#aggrieved entitlement

[profeminist]

Cartoon by https://www.instagram.com/vulgadrawings

AGGRIEVED ENTITLEMENT

looks like this:

[The single panel comic has a pink background. A white man with short brown hair wearing a white collared shirt and black pants is sitting on one end of a wide wooden bench. His arms are crossed and he is staring straight ahead, his legs splayed out to either side wider than his hips. To his right stands a woman with dark hair and brown skin wearing a green vest over a lilac long-sleeved shirt and black shirt. She is gesturing with one hand at the bench, smiling as she looks sideways at it.]

Woman: I THINK I DESERVE TO SIT ON THIS BENCH TOO!

[Below the first drawing, the woman is now sitting on the opposite end of the bench, her hands on her closed knees. She is looking sideways apprehensively at the man who has fallen onto the ground. His arms are flung out and he looks horrified.]

White man: OH MY GOD I'VE BEEN PUSHED OFF! THERE'S NO ROOM FOR ME ON [Underlined text.] MY [End underlined text.] BENCH ANYMORE!

See also: human conversation.

"Men perceived the discussion as being equal when women talked only 15% of the time, and the discussion as being dominated by women if they talked only 30% of the time."

[serial-unaliver]

Are proles who are fed up with bourgeoisie not also full of aggravated entitlement? How is aggravated entitlement not one of the driving emotional forces of any revolutionary mind once they're aware of their material conditions?

[rhaenin-time]

The changes the writers made to Alicent, Aemond, and Aegon have too many modern connotations and it disturbs me that so many people find those connotations "sympathetic."

[thisismyrocket]

cannot believe people are still putting those fucking posts on my dashboard in 2022. why the fuck do i have to see a 16 year old’s opinion on chronic life ruining mental illness? can you people fucking stop with that “i don’t care that it ruins your life, it makes me uncomfortable waaah” shit????

excellent idea, we can and should stop mentally ill people from hating themselves by shaming them for making people uncomfortable. if i see you in real life i’m going to make the most hateful self-deprecating joke i can possibly muster and you’ll fucking live, you worthless teenager.

i wonder how these people feel about personality disorders and schizo-spec conditions? i fucking wonder how these “neurodivergence activists”(read: autism and adhd activists) feel about people one rung lower on the ladder than them!

like its not as though i think i should be allowed to freak people out no consequence you idiots. im not claiming neurodivergent minor status. its just that if your reaction to me crumbling a little in front of you is this vindictive victim blaming exhausted anger, why the fuck should i make myself more presentable for the likes of you?

[liberalsarecool]

MAGA has an aggrieved entitlement addiction.

[spibbb]

venom is a love born from ugliness, monstrosity in a literal and moral sense. aggrieved entitlement borne from a lifetime of being hated for the crime of existing. their anger is a reclamation of power. their rage is nuclear destruction. they love revenge because it feels so fucking good to finally be the one doing the hurting. aren't you tired of being nice, don't you want to go apeshit.jpg

[hero-israel]

hi, fellow Jew here

what's antisemitic about the genocide claims? i've heard this a lot, and aside from being Horrific Misinformation, i don't... see why this is antisemitic? like it's bad and wrong but i don't know if it comes from Jew-hate if ykw i mean.

sorry, this could be a stupid question-

When it comes to Jewish institutions, all misinformation, false accusations, and conspiracy theories are inherently antisemitic. Charging Jews with "genocide" in these circumstances - when they are shooting back in a two-sided war, aimed at an armed group, taking steps to encourage and allow civilians to flee - requires a false accusation and a minimization / inversion of terms.

David Schraub:

"For thousands of years, for much of the world, part of the cultural patrimony enjoyed by all non-Jews—spiritual and secular, Church and Mosque, enlightenment and romantic, European and Middle Eastern—was the unquestionable right to stand superior over Jews. It was that right which the Holocaust took away, or at least called into question: the unthinking faith of knowing you were the more enlightened one, the spiritually purer one, the more rational one, the dispenser of morality rather than the object of it. To be sure, some people were better positioned to enjoy this right than others. And some people arrived onto the scene late in the game, only to discover that part of the bounty they were promised may no longer be on the table. Of course they’re aggrieved! The European immigrant who never owned a slave but was at least promised racial superiority is quite resentful when the wages of Whiteness stop being what they once were. Similarly, persons who lived far from the centers of Christian or Muslim power where Jewish subordination was forged are nonetheless well aware of what was supposed to be included in modernity’s gift basket. They recognize what they’ve “lost” as acutely as anyone else.

