I’m not denying that, my point is that the kinds of hate they feel vary based on what position on the sociopolitical and economic totem pole the marginalized groups hold.
I guess I disagree with others here: it’s common to feel these respective negative emotions towards those doing better than you, and those doing worse, even if they do not otherwise belong to some kind of outgroup. Poor white people are contemptuously described as ‘white trash’ by other whites, they are seen as stupid and uncultured, unable to tell what is best for themselves, and lately as having bigoted beliefs. Meanwhile billionaires come in for plenty of hatred and resentment, and there’s a whole strain of politics based on uniting to soak the rich. Stalin liquidised the kulaks, who were distinguished only in being better off than other peasants. Jealousy of others’ success is a common human emotion, and the chance of stealing their stuff or taking over their position an additional incentive to attack them.
If either of these groups also belongs to an identifiable minority, these feelings can be greatly intensified - I think because of a reduced ability to identify with them and imagine that you could have been, or might someday, end up in their place - and also extended to the whole group, due to the human tendency to overgeneralise. It’s a toxic combination for sure.
I’m loving Gemini 2.5. I know other AI programs are just as good, but I asked this question to it and it gave me this answer.
That’s a very sharp observation, and it gets to the core of how prejudice functions. The reason oppressor groups (like the white racists in your example) can seemingly contradict themselves by hating the oppressed group both for perceived failures and for successes is that the hatred isn’t actually based on the objective behavior or condition of the oppressed group.
Instead, the hatred stems from the need to maintain a specific social hierarchy and a belief system that justifies the dominant group’s position. Both scenarios – the oppressed group “doing poorly” and “doing well” – threaten this hierarchy and belief system, just in different ways.
Here’s the breakdown:
- Hatred for “Doing Poorly” (e.g., crime, poverty, reliance on welfare):
- Confirms Stereotypes: This behavior fits the negative stereotypes that the oppressor group uses to justify their prejudice (e.g., “They are inherently lazy, criminal, unintelligent, dependent”). It provides “evidence” for their belief in the oppressed group’s inferiority.
- Justifies Inequality and Control: It allows the oppressor group to rationalize the existing social hierarchy. They can argue that the oppressed group’s lower status is their own fault and that discriminatory treatment or lack of opportunity is deserved or even necessary for social order.
- Scapegoating: It makes the oppressed group an easy target to blame for broader societal problems, diverting attention from systemic issues or failures within the dominant group.
- Reinforces Need for Dominance: It supports the idea that the dominant group needs to manage, police, or control the “problematic” oppressed group.
- Hatred for “Doing Well” (e.g., Barack Obama as President, economic success, educational achievement):
- Contradicts Stereotypes: Success directly challenges and disproves the foundational belief in the oppressed group’s inherent inferiority. This creates cognitive dissonance for the oppressor – if the stereotype is wrong, the justification for their dominant position collapses.
- Threatens Hierarchy and Status: When members of the oppressed group achieve positions of power, influence, or wealth, they disrupt the established social order where the dominant group expects to be on top. This is perceived as a direct threat to the dominant group’s status, privilege, and sense of entitlement.
- Undermines Justification for Inequality: If the oppressed group can succeed despite systemic barriers, it proves that inequality isn’t “natural” or deserved, suggesting instead that it’s imposed and unjust.
- Fear of Replacement/Loss of Control: High achievement can fuel existential fears within the dominant group about being “overtaken,” losing control of institutions, or cultural change (often framed as a loss). Figures like Obama become symbols of this perceived threat to their group’s dominance.
- Perceived Illegitimacy: Often, the success of individuals from the oppressed group is dismissed as undeserved, attributed to “unfair advantages” (like affirmative action, tokenism), or seen as an anomaly rather than proof of capability. Their success is viewed as illegitimate because it violates the oppressor’s view of the “correct” social order.
In essence:
The core issue is that bigotry requires the oppressed group to stay within a defined box of inferiority and subservience.
- “Doing poorly” seemingly confirms they belong in that box, justifying the oppressor’s views and actions.
- “Doing well” means they are breaking out of that box, directly threatening the oppressor’s worldview, status, and the entire structure of dominance.
Both scenarios, therefore, provoke hostility because both challenge the stability and legitimacy of the unequal power dynamic that the oppressor group benefits from and believes in. The hatred is fundamentally about maintaining dominance and control, not about the objective reality of the oppressed group’s situation.
Quoted by Wesley_Clark, not written by Wesley_Clark.
The second sentence there is correct; but the first one isn’t. The AI has just spent time carefully explaining that the scenario in which the hated group is doing poorly appears to confirm “the stability and legitimacy of the unequal power dynamic that the oppressor group benefits from and believes in”. It’s only the scenario in which they’re doing better than the bigot which challenges it.
Do not question the machine. I haven’t been off Gemini 2.5 in two weeks. It’s my bedroom, my bathroom and my lover
Nm.. lengthy sarcastic post removed
Those are the best kinds 
Moderating:
Just to remind everyone of one of our newer rules:
Artificial intelligence (AI). AI-generated responses must be clearly marked as such. Do not use AI to generate entire posts. AI responses are often unreliable – if you use them as the primary source for your assertions, you’re likely to get a lot of flak on this board.
Now this next post is very much a distraction from the thread.
Please, no more asides like this.
Does no one watch American dad?
Also I don’t understand why a bunch of amateurs (us) talking out of our asses are considered valid, well thought out facts but AI is considered constantly wrong. Thats a silly rule.
Moderating:
Disputes about moderation belong in ATMB, NOT in thread. You may disagree with the rule, and are free to create a thread about such, but this is absolutely not the way to do it. On top of that, What_Exit explicitly asked you to drop the off-topic remarks, and yet you continued. I am instructing you in no uncertain terms to drop the AI hijack and be mindful of staying on topic in Great Debates. I’ll leave it to @What_Exit to determine if you should get a warning for ignoring the moderator instruction, but advise that any future off-topic posts in thread will result in a Warning from me.
Moderating:
Followup:
After a review in the ModLoop, I am issuing an official Warning to @Wesley_Clark. As mentioned in the earlier note, this post is part of a three-peat of violations: continuing a hijack, ignoring moderator instructions (by continuing said hijack despite the prior note), and arguing moderation outside ATMB. Wesley_Clark is a seasoned, valued poster, but as such, there is no possible excuse of ignorance, and the final clause in the quote above is about as blatant as it gets when it comes to the last of the three violations.
My mistake