems to support my theory that this veneration of the suffering victim is an echo of Christianity. The Chinese feel no guilt for being strong. They feel slighted that they were bullied by other countries for so long. The pain of the Tibetan and Uighyur minorities mean little not only to the Communist Government but to the average Han (majority Chinese ethnicity). There is an inferiority/superiority complex that China has with Japan and America but they don’t present themselves as hapless victims. They don’t want to be victims; they want to be strong.
This also perfectly explains why lefties hate black and gay conservatives and why they are indifferent to Ayan Hirsi Ali. This is why Israel gets no points for being gay-friendly. Gays cease to become holy when they aren’t victimized. When people reject the victimhood narrative, they are apostates from the religion of victimhood and holy suffering. This is also why the hundreds of millions of people who are well fed because of capitalism don’t matter to leftists. There isn’t any holiness in steadily improving your lot in life. In fact, wanting to have a nice car and a nice house and health care plan with extra options in case something goes south is indecent. It detracts from your victimhood and therefore your holiness.
The veneration of the suffering victim is the real reason that socialists hate capitalism. Capitalism may help the poor but it does it in a way that doesn’t have much to do with spiritual development. Because victims are holy, socialists have to make capitalism unholy by saying that it makes the rich richer by making the poor poorer. If uplifting the poor were the main motivation of socialists, they would be some version of free-marketers. Literally, every society that has made their poor population not poor has had some version of a free market economy. It may be a free market economy with less taxation or more taxation or less regulation or more regulation but it has always been a freeish market. This central fact of human history means nothing to them but the spiritual appeal of the victim means everything.
Everything in the present is an echo of what came before. I am an echo of my mother and father’s genetic makeup and my writing is an echo of what I have read before. The tradition of American democracy and liberty are a golden echo of the Scottish and English enlightenments.
But sometimes echoes become distorted and garbled and what was once a beautiful composition becomes a jarring and malaphonic cacophony. Think of the Nazis playing Mozart or Beethoven in their rallies. We should recognize that the modern leftist view of victimhood is a dark echo of Christianity rooted in the darker parts of our nature that worship suffering for suffering’s sake.
* Buddhism has a concept called the Middle Way which many people interpret as being against the mortification of the flesh.
**I’ve been informed that the original song was written by U2 and not Johny Cash. In my defense, the Johny Cash version was better.
Published in General
No wonder there’s so much despair.
Thank you Ricochet for putting out a conversation like this.
This is such a great post. You are spot on Henry. I wish I had something to add to it, but I don’t.
The paragraph beginning “The veneration of suffering” is an excellent assessment of history and condemnation of the demented ideology of leftism. Thanks!
This joke made by a lefty to lefties but it contains conservative truth. Everything could be bad but as long as a government has a policy that makes you feel better about yourself the suffering endured is OK because it is in the service of holy government. This also relates to the anti-capitalism of the Left.
As for the conflict between you and Dr. Bastiat re: the Passion Of Jussie Smollett….
both/and.
He wanted to be the victim because the victim is holy.
And he knew that protecting, comforting and rewarding the victim is how liberals get their karma points. Hence, a good career move for a middling actor in a left-leaning industry.
By the way, he could have come up with a hero scenario in which he rescued someone from Evil Trumpsters. That he did not tells you how depressing the leftist lock-step narrative is: A black, gay hero storming the cockpit on 9/11 doesn’t do much for them. The white liberals want to rescue ” Jussie,” not be rescued by him.
Love this guyhttps://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/local/skowhegan-police-officer-hailed-as-a-hero-for-saving-mother-son-from-burning-home/364643433.
Great post, Henry. So much to think about…and quote for my next sermon!
Oh gosh that’s wonderful…
Fantastic point. I hadn’t thought of that.
There is something in this theme that helps me to understand why the progressive Left, always seeming to be enjoying some victimhood perch, has led those of us who don’t worship this idol to refer to that behavior as a religion. I’m coming back later.
Henry, this is an interesting and creative idea, and seems original. At least, I do not think that I’ve seen it before.
