Man of Ethics
Gold Member
- Feb 28, 2021
- 4,682
- 2,134
- 248
Injustice, Inequality, and Oppression are not new phenomena. They have been a part of most Societies throughout History. White Supremacy, Racism, and anti-Semitism have been acceptable for centuries and up to very recent times. These phenomena lead to enormous atrocities.
In this nanoessay, we discuss the concepts of Punching Up and Punching Down. In the language of Social Justice, "Punching Down" is an act of oppressor making fun or insulting the oppressed. "Punching Up" is an act of oppressed making fun or insulting the oppressor.
Even though "Punching Up" and "Punching Down" both consist of verbal punching, these two actions are treated very differently. "Punching Up" carries much worse consequences then "Punching Down". This is true for an egalitarian society and it is much more so for an oppressive society. An egalitarian society contains neither oppressors nor oppressed, yet there is still some subordination. For instance, a boss is allowed to reprimand a subordinate, while an employee reprimanding his/her boss is likely to be fired. A forum, subreddit, or a Facebook group user who insults a moderator is likely to be banned. Some forums have very little tolerance for disagreement, yet this is a subject for another time.
In a Society based on Oppression and severe subordination, the Oppressed who insults the Oppressor in any way suffers severe consequences. In extreme cases, the Oppressed is not allowed to voice his grievances against the Oppressor or to criticize the Oppressor in any way. The Oppressor is allowed to subject the Oppressed to limitless Verbal Abuse and in some cases to Physical Abuse as well. Even in moderately egalitarian workplaces a boss may be allowed to yell at an under-performing worker.
Every rule has exceptions. For instance an unpopular President may be criticized by those who have no direct contact with him. In some cases genuine victims may be beyond criticism. Nevertheless, these exceptions are very rare. No Oppressor would allow the Oppressed to regularly insult him/her to his/her face.
At this point we address an odd theory which is popular in some Social Justice circles. According to this theory, "Punching Down" carries much worse social sanctions then "Punching Up". The Oppressed is allowed to insult the Oppressor at will, while the Oppressor will face severe sanctions for slightest Microaggression. In this theory, the Oppressor is not allowed to complain about actions of the Oppressed in any way, otherwise the Oppressor will face severe sanctions.
Several tweets show the absurdity of Inverted Reality presented in aforementioned theory. Eccentric Hat: "An Oppressor, who can be silenced by the mere accusation of being an Oppressor is not an Oppressor." Potiphar C: "An Oppressor whom you can hate loudly and vocally, but who can't hate you back loudly and vocally, is not an Oppressor." simension: "An Oppressor that has no voice is not an Oppressor."
Even though the picture of Inverted Reality is absurd at face value it can serve an important purpose to those who promote it. The vast majority of modern people value Equality. In a situation where someone who is an obvious Oppressor is abusing someone obviously Oppressed, the vast majority of people will side with the Oppressed. This presents a problem for any Oppressor in Modern Society.
Unfortunately the problem has a solution called DARVO. It means Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. If the Oppressor has a lot of Platforms from which to malign the Oppressed, while the Oppressed is not allowed to protest, the Oppressed may seem to be the Oppressor. This would make DARVO a working strategy on behalf of the Oppressor.
To illustrate my point, I will describe a situation which happens tend of thousands of times per year in different parts of Modern Western World. Suppose, an abusive wife waits until her husband falls asleep and attacks him with a heavy object. In many cases, the husband is the one arrested and possibly prosecuted. On some level, he understands that he has been treated unfairly. But he also understands that if he claims to be a victim of discrimination, he may lose his career. He also understands that if he denies being the Privileged Oppressor, he may also lose his career. On some level he understands, that he is subject to Tyrannical rule. But he also understands that the Tyrants' orders must be obeyed without questions. **Even if the Tyrants order him to call himself a Privileged Oppressor, Tyrants' orders must be obeyed!** Unfortunately, in 9 cases out of 10 he will eventually see himself as a Privileged Oppressor. Moreover, he will see his wife's violence as justifiable violence of the Oppressed, rather then an act of abuse of power by a Tyrant.