“The Germans,” the old saying goes, “will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz.” And not just the Germans. Many people deeply resent the Jews for what Auschwitz took away from them—the easy knowledge that their vantage point was elevated over and superior to that of the Jews, the entitlement to be able to talk about Jews without having to listen to Jews. The desire to neuter the Holocaust is a desire to return to that old state of affairs. And so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that Jews exhibit a special ferocity over the meaning of “genocide.” As noted above, the controversy of this MBL language has in large part played out in terms of whether it is even proper for Jews to register an objection. Are we valid contributors to the conversation? Are we equal players in this struggle? This is no coincidence. When people charge the Jewish state with genocide, part of what they are doing—with varying degrees of explicitness—is telling Jews “this concept which obliged us to listen to you no longer can underwrite that duty.” And in that brave old world, they can return to the baseline that had existed for thousands of years—where it was unthinkable, outrageous, blasphemous, for a Jew to have the temerity to contest a non-Jewish articulation of Jewish experience."

[musclesandhammering]

All of this. Her stans (and Wanda herself) always try to defend her by bringing up how she was dealt such a shit hand, but like….. bestie, name me one marvel hero who wasn’t dealt a shit hand lmao.

Post contains Multiverse of Madness spoilers

Just to make something clear:

If you love Wanda as a villian, then I understand. I love Black Jack Randall from the Outlander books because of how his twisted mind determines his actions.

What I don't understand are the people saying that Wanda is fundamentally innocent despite what she has done. She has made bad choices, knowing perfectly well those choices will hurt people.

That's not a hero.

Heroes can make bad decisions, but they always do thier best to rectify it. Tony Stark and Natasha Romanoff's entire charcter-arcs were based on that. Peter Parker sacrificed the world's memories of him. Even Loki redeemed himself in the end in his own way.

Wanda on the other hand, tends to need her arm twisted before she makes things better. She only turned against Ultron when she realised she was going to die too. It took Agatha showing her the pain she was putting the poor people of Westview through before Wanda let them go.

It was only when Wanda witnessed her "children" being terrified of her that she stopped her mass murdering tirade.

There's a common theme of her doing the right thing only after the bad actions stop being convenient for her. Yeah, the Darkhold corrupted her, but no one was putting a gun to her head to take the book and read it, were they?

I agree that Wanda had a terrible start to life and sacrificing Vision was a horrible ordeal. However...Thor lost everything too...did he start hurting people to deal with his grief? Many characters have had shit cards dealt for them and yet they don't take it out on others.

Grief does not justify violence. If literally any other character lashed out, they would be condemned. Wanda doesn't get a free pass.

[princeescaluswords]

The sense of aggrieved entitlement some Ste rek Shippers have is just beyond my comprehension. Derek breaks into Stiles's house in Wolf's Bane (1x08), pushes him up against the wall, threatens him with "If you say one word --" and then later on bounces Stiles's head off the Jeep's steering wheel.

Two episodes later, Stiles tries to convince Scott to let the Argents handle Derek with "Are you starting to see a pattern of violent behavior here?"

Derek hit kids. He hit kids a lot. And when he wasn't hitting kids, he had other kids hit kids. It may have all turned out okay in the end, but responding to accusations that he was abusive -- I don't use that term, I use 'bully' -- with the idea that 'Scott stans' are exaggerating is just .... unbelievable.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: I love Derek Hale's redemption arc, but to have a redemption arc, you had to have done something wrong in the first place. Using threats and physical force against Stiles and Scott is something he did wrong, and the show didn't pretend that it wasn't. Stiles didn't like Derek for a long time, and Scott didn't trust him, and Derek's resorting to violence as a first response is part of that.

Pretending that it was otherwise doesn't do your ship any favors.

[femsolid]

“Women’s conduct vis- à- vis men is taken unduly personally (by them and on their behalf, moreover). So women’s indifference becomes aversion; ignorance becomes ignoring; testimony becomes tattling; and asking becomes extortion.  Misogyny is narcissistic and delusional by its very nature. It transforms impersonal disappointments into embittered resentment— or a sense of “aggrieved entitlement,” to use sociologist Michael Kimmel’s term for it. And misogyny can also transform an agent’s relationships with women entirely unknown to him into intimate ones, imaginatively.

Women are often treated as interchangeable and representative of a certain type of woman. Because of this, women can be singled out and treated as representative targets, then standing in imaginatively for a large swathe of others. In many ways, this seems to be misogyny’s characteristic sentiment. It is punitive, resentful, and personal, but not particular. And the psychological targets of such attitudes may little resemble the actual victims. They are often instead directed toward a crude composite image of a woman pasted over the face of a real one. And since one woman can often serve as a stand-in or representative for a whole host of others in the misogynist imagination, almost any woman will be vulnerable to some form of misogynist hostility from some source or other.

If someone roughly like you will do as a scapegoat or a target, then you join the class of those subject to an atypical kind of crime: an act of retaliation taken against you by a total stranger, yet who hunted you down, specifically. It is not irrational to find this unsettling.”

- Down Girl: The logic of misogyny by Kate Manne

[serial-unaliver]

the amount of redditors like "as someone who escaped the alt right pipeline, here's the problem with the left" *writes out essay revealing a massive victim complex*...you did NOT escape the right i'm afraid 😭🙏 at the core of reactionary politics is aggrieved entitlement!

