> In creating an us-vs-them mentality I think Paul may inadvertently be adding to the actual biggest problem in civilized discourse these days — weaponized victimization and othering.
It's just plain old tribalist hypocrisy: people Graham agrees with are encouraged to weaponize their victimization, while people he disagrees with are denied. First-degree intolerance (including but not limited to "x-ism") is acceptable in any amount, second-degree intolerance (intolerance of intolerance) is verboten.
I think it's the part where a promotion of weaponization is claimed. I'm not seeing that either.
Is it weaponization of victimhood to disagree, and warn others of the hallmarks of a problematic position?
I don't think anyone was confused about who the 'us' and 'them' are. Every group casts a shadow, so it's hard to talk about a 'they' without there being an 'us'.
The weaponized victimhood is used browbeat critics and to ensure that whatever "x-ist" phenomenon someone may be speaking out persists unchallenged. "Xs are the real x-ists, and truth-telling heretics are the heros".
The degrees are more a matter of perspective than fact, though.
Christians consider Satanists the intolerant ones and vice-versa. Both can be claimed to be voluntary association, but if one isn't a choice, then neither is the other.
It's just plain old tribalist hypocrisy: people Graham agrees with are encouraged to weaponize their victimization, while people he disagrees with are denied. First-degree intolerance (including but not limited to "x-ism") is acceptable in any amount, second-degree intolerance (intolerance of intolerance) is verboten.