[xXOpkillerXx]

I tend to agree with the argument that the more you emphasize the state of a victim, the more you create dependency and useless separation. However a few points seem to lack arguments there:

1. "they have fights in the playground, someone call em stupid, they fight, [...] that make you grow up". It is implied, following the logic that authorities should not be the ones to intervene in such scenarios (victim/agressor), that the kid should fight back and stand their ground. However, I would like to know what should then be done in cases of bullying, for example. What should be taught to the kids to minimize victimhood but to also maximize the support they get to become more able to defend themselves properly (defend as in take the right decision or reply in some way) ?

2. The "benefits" of victimhood aren't really well formulated at all there, he only says that straight white males benefit from it (for what I think are legit reasons). In the last years, some (LGBT relatively recently, blacks, etc) of the 6 mentionned groups of people have seen themselves more socially accepted (it being good or bad is another debate and I think irrelevant to my point). That being said, I think that part of the speech should be more detailed with definitions of what a benefit actually is in this context.


Overall, I agree with the premise that victimhood is more bad than good in terms of developping more robust/intellectual social interactions, but I fail to see any legitimate suggestion (say with numerical analysis of the situation/problem or just logical statements) to "improve" the situation. "Moderation (between victimhood and its opposite) is key" just seems obvious here, so it'd be great to hear some solutions too.

Nice video, nice thread, even though lmao at the many threads on similar topics you've made in such a short amount of time haha.