In my initial post dissecting Progressive fallacies, I spoke about how Progressive's believe the modern world was inevitable; that the methodology can be criticized, because had we allowed those oppressed to be in positions of leadership and authority, we would have the same results (or better). This line of thinking makes it easy to disrespect our ancestors, and the people who contributed to the world we enjoy today. This is why I drew the analogy of the modern progressive sitting on a pile of infinite corpses, holding an iPhone and tweeting about the stench.

The next step in Progressive logic is to believe that the perceived oppressed class is made inherently moral through their experiences of being powerless; in other words, only the powerful are capable of evil. Theoretically, if the roles were reversed, or that dynamic was never in place at all, there would be no oppression.

I have a big, fat, gross friend who perpetually carries the appearance of being oppressed/bullied/unfortunate. People go out of their way to be nice to her because women are sympathetic (and she shamelessly uses Ugly Girl Game). People assume that she has been bullied, or certainly dealt an "unfair hand" by life, and treat her like she's a humble and nice person because of it.

That is the modern understanding of those bullied or otherwise unfortunate.

The thing with that is, I know her, and I can tell you that she's a tremendous asshole because of the "unfair hand" life has dealt her. This is the reality of those bullied. Yeah, okay, it's sad... I understand that having a hard life is hard, but the reality of the matter is that it creates a dynamic of incredible anger, entitlement, and a feeling of resentment toward the normals. Yes, the facade of humility is necessary here... but under it resides a damaged, ugly person.

True kindness stems from a position of security and power; feeling an obligation to be "nice" comes from a place of weakness. If I were to bet on who is a more genuinely moral person, an attractive and successful man or a woman who feels she's been dealt an "unfair hand," my money is on the successful man.

Of course, in our world of Social Justice, the opposite needs to be understood as true and a successful male will "undoubtedly abuse his power" and those bullied "only want a fair shake."

To look at this dynamic on the global stage, we are taught to believe British Colonialism was morally corrupt, and exploitative. The Progressive read on British Colonialism is that it was slavery. In fact, the same fat friend and I were talking about it, and she made the very telling comment that Colonialism was just "rich white men raping the world."

That's the real heart of the problem here, but we'll save that for another installment.

Basically, the British felt some kind of moral obligation to civilize the uncivilized world- and, yes, they certainly gained from it also but to pretend that it was entirely exploitative is missing a major part of the story. When the Brit's left Africa, the life expectancy of the natives had gone up something like thirty years.

I'm not an expert, but Stefan Molyneux did a fantastic video explaining this dynamic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGERS905pPk

In summation, the Progressive playbook is: Power = morally backrupt, Lack of Power = victim = inherently moral.

This is why there is a victim hierarchy; the greater degree of which you've suffered victimhood directly equates to the greater degree of morality you possess. If people believe you're wonderful, you'll never receive criticism and you'll be granted the greatest degree of social power.

Circling back to my big fat friend, people treat her very kindly; people are quick to socially include her; people are quick to laugh at her jokes. She brags about how she tells people the truth when they come to her with their problems; that she does not play the bullshit female rationalization game with them- she even wonders why people let her "get away with" that kind of behavior, of course assuming that her opinion is so valuable and that she's so respected that she is able to "stop being polite and start getting real" with people; of course, she expects to never be treated similarly.

I used to react to her like everyone else, when she'd get nasty with me I'd make excuses about how she's "just pathetic and sad," and because of that "it's okay."

When I stopped doing that, and criticized her behavior, it outright shocked her! I'm willing to bet that no one has ever treated her that way in her entire life.

So when we assume that people lacking power, or dealt an "unfair hand" by life, are made inherently moral because of it and we also live in a world of Social Justice, we look to these "victims" and listen to their voices... What could right these wrongs?

When the victims are entire groups of people who have been equally dealt an "unfair hand," we look to them to try and architect a world of equality.

The first thing we do is ask them what constitutes outside groups treating them unfairly; what constitutes hating this group, and since these groups were made inherently moral due to their powerlessness, only wanting a true sense of equality, we allow them to define the parameters of what constitutes hate.

So we get words like racist, misogynist, homophobic/transphobic/pedophobic*, and anti-Semitic... and because these groups must be seen moral, we allow their definitions to stand unchallenged.

Fast forward, and we have Anita Sarkeesian complaining to the UN about being called a liar on the internet.

*coming soon