Dominant groups prefer abstract rights claims as a strategic silencing tactic

Evidence

In this research, however, we focus on testing the prediction that members of dominant groups prefer digressive over competitive victimhood claims because they are seen as more effective in silencing non-dominant groups, even controlling for the potential confounds of perceived differences in who these claims benefit and at which construal level they are operating. — Felix Danbold, Ivuoma N. Onyeador, and Miguel M. Unzueta, Dominant groups support digressive…, 29

Categorization

• SEED: This maps directly onto the reading purpose: the ‘digressive victimhood’ as a silencing strategy under threat is the vicarious-victimhood mechanism in action.
• XREF: connects to: Dominant groups counter bias accusations by claiming a distinct liberty is threatened — Felix Danbold, Ivuoma N. Onyeador, and Miguel M. Unzueta, Dominant groups support digressive…, 8; Dominant groups defend privilege through bounded ideological justifications; Dominant groups frame subordinate demands as illegitimate through principled defenses (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Individualism becomes a defense of the status quo by delegitimizing group-based demands #exemplifies (0.90)
• Dominants invoke individualism to defend the status quo against group-based equality demands. #exemplifies (0.90)
• Dominant groups frame subordinate demands as illegitimate through principled defenses #expands (0.85)
• The abstract universality of rights discourse enables its expansion to excluded groups #complicates (0.82) — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 228
• Dominant groups defend privilege through bounded ideological justifications #expands (0.78)
• Subordinate groups can challenge hegemony by invoking the dominant group’s own professed values #complicates (0.75)