In this nanoessay, we discuss the concepts of Punching Up and Punching Down. In the language of Social Justice, "Punching Down" is an act of oppressor making fun or insulting the oppressed. "Punching Up" is an act of oppressed making fun or insulting the oppressor.
Even though "Punching Up" and "Punching Down" both consist of verbal punching, these two actions are treated very differently. "Punching Up" carries much worse consequences then "Punching Down". This is true for an egalitarian society and it is much more so for an oppressive society. An egalitarian society contains neither oppressors nor oppressed, yet there is still some subordination. For instance, a boss is allowed to reprimand a subordinate, while an employee reprimanding his/her boss is likely to be fired. A forum, subreddit, or a Facebook group user who insults a moderator is likely to be banned. Some forums have very little tolerance for disagreement, yet this is a subject for another time.
In a Society based on Oppression and severe subordination, the Oppressed who insults the Oppressor in any way suffers severe consequences. In extreme cases, the Oppressed is not allowed to voice his grievances against the Oppressor or to criticize the Oppressor in any way. The Oppressor is allowed to subject the Oppressed to limitless Verbal Abuse and in some cases to Physical Abuse as well. Even in moderately egalitarian workplaces a boss may be allowed to yell at an under-performing worker.
Every rule has exceptions. For instance an unpopular President may be criticized by those who have no direct contact with him. In some cases genuine victims may be beyond criticism. Nevertheless, these exceptions are very rare. No Oppressor would allow the Oppressed to regularly insult him/her to his/her face.
At this point we address an odd theory which is popular in some Social Justice circles. According to this theory, "Punching Down" carries much worse social sanctions then "Punching Up". The Oppressed is allowed to insult the Oppressor at will, while the Oppressor will face severe sanctions for slightest Microaggression. In this theory, the Oppressor is not allowed to complain about actions of the Oppressed in any way, otherwise the Oppressor will face severe sanctions.
Several tweets show the absurdity of Inverted Reality presented in aforementioned theory. Eccentric Hat: "An Oppressor, who can be silenced by the mere accusation of being an Oppressor is not an Oppressor." Potiphar C: "An Oppressor whom you can hate loudly and vocally, but who can't hate you back loudly and vocally, is not an Oppressor." simension: "An Oppressor that has no voice is not an Oppressor."
Even though the picture of Inverted Reality is absurd at face value it can serve an important purpose to those who promote it. The vast majority of modern people value Equality. In a situation where someone who is an obvious Oppressor is abusing someone obviously Oppressed, the vast majority of people will side with the Oppressed. This presents a problem for any Oppressor in Modern Society.
Unfortunately the problem has a solution called DARVO. It means Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. If the Oppressor has a lot of Platforms from which to malign the Oppressed, while the Oppressed is not allowed to protest, the Oppressed may seem to be the Oppressor. This would make DARVO a working strategy on behalf of the Oppressor.
To illustrate my point, I will describe a situation which happens tend of thousands of times per year in different parts of Modern Western World. Suppose, an abusive wife waits until her husband falls asleep and attacks him with a heavy object. In many cases, the husband is the one arrested and possibly prosecuted. On some level, he understands that he has been treated unfairly. But he also understands that if he claims to be a victim of discrimination, he may lose his career. He also understands that if he denies being the Privileged Oppressor, he may also lose his career. On some level he understands, that he is subject to Tyrannical rule. But he also understands that the Tyrants' orders must be obeyed without questions. **Even if the Tyrants order him to call himself a Privileged Oppressor, Tyrants' orders must be obeyed!** Unfortunately, in 9 cases out of 10 he will eventually see himself as a Privileged Oppressor. Moreover, he will see his wife's violence as justifiable violence of the Oppressed, rather then an act of abuse of power by a Tyrant.
