[kbenson]

> 1- The situation that you endured is a lot closer to the one that immigrants face which, although similar, has fundamental distinctions from the history of African-Americans in America.

I agree that there may be distinctions, but as a rebuttal, without outlining some of those differences there is no way to examine and/or agree with/rebut them.

> 2- If a _wealthy_person/male_ said "I think the biggest problem for _poor/female_ people in America isn't _rich/male_ privilege, but rather the victimhood mentality that many have..." I think that you'll see the inappropriateness of the statement. Which, I hasten to add, isn't just the particular criticism leveled, but also the identity doing the criticizing. I am hard pressed to think of a substitution that isn't fraught with baggage...

Which points towards a problem with the conversation, and actually supports the idea that a level argument is not being made by one side. If an argument can't be examined based on it's own merits rationally, but is immediately discounted based on the race, sex, sexuality, nationality or political leaning of the speaker, then that is a very good sign the argument itself is no longer rational. I have zero expectation that policies and their outcomes that come from an irrational argument will just, useful, or even end up as those arguing would expect.

In the end, whether the parent to your comment's views are correct or not makes no difference to the above. If we can't rationally discuss this topic without it devolving into name calling then it points towards something gone very, very wrong.

[raleec]

Thanks for furthering the discussion!

I'm not rebutting anything, so there isn't really a point to examine or agree with. I'm merely pointing out that the parent is conflating two different situations, perhaps without realizing it. If the parent, or you, believe that the two are the same, simply state so, and perhaps we can have that entirely different discussion... instead of threadjacking here.

You mention devolving into name calling, and it initially confused me, as I didn't see it in my statement. Then I realized that you must have meant the GP's usage of "victimhood mentality" which is clearly a pejorative and one of the reasons for my post.

Duly noted.

[kbenson]

Really, my comment was part asking for more information to continue the discussion (1), and part soap-box which was less a critique of what you said and more a critique of the broken social situation which has led to you commenting on the inappropriateness of a statement which you admit "isn't just the particular criticism leveled, but also the identity doing the criticizing." The name-calling I was referring to is actually more along the lines of calling someone entitled, not because "victimhood mentality" can't and isn't use pejoratively, but because in the current social context it's less likely to be dismissed as acceptable and or correct, while I think "entitled" may be dismissed as okay in exactly that way.

In other words, I think the social capital of this discussion is so heavily one-sided that it's having a negative impact on discourse for the majority of people.