My preliminary conclusion is to disagree, for several reasons. My evaluation is provisional, as I have several points of critique, but perhaps there are good rebuttals that I have not considered.
I. Points of agreement
I agree with your proposition that suffering is often viewed as a cause for respect and even a source of holiness, in both Christian and non-Christian traditions. First, endurance of suffering or pain, in and of itself, is a mark of strength and character. Second, enduring and overcoming suffering or pain can develop character. Third, accepting suffering or pain in the service of a noble goal is one of the most admirable of virtues, rightly viewed as “holy.”
II. Inconsistencies with the Leftist view
First, it seems to me that if Leftists viewed the suffering victim as a holy person, they would view the suffering or persecution as a good thing, and might want to encourage more of it. This is inconsistent with their (purported) efforts to eliminate the sources suffering or persecution, at least among their favored victim groups.
I think that both your Buddhist and American Indian examples view suffering as something to be sought. I don’t think that Christianity views suffering as something to be specifically sought, but Christianity does teach that suffering is inevitable and is to be not just accepted, but considered “pure joy” because it both develops character and proves our faith (most importantly to ourselves)
Second, it seems to me that if Leftists viewed suffering as holy, they would not encourage complaining about it. It is admirable to suffer injustice bravely, stoically, and silently. It is not admirable to whine about it, particularly when the purported injustice and suffering is often a figment of the imagination of either the purported victim, or the Leftist who is supposedly sympathizing with the victim.
I think that your examples from Buddhism, American Indian rituals, and Christianity all emphasize the patient and silent endurance of suffering, not complaining about it in order to receive praise or special privilege.
Third, it seems to me that if Leftists opposed Capitalism because they actually like suffering because it is holy, they would not complain that Capitalism causes suffering. They would complain that Capitalism alleviates the suffering that is essential to righteousness.
Fourth, it seems to me that if Leftists venerated suffering, they would not be so selective in their sympathy for victims. They care deeply for black, Hispanic, female, Muslim, or sexually deviant people who are suffering. They do not appear to care at all about white, male, Christian, or Jewish people who are suffering.
[Continued]
[Continued]
III. Alternative Explanations
I can think of seven alternative explanations for the Leftist veneration of victimhood, which seem more plausible (to me) than your thesis.
One alternative explanation is evasion of responsibility. The Leftist emphasis on victimhood may provide an excuse for the Leftist’s own shortcomings and inadequacies. Some of these are beyond his control; many are probably not. Either way, claiming victimhood means that he does not have to face either the possibility that his own choices are the cause of much of the adversity in his life, or that he is simply not very competent or capable compared to other people. (This latter — a lack of inherent competence or capability — is very difficult to face, because it may not be the individual’s fault. It certainly appears that some people are born with low intelligence, or a relatively low capacity for physical accomplishment, or are quite physically unattractive, or have any of a variety of other physical, mental, emotional, or tempermental shortcomings or even full-scale disabilities. Also, a difficult family environment can be quite an obstacle to successful development of an individual, but it is painful for him to blame his own parent(s).)
A second alternative explanation is the desire of the Leftist to view himself as a heroic champion of the downtrodden. (In real life, think Lincoln or MLK; in recent fiction, think Danaerys Stormborn, the “Breaker of Chains and Mother of Dragons!”) The Leftist faces a serious problem in this regard, as most serious injustice has been resolved in our society (except the injustices perpetrated by the misguided Leftists themselves). But to view himself as a hero, he has to find a victim and advocate for the victim and against the purported perpetrator.
A third alternative explanation is a hostility to traditional morality. Traditional morality — and any moral standard at all — is a harsh judge. We all fall short of any meaningful standard of virtue, and moreover, the Leftist doesn’t like any constraints on his freedom to act as he wishes. But virtuous living ought to lead to better outcomes, at least most of the time. If it does, then the virtuous will have better outcomes, but the Leftist will be ideologically and psychologically incapable of attributing these superior outcomes to the exercise of virtue. Thus, he must attribute them to injustice. The result is that failure, in and of itself, becomes proof that the person who fails is a victim — and success, in and of itself, becomes proof that the person who succeeds is an oppressor. (I must acknowledge Evan Sayet as the source of this argument, and further note that Sayet attributes credit to Allan Bloom.)
