The merits of being a victim

Post Reply New Topic

Are there any?

All the most prominent or fast-growing cultural and political identities/affiliations today seem to be defined by what their members/proponents believe they are a victim of, and not so much by concrete things that they actually have an affinity for, believe in, or advocate for.

Is this a new phenomenon? Or has it simply become more apparent recently? Have other significant periods in history featured the same trend?

Or am I actually just misperceiving things?

The merits of being a victim: Are there any?

Yes, cuz he (or she) who whines loudest, gets what he wants!!

It's sort-of a new phenomenon, of recent years----but, then again, as the years go-by, more people are compelled to jump on the "Hey----why can't WE have.....?" bandwagon, because they see that it brings results----AND, it's more apparent, lately, cuz the MSM just LOVES whiners; it gets people all worked-up, and they make money (by selling ads).

I'm thinking it's possible that every generation / decade has their own "flavor of the month", so-to-speak----but, those generations / decades-gone-by didn't have the instant info. capability, that we now have (ie, Fb, Instagram, etc., etc.).

No, I think you're perceiving things, right-on!!

Yep. Victimhood is more popular than logic in today's world. Live with it.

The victim card is a useful manipulation tool that you can use to get what you want. Sometimes it works. Other times, it doesn't. You need to learn when, where and how to use it to your advantage.

I don't see myself as a victim. I just see myself as an opportunistic egoist who sometimes uses the victim card when it is guaranteed to work.

Manipulating people is an important thing to learn. You can't survive in the modern world without this skill.

The MSM only likes certain kinds of whiners.

The MSM isn't fond of those who expose corporate corruption. This is understandable because the MSM is funded by corrupt corporate executives who want to secure their position of power.

Of course, the MSM is okay with people who perpetually bicker over racial/sexual/religious feuds. Anything that draws attention away from class struggle is good for them.

Outside groups have always been around and they've always hated the majority dictating terms, over the last 20 years the internet has given those groups a voice and a tool to mobilize. It's not that it's anything new, it's just that it's the first time you're hearing about it since said groups had no mode to get their message out before internet communication. LGBT peoples didn't just pop up out of thin air and start complaining about their social status, they've always been here, but this is the first time in human history they've had the ability to voice their opinion and mobilize. Same with autistics, we existed well before the term ever existed, and now we're able to congregate and communicate with each other over the internet.

As for complaining about being a victim of the power base, that's been a staple of minority politics since politics existed. *minority being used in the political sense, not demographic sense. Victim is a good flag to plant if you're in the minority, it tends to draw other groups in the minority together in the form of coalitions, and if there are enough minority parties willing to join said coalition it may be enough to counter-balance or even overwrite a mere plurality that holds power. It transcends left/right politics and falls squarely in the realm of political strategy.

There are NO "merits" to being a (true) victim. None whatsoever. How could there be?

"He or she who whines the loudest gets what they want" - Campin Cat

Those people are just stupid, spoiled, whiny brats who don't want to grow up. Infantile college kids with rich parents who seem to think that doing a course in "How to self-flagellate if you are a privileged White Male" will lead to anything other than permanent unemployability.

To be fair ... many of them do get a job at Buzzfeed.

I could never get into that though. I naturally think outside the box. I can't help it. It's like a mental disorder.

I look at things in a new way because I just can't force myself into someone else's reality tunnel.

Are all the "victims" combined still the minority though? Is the use of victimhood even limited to the (self-identified) underprivileged? Increasingly it seems to be taken as normal and as "a fact of nature" that you can only ever be either defensive or paranoid (even if people use other words instead). And the paranoid are essentially "victims" just as much the defensive.

I see. A challenge .

I'm just being realistic here. There is no deeper "meaning of life". We just chase our desires. That's all.

Of course, you shouldn't listen to the Objectivists. Capitalism will only help you if you are already rich.

I listen to everyone. I just don't necessarily give much credence to what they say .

Yes, or they'd have political power and the opposition would be planting the victim card.


As I said earlier I'm using minorities in a political sense (parties not in power are a minority those in power are the majority), not a demographic sense. In that sense, yes those in power will be paranoid about those attempting to gain it, and those out of power will be defensive to avoid losing more, or possibly gaining if the majority over pursues. It's merely the nature of power and politics.

Then everyone is playing the victim card, and it's just different bogeymen. It is the nature of power and politics, but is it merely the nature of power and politics?

Remember that I didn't just say "politics" in the OP. I also said "culture". These things seem to be bleeding from plain old political rhetoric into everyday attitudes and beliefs all across the board way more than what I'm used to as "normal". People are identifying with politics more often, very much out of context most of the time.

Or is it just that "the everyday" has been getting more exposure through the internet, amplifying the same noise that was there all along? Chicken and egg, maybe?

Well, I agree politics is involved in base culture more so than it was say 20 years ago. When a political entity (nation/state/etc) is in decline the population tends to get more involved in politics. There's an old political adage: the people don't tell you when things are going great, but they sure do tell you when things are going bad. All that said, I do believe the internet has had a huge impact on the politics they're exposed to. You and I are an example of this, right here, right now. 20 years ago we'd never meet and my entire political discourse would be opinions of my neighbors, family, friends, and mass media, but now they're influenced by discussions with people literally half a world away. That's another aspect (not on topic, but still interesting): politics has turned from a national endeavor to an international endeavor. Parties from multiple countries now influence each other. There's a political mindset that connects say the Brexiters in Britain to the Trumpers in the US, and the Clintonistas in the US to the Macronists in France. Politics is turning global, just as everything else.

Very much on-topic, actually. It's one of the main reasons why I'm even asking about it here. American politics are a very odd beast, and I think most everyone most everywhere will agree with me on that. But then how come you see striking parallels happening simultaneously in other places? It's not that people are copycats, even if it may be a factor. It's something else. There's a sort of invisible ether that propagates those things as if they're coming our of nowhere when they reach their next destination.

Political and social reactionaries certainly think they can gain something by playing the victim card. Especially with claims that they're being excluded from jobs due to Affirmative Action, or that gay marriage somehow hurts their marriages, or that laws protecting trans people will lead to little girls being raped in public restrooms. These are the people who cry that white men are now the most discriminated group in America.