[commonsensecommentary]

“The whining of adolescents is far less forgivable when those entitled and insufferable children age into perpetually aggrieved adulthood.”

(From my blog archive)

[from-the-coffee-shop-in-edoras]

And what about Theodred and Eadlin who aren't in a relationship yet, but are interested in each other? (Sort of like Rosie Cotton and Sam Gamgee.) Theoretically, she's not Theodred's girlfriend yet. So, what would he do if someone was hitting on her?

In my fics, Théodred did a pretty effective job of sweeping her off her feet from the start (she kissed him at the end of their first meeting!). But if we say that things took a bit longer and there was a significant period where they were interested in each other but not together — I still think his first instinct when seeing another guy on the scene isn’t for anger or confrontation, which are never his go-to emotions. He would clock it right away, of course, because he’s observant overall and he’s going to be even more so where a lady he’s interested in is involved. But if he found himself feeling a little threatened by another man’s competing interest, I think he’d choose to focus his efforts on showing Eadlin why she should pick him rather than getting into it with the other guy or trying to get rid of the source of competition.

That means he’d double down on all of his own best traits — he’s kind, he’s interesting, he’s a good listener — and try to wow her in his own right. He’d be around as often as he could, he’d bring the most thoughtful gifts, he’d tell her things he wouldn’t usually share with others, he’d show genuine and deep interest in her life and her thoughts and feelings, he’d try to give her opportunities for things she wanted (always wished to see the Glittering Caves? Théodred can make that happen for you!). And of course he would try to be his most devastatingly handsome and suave in the process — extra care and attention to making sure his hair looks just right and his beard is always neatly trimmed and his clothes are flattering without being showy. In short, he’d just try to give her every reason to pick him by making himself the best possible choice and leaving the other guy in the dust. And when you’re the hot, rich, kind son of the king, that’s probably not so hard to do!

An actual confrontation is his last resort, and he’s not going there even if a woman picked someone else over him. He can accept defeat — he knows he’s not entitled to anyone’s affection — even if his feelings are hurt and he feels privately aggrieved. So he’s not going to square up with a guy at the tavern or wherever unless that’s necessary to protect Eadlin’s immediate interests (vs his own) — like, say, this other guy is hitting on Eadlin and she is clearly not into it and the guy is absolutely not getting the hint or backing down. Confrontation is his *last* choice but he’s not above choosing it when necessary and all other options have been exhausted!

[thisismyrocket]

i wish i knew how to phrase this like it lives in my head. just this incredible hair-pullingly frustrating thing.

people who haven't suffered the way i have, have absolutely so business expecting me to sound, think, or act like i'm not a broken person.

it's actually not my decision to act these ways, it's not my moral failing. it was humanity's choice to do this to me. but they can't accept that. anything to blame the victim.

but the ways they chide and admonish me for not being cheerful, hopeful, and friendly. they broke my legs and screamed at me for crawling instead of running like a good person should.

reminds me of the quote from this incels video: "you are, in effect, chadsplaining their oppression to them." but like, actual oppression dynamics. yknow trans/woman/disabled/insane/nonhuman/sexy, etc

[friendlymathematician]

since @myriadmidnightmusings blocked me for pointing out that he's a misogynist, i'll answer here:

you're not a feminist. case in point: the post i responded to, and this message.

boys are attracted to people like andrew tate because they're suffering from aggrieved entitlement and misogyny. women being nicer will not fix them. here's a suggestion: if you're concerned about boys, talk to them instead of spending your time policing women's words.

the rise in right wing youth is a problem, for everyone, but blaming it on women not being nicer when talking about rape makes you a misogynist: see point 1. the causes are many and varied, but misogyny is generally considered a key factor. and women being nice has never once stopped males from being vile misogynists, so i suggest looking for solutions beyond policing how women and girls write about rape if you are genuinely concerned.

see point 3; rising right-wing sentiments, misogyny, and violence against women are intrinsically linked. and blaming any of them on women not being nicer is, again, misogyny.

[carlando]

stayed out of it because i rather not spend hours looking at braincell destroying takes about such and such but generalizing and entire base of fans is a bad move, either side. i said it five years ago, i am saying it again now. stop putting people in the monochrome boxes of good and bad designated by who they are a fan of.

that being said, if you don’t think it unprofessional for charles to air his quote on quote grievances on international television and not in the team briefing, where they can sort it out and he can ask carlos himself: i genuinely can’t relate to you. if you’ve seen the tire data and the timestamps and the proof showing that what charles said happened, didn’t happen and you do not care, i know you couldn’t care less about anyone else. which is your right, as a fan.

and i can add, as a fan - you aren’t following the messiah, stop acting like you’re entitled to god’s green earth. he isn’t owed to be handed everything, you aren’t aggrieved like you feel you are and for fuck sake, he’s the one with a seat next year. i just can't understand the arrogance.