[Continued]
[Continued]
A fourth alternative explanation is resentment. This is related to prior alternatives (1) and (3). Deep down, the Leftist recognizes his incompetence, at least relative to others, and hates the competent. Rather than acknowledge this, however, the Leftist views himself as a victim of some (generally rather vague) wrongdoing on the part of the successful. Think Cain and Abel.
A fifth explanation is the cynical exploitation of a victimhood narrative as a tool against the Leftist’s political opponents on the Right, and a method of uniting a voting coalition in favor of the Leftist’s favored policies.
A sixth explanation is something like ideological Munchausen syndrome. The Leftist falsely claims to be a victim in order to generate sympathy and attention. (Think Mr. Smollett.)
A seventh explanation is something like ideological Munchausen-by-proxy syndrome. The Leftist falsely claims that someone the Leftist cares about is a victim, in order to generate sympathy and attention.
IV. Provisional Conclusion
Henry, I hope that I haven’t come across as to hard on your thesis. As I mentioned at the outset, I think that it is provocative and creative, and worthy of further consideration.
I’m going to keep all of the points made by you two in my bucket for now. I have no reason to think that all are not valid in at least some of those who occupy the space on the Left. After all, those in opposition to the Left are not all there with the same reasons or purpose, are they?
I just now got around to reading this. Sorry for being so slow. I wish I had a sob-story to tell you about what kept me from it so long.
But here is another example for people to use when they are testing their grand theories as to why we (or they) are like this:
In the 50s and early 60s there was a television program, Queen for a Day, in which women competed by telling their stories of hardship and woe. Generally, the more miserable the story, the higher the audience applause meter went. The winner got to be Queen for a Day, with lots of goodies to be shipped home.
Maybe some of you remember the program better than I do; I doubt I saw it more than once or twice. The only reason I remember it is because of a Readers Digest joke (maybe one that actually appeared in Readers Digest) that had a woman telling of her poverty. She didn’t even have a crib for her baby to sleep in. When the program moderator asked where the baby slept now, she replied, “In the box the color television came in.”
It’s hard to remember now what would have made that funny, but old timers will remember that there was a time when color televisions were very expensive, and that only well-off families could afford them. The joke has stuck in my mind because it’s an illustration of some of the changes in our society.
I should also mention the saying I heard from a Professor Schmidt of my acquaintance, which I thought explained a lot of people I knew: “Germans aren’t happy unless they’re miserable.” But I’ve since heard Jewish people telling it on themselves, and maybe others say it, too.
I thought it was funny right now, and that it is true. I remember the show title but I rarely watched anything and never watch that show.
If you’ve been following the aftermath of the Fascists vs Andy Ngo incident, you’ll notice that some of our leftists are very much aware of when the victimhood game is not going well for them.
Here is a comment from one of the more reasonable lefties in response to an article on the Quillette site:
Ignored by the guy you quoted was that these Antifa thugs’ “milkshakes” have sometimes included quick-drying cement and other nasties.
Well, yes, I wouldn’t give this commenter any credit since he seems to consider it okay to douse someone with milkshake. When did that become acceptable?
I didn’t want to divert this discussion into all of that controversy, which is better discussed in a separate thread, but to point out the leftwing pushback against victim narratives.
Good luck with that.
I guess it shows that while the opinions on the Left may be diverse they still lean in the same direction.
“This reverence”, though, is also a strong value on the right. A story of hard work and sacrifice, even if it’s somewhat unsavory, appeals to conservative virtues of… hard work and sacrifice. A story of a hardscrabble upbringing appeals to conservatives’ anti-elitism (which we now know, if we didn’t before, is extensive).
