Leftist Grievance Poker

According to left-wing thinking, disputes over right and wrong are best determined not by examining facts and evidence but by studying the relative power of the parties involved.

This explains why leftists generally side with poor Palestinians over wealthy Israel, regardless of the history of their conflict, which overwhelmingly demonstrates Palestinian hostility. It also explains why leftists were so delighted with Julia Gillard’s absurd misogyny speech in 2012. To them, it wasn’t a venal exercise in political distraction; rather, it was a powerless woman (who just happened to be Prime Minister at the time) putting powerful male Tony Abbott in his place.

It’s all more than a little ridiculous, because arguments become subject to change depending on the identities of those in conflict. Gillard’s speech resonated with the left because she was denouncing a white western male. If she’d been addressing an impoverished Papua New Guinean tribesman, however, regardless of how he viewed women, Gillard would be seen as the more privileged of the two and therefore wrong…

h/t Marvin

  • dance…dancetotheradio

    The hierarchy of human rights is designed to render the privilege ladder down to only one rung.

    • Two rungs, the Grievance Mongers expect to be on top.

      • dance…dancetotheradio

        But, they always seem like bottoms to me.

  • If I understand things correctly, the “relative power” theory correlates to the concept of the underdog. The underdog has to have something endearing to it in order for it to have sympathy or support. Why sympathise with sandbags whose greatest wishes for their children are for them to be blown up?

    • No one said it was a sane theory;)

    • dance…dancetotheradio

      Tim Tebow is an underdog.

      • Yeah but he can play football. Palestinians think blowing up their offspring is a sound military strategy.