The merits of being a victim

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah, I know what you're saying----but, I believe-in that saying: "What doesn't kill us, makes us stronger". I mean, take Elizabeth Smart and Jaycee Dugard, for instance----I have been AMAZED at the strength, decorum, and maturity, etc., of those girls.

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


Yep----I agree!!

If that's the case then I would rather not "survive in the modern world". It's just not something that I could ever do, even if I actually had the necessary "skills" (which I don't). Some things are just wrong, and this is one of those things.

I think the victim card players rely heavily on duping bleeding heart liberals. The only question is who's/what's next? Because there's still room on the bandwagon.

Everyone from Nixon, to Reagan, to Trump and company certainly weren't bleeding heart liberals when they took advantage of complaints by whites who resented having to share equality with non-whites, and so claimed to be victims.

Excluding of course white females, white lgbt, white liberals and so on until it's narrowed down to white conservative males. My dad had to attend some madatory workplace lecture and that's what was confirmed. White male conservative equals victimizer and everyone else equals victim.

And yet it's ridiculous for white male conservatives to think anyone bears them any ill will or wants to eliminate them.

Meanwhile the types of deverse victim cards keeps expanding. I think the kind of people you as a person of your generation wouldn't want incuded on the liberal protection bandwagon, are going to end up on it soon enough. But hey that's progress.

That's the whole thing, though. Those white conservatives who believe someone else has it out for them in reality don't want to share equality with out groups, as those said white conservatives have convinced themselves that allowing others equal status will only diminish their's.

What I'm talking about is leftist swj whatever determination that if you're a white male, who's not a liberal, you are a victimizer, you're a fascist, your kind needs to go.

Meanwhile the left continues inviting more and more victim card players onto their bandwagon.

So who/what is next?

A victim has more rights than the abuser or a neutral party.
Of course it has merits. And it has been exploited to a point that one focuses more on their perceived victimhood rather than their individual circumstances or any substantial merits, contributions and achievements.

People are getting into university and professional establishments on the idea of victimhood and ratios alone.
I don't know...but say if a fellow white person was promoted higher than me for some new sort of victimhood card rather than the work they did for a company, I'd be pretty pissed at that. It's the equivalent of special treatment, not equal treatment. It's insulting to me and I would hope if the other person was of good character, they would feel it is undermining them and their abilities to get their on their own.

EDIT: Why I use the above example; people seem focused on people being racially diverse from one another and how this applies to the topic or their points. I wanted to give an example that was hypothetically about people of the same race or gender to allow for some introspection.

There's never any merit to being a victim, even if one "benefits" from it.

I don't like many conservative viewpoints. I have conservative friends. Some liberals are so sanctimonious, it's ridiculous. But I do believe in some liberal ideas. I believe everybody should get a fair shake.

All this political correctness has got to go.

If you're a healthcare worker, and somebody makes an allegation against you, you're suspended without pay BEFORE the hearing. Guilty until proven innocent.

I have never benefited from being a victim.

Except for the ones who rely heavily on duping poor conservatives...and gaining at least minor approval from people like neo-nazis who like some of the alt right rhetoric.

I have a thought on this subject:

"Is a widespread adoption of forms of victimhood a natural consequence of generalized complacency? And is generalized complacency, in turn, a natural consequence of prosperity?"

On a large-society scale, is prosperity possible without complacency as a consequence?

Yeah it certainly doesn't help things, I mean if you truly have been a victim of something nothing really makes up for it. Even if you are able to influence some political change or get something you 'want' out of it after the fact....the trauma and/or harm is still there for you.

I mean as kind of a basic example I don't drive so much of the time I am a pedestrian..and some people don't like to acknowledge when there is a cross walk sign on at a cross walk and such, so I have almost been hit more than once. Now imagine if someone did hit me, I end up in the hospital with some terrible injury that will never quite heal up right like maybe I'm stuck with a bad limp forever or chronic pain. Sure perhaps I'd get some compensation if I am able to sue the person who hit me or whatever...but that wouldn't fix my injuries I'd have to keep those for the rest of my life. Or if I was killed no amount of compensation would bring me back to the people who care about me.

It's very hard to feel prosperous, and not want to "just relax" (i.e., be complacent).

When I retire, I have every intention of offsetting the complacency by traveling the world.

Is it not possible though for society to have structures (formal or informal) in place to prevent individual complacency from becoming systemic? This is what I'm wondering.

Crises happen, it's inevitable. But it's the assumption that prosperity is self-sustaining that allows crises to become chronic or generalized. (It can be social crises, but it can be personal ones too, the principle is the same.) Still it doesn't necessarily mean everyone has to be prepared for everything all the time. That's what specialization is for, after all (which is the whole reason why society as it is even exists). It's okay if lots of people are complacent (assuming that they actually can afford to be complacent in their individual lives), as long as the social system that they're part of is taking that into account.

But then, is human society realistically capable of conciliating prosperity and preparedness? I really don't know.

I feel most of us have a "survival instinct" which prevents us from becoming too complacent.