Why should anyone believe you if you say you worked really hard and leave it at that, without corroboration? Pretty much everyone says that — indeed, you’re taught it’s what you should say even if your greatest fear is you haven’t worked hard enough. Your own account of how you worked hard, and the obstacles you overcame, might, of course, be tremendously self-serving — even bogus, if you’re the type of person who believes in inventing backstories for yourself as long as you don’t get caught. But it’s better than nothing.
I agree the emphasis on self-sacrifice in “hard work and sacrifice”, as well as the American love (again, shared by Americans on both side of the aisle) for stories of redemption, goes with Christian culture.
The sob stories of those who aren’t already succeeding in some way (even if the success is merely making the cut for some cheesy televised talent competition) are not much loved and not much heard, not even by the blue tribe (maybe especially not by the blue tribe these days?…)
I heard a priest once say in a sermon, that people ask why does God allow suffering? That goes back to the whole free will discussion – he doesn’t cause suffering, but he allows it. The priest’s answer was “to bring about a greater good.” I had to think about that. It seems today’s world is all about avoiding anything remotely viewed as suffering, and labeling people as victims. I’m always humbled by people who have family members, especially children with health issues. Their love and sacrifice is so great, and yet many say they are the ones that are blessed. That’s a snapshot of Mother Theresa’s whole mission – it seemed to bring her closer to God to ease the suffering – the exchange was two-fold. I guess that’s what the priest meant. Those that have not ever really suffered in the true sense cannot relate to that idea. Suffering today seems to mean having to pay for your student loan and working for $12 an hour while you work towards a better situation.
Great thought provoking post! I find a lot of merit in the comments of @arizonapatriot and @midge. Jerry’s comments on multiple factors at play is consistent with what I see in my left leaning friends – the very way of thinking Jerry identified. And I agree with Midge that on an individual level the right uses these stories as well.
There are two additional factors that translate what is happening on an individual level, the second of which is particularly damaging to the political stability of America.
First, it’s not just about being a victim, it is about showing caring about those who are victims or suffer. From a political perspective it is more important to show this than to feel it privately. An example – George W Bush, during his presidency, spent much time with families with children killed or injured in the Mideast Wars. However, he followed the Bush family tradition of keeping things private, so from a political perspective it might as well have not happened. Barack Obama realized we live in Oprah’s World and made sure all of his displays were there for public consumption. No more stiff upper lips!
Second, if this was merely an individual phenomenon it would be of interest. What makes it dangerous is the left’s translation of this to a group phenomenon. By being a member of the group you can be a virtual martyr regardless of your individual experience. I’ve found it curious that several prominent African American politicians rose to prominence by associating themselves with an oppressed group despite the fact that their African ancestors voluntarily came to America to seek opportunities they could not find elsewhere (see Obama, Barack; Holder, Eric; and Harris, Kamala.) It didn’t matter, they were just as much victims because they belonged to a designated victim group.
It’s why group-based concepts like social justice, intersectionality, and privilege are powerful concepts on the left.
It’s why victimhood is a tool used towards a political goal – the seizure of power.
Under Leftist theory all relationships in society are based upon relative power. In Marxist theory it was solely class-based materialism. Current leftist theory adds in group identity based on race, gender, ethnicity. Yes, I know it ends up being an incoherent, self contradictory mess, but I’m sure they’ll sort that out after crushing all of us.
Their view of victimhood simplifies human motives, thoughts, and emotions as well as the concept of the individual being able to have any control over their destiny.
It’s why the sufferings of an individual who is not a member of a oppressed victim group can be ignored.
And it’s why we would be making a mistake to think the victimhood ploy is a sign of weakness. It is not, it is a well designed political strategy to gain power which has already taken over one of America’s two major political parties.
I think the word you’re looking for is “exploit” the suffering for political gain. Democrats’ SOP.
Great comment, Gumby.
This makes perfect sense because for centuries Jewish culture was by an overwhelming margin German culture here in Central Europe.
There a mindset here that was imported to America that prizes looking at the dark of things, actively looking for something to complain about, deliberately cultivating an attitude of fault-finding and ingratitude. It is a subspecies, perhaps just a mild form, of this worshipping suffering for its own sake.
