It looks as if two groups of liberals are gradually separating.
The group that is animated by minority issues and tends to think in terms of victims and injustice.
And the group that believes in the application of liberal bedrock principles such as speech freedoms, science, the reduction of gross inequalities and an economic balance between government and markets.
One lot of liberals is always jumping on the bandwagon of the latest perceived injustice.
The other lot is sceptical of victimisation and applies liberal standards equally to everyone.
There are numerous instances in which a different approach yields a different stance. Over, say, attitudes to Islam (application of core principles to everyone versus concerns about prejudice towards minorities), or police behaviour (proper application of law versus sense of minority victimhood).
Maybe everyone else saw this all along. For me, it is gradually revealing itself.
There are areas in common, of course. In some cases, an inequality needs to be addressed. Someone in authority does behave badly.
But I find myself on the other side of many issues where I am told I must be knee-jerk sympathetic to a person or group perceived to be a victim. In many cases, the cry victim model is just unhealthy posturing by grievance specialists. In some instances, the victim contributed to their own problem. It is always worth thinking whether a person is claiming victimhood for themselves as an act of aggression against another person, whose proper or reasonable reaction to difficult circumstances also wants consideration. For instance, you can't just assume that a police officer behaved badly. Sometimes he did what he had to.
| 
