Racist vs. Sadist

My objection to the use of “racism” to define attacks on people as a response to the color of their skin or some other superficial characteristic is based on my judgement that this assignment is an example of the “false attribution of authority.” Is there such a formal logical determination comparable to a “false attribution of agency”? At this point I do not know.

On the other hand, “false attribution of authority” might well be considered both as the foundation of authoritarianism and an example arrogation. And the arrogation of authority brings up the possibility that the “false attribution of agency” commonly referenced as accounting for the habit of blaming the victim, which, of course, is what a determination of “racism” does and why object to its use.

Truth is that many victims of irrational animus and aggression prefer to define what is visited on them as “racism.” They prefer to accept blame for the irrational behavior of others. Why? Because being in control of one’s fate as an initiator, though having no power to end the abuse, is better than making an admission of impotence? “I am offensive” is preferable to “I am impotent” even though both statements are false.

If accepting a false assignment of blame is better than perceiving oneself as impotent, then that is likely evidence of the psyche protecting itself because impotence is a threat to the organism’s survival. Pride rushes to the rescue.

A victim accepting blame for the unwarranted aggression towards him/her is a kind of arrogation, a verbal claim of ownership for which there is no material evidence, which is similar to the arrogation that is characteristic of both racism and sadism. If one views it from the perspective of both the victims and the perps. Then, if that is the case, the arrogation of blame is an appropriate counter to the arrogation of authority and, in effect, negates it.

I can see why the sadists are upset by what they call victimhood. The arrogation of blame blunts the effectiveness of their aggression. The victims are saying “you would not be able to do this, if I did not let you.” And, if we consider that the authoritarian sadists are acting out of insecurity in the first place, then this implicit giving of permission just increases their insecurity even more.

Turning the other cheek is really an aggressive act, when you come to think of it. Why do victims accept blame, even claim it, when they are not at fault? Because it blunts the effect of the assault.

Still, racists should more properly be classified as sadists, if only to signal that anyone or anything is likely to be their next victim, especially someone much weaker and more vulnerable.