Yes!
Yes, and this is the nature of politics — display. It’s not limited to one side; it can’t be. Whichever movement you’re part of in America today, there’s tremendous pressure to show outrage on behalf of the Victim of the Week (or day, or hour — these cycles seem to spin ever faster).
Eh… again, I would be cautious about limiting this to the left, or say that it’s always about virtual martyrdom rather than (an often cockeyed) desire to function as Tribune of the Plebs. Plenty of people on our side leading lives of relative power and ease speak up for those they consider their people, whose circumstances are worse. Who are their people? Often heartlanders, Rust-Belters, Southerners, hill folk, any Christians who aren’t (to put it very crassly) adorably brown (brown enough their faith isn’t suspected of perpetrating racism), men who aren’t (as The Atlantic puts it) part of the 9.9% meritocratic elite — you know, just ordinary guys… Real Americans…
Group identities matter to people. And we now know, if we didn’t before, they matter to people on our side. And not just some single monolithic American identity, either, but whichever identities we believe are ignored by those with power.
Of course it’s awful when people teach that individual striving isn’t primary to making it in life, but it’s primary because it’s all that’s under our control when so much else isn’t. Everyone knows some circumstances demand more striving than others do. Christianity (returning to the OP’s theme) explicitly teaches our struggles are bigger than ourselves. And everyone knows that group membership can be a rough proxy for the struggles an individual is more likely to face.
That’s why the right can generalize, for example, that a white, straight, male Christian American not part of the 9.9% is likely to face certain challenges associated with this particular intersection of group identities. Even those on our side well aware of individual responsibility can get too sucked into these identities: Dreher is no patron saint of irresponsibility, but folks who love him may still lose patience with his “see the violence inherent in the system! (as it crushes folks like me)” jags.
When a guy like Tucker Carlson bursts out, “Woo hoo! Is that Warren talking or Trump in drag?! So stoked!” (obviously not a quote, though in a funnier world it would have been) is the right response to mock him for assuming the mantle of white victimhood, as leftists have done, or should we listen to him, because he’s using his relative power and ease to speak up on behalf of those he sees as his suffering people? Did everyone who sided with Kavanaugh do so out of an unbending attachment to due process, or did many Americans look at Kavanaugh and think, “That could be my son, my brother, my husband — that could be me”?
Kavanaugh, by being a powerful man with a compelling story of victimhood to tell, became a champion for many with less power who fear the same victimhood. He didn’t do it deliberately, which importantly distinguishes him from any huckster who does, but these things happen.
These things happen because everyone has a stake in “identity politics” — or better, everyone has a stake in the role identity plays in politics. You can’t do politics without identity, for better — and for worse. Those on the right who struggle to come to terms with this have become the right’s much-mocked, much-maligned “pearl clutchers”, which seems a bit unfair: if your whole political identity was shaped around Identity Politics Is Evil And Must Be Stamped Out, coming to terms with “it can’t be stamped out” is tough.
Still, empathy for right-wing populism requires empathy for identity politics, and once that empathy is formed, it can make it easier to see the other guys’ identity politics in a less judgmental light.
I try to relate to this but I find it difficult. I can remember and describe living conditions of my childhood(austere) while I was growing up but I never can recall having any sense of being required to work any harder than anyone else or sacrificing anything. I don’t think I ever worked anywhere near as hard as I could have. I don’t remember ever thinking someone else had something of value that I should have. I don’t recall ever thinking about others’ workplace performance in terms of ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, or religion. Almost any critical commentary I spew regarding individuals today, if comparative at all with my own life experience, will be about how easy things are today having so much just handed over, not about how hard I had to work and the sacrifices I made, which were not. Do you realize how much value is dispense to receivers who have expended no effort at all?
Redemption is in a different category, I’ll hold off on that.
The First Amendment states:
Note the bolded words.
So our own U.S. Constitution is encouraging people to play the victim. Maybe we should quit worrying about victimology as a general, abstract concept, and instead address the merits of each grievance and proposed redress.