The left spends a good bit of time and effort into creating new words and phrases to make their opponents seem like horrible people. Funny enough, this was recently pointed out by none other than Dave Chappelle who noted that LGBT activists like to create new words and phrases to win arguments.

Now the left has created a new word specifically meant to make White Christians maintain their “bad guy” status in any given argument, even when the left is clearly in the wrong. As highlighted first by The Daily Wire, this buzzword is “digressive victimhood” or when people point out how they’re the victims in a given situation when leftist groups come for them.

It’s a word created by (surprise, surprise) University professors from various places like UCLA and the University College London who wrote:

We show that members of dominant groups endorse digressive victimhood claims more strongly than conventional competitive victimhood claims (i.e., ones that claim “reverse discrimination”). Additionally, accounting for the fact that these claims may also stand to benefit a wider range of people and appeal to more abstract principles, we show that this preference is driven by the perception that digressive victimhood claims are more effective at silencing further criticism from the non-dominant group. 

Underscoring that these claims may be used strategically, we observed that individuals high in outgroup prejudice were willing to express a positive endorsement of the digressive victimhood claims even when they did not fully support the principle they claimed to be defending (e.g., freedom of religion or speech).

In other words, if an American Christian is being labeled as a homophobe for not providing a service to LGBT clients that goes against his religious beliefs and points out that he’s being forced to act against his beliefs in a clear violation of religious freedom (the “bake the cake” scenario being a solid example), the left believes this is an attempt at changing the subject to take attention off the accusation.

Addressing the accusation of homophobia directly is being called “competitive victimhood,” but is a losing battle for the accused as the accused is already considered guilty in the court of public opinion. What they call “digressive victimhood” is the real threat, since it often points out that the accusers are guilty of the very thing they’re accusing others of.

But all these fancy new titles and phrases for things are just another cover for a simple fact. It’s another leftist “Kafka trap.”

A Kafka trap is simple. Accuse someone of something and then when they inevitably deny being guilty, use that denial of guilt as proof that the accusation is true. It looks a lot like this:

“You’re a racist!”

“No, I’m not a racist at all!”

“Aha! People guilty of racism always deny they’re racists!”

This is an attempt to put the burden of proof on the accused, and in the court of public opinion, this is a very tough spot to get out of.

“Digressive victimhood” suggests that the accused is trying to change the subject in order to avoid having to answer the accusation, suggesting in itself that the person knows they are guilty and doesn’t want to make the situation about their supposed guilt.

This is clearly a roundabout attempt at implementing a Kafka trap, and making those they accuse guilty until proven innocent in the court of public opinion.