Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Good_Egg]

The result is a belief that all dominant entities are bad and all underdogs are good, as though one's actions has no bearing on one's situation in life.

It's the cult of victimhood.

Victims cannot be in the wrong. Even if their actions would in other contexts be called evil, victimhood excuses everything.

Nobody actually admits to believing this; they just speak and act as if they did...

[Pattern-chaser]

It's the cult of victimhood.

Victims cannot be in the wrong. Even if their actions would in other contexts be called evil, victimhood excuses everything.

Nobody actually admits to believing this; they just speak and act as if they did...

A victim is someone who has been wronged. This doesn't mean they can't do wrong themselves, but only that they *are* victims*, and have, in some sense, been treated wrongly or unfairly. So, while victimhood doesn't give anyone a 'free pass', it does seem a little, er, callous to discuss it in terms of how victims may not deserve fair treatment, or even a fair hearing. Isn't this what is called "victim-blaming"?

[Lagayascienza]

The so called "cult of victimhood" is nonsense. I don't believe the poor and marginalized are poor and marginalised because they are all deficient on some way, or that they choose to call themselves victims to cover up for their own deficiencies. I think the opposite obtains. Most often they are poor and marginalised because of circumstances beyond their control. Billionaires, and their media lackeys like Murdoch, play the cult-of-victimhood-card to shift blame for societal ills from themselves. It's one of the tools they use to stifle the struggle by workers for better pay and conditions. If the factory workers in the US rustbelts or in Amazon warehouses think they should internalize this "cult of victimhood" trope, that it's their own fault, or the fault of immigrants or of a societal decline in Christian morals...whatever, if they think that they are to blame for their declining status and poverty, and that a shift to the political right will help them, and that the likes Trump and Bezos give a damn about their plight, then they are sorely mistaken. The primary concern of these billionaires is to further increase their wealth, and the power and prestige that their wealth brings. And with living as long as they possibly can to enjoy it. It is these billionaires and their media lackeys who would brainwash the masses into believing it is their own fault, and politicians who support the billionaires who are morally deficient.

[gad-fly]

Victims cannot be in the wrong. Even if their actions would in other contexts be called evil, victimhood excuses everything.

Do you mean that victims are above being wrong? What if a victim commits war crimes, murder, rape, and so on? Assuming some Lamas terrorist on October 7 are victims by virtue of their grandparents evicted from the holyland 75 years ago, such that they can earn the "victum" title, would you excuse them?

[Sy Borg]

Victims cannot be in the wrong. Even if their actions would in other contexts be called evil, victimhood excuses everything.

Do you mean that victims are above being wrong? What if a victim commits war crimes, murder, rape, and so on? Assuming some Lamas terrorist on October 7 are victims by virtue of their grandparents evicted from the holyland 75 years ago, such that they can earn the "victum" title, would you excuse them?

That is Good Egg's point.

He's voicing the attitude of those who misguidedly pander to those who choose to play the victim for benefits. It only encourages people to play the victim.

It is a psychologically harmful dynamic. The Karpman Drama Triangle, which is an adaptation of Bernes transactional analysis (from Wiki):

The Karpman drama triangle is a social model of human interaction proposed by Stephen B. Karpman. The triangle maps a type of destructive interaction that can occur among people in conflict. The drama triangle model is a tool used in psychotherapy, specifically transactional analysis. The triangle of actors in the drama are persecutors, victims, and rescuers.

Karpman described how in some cases these roles were not undertaken in an honest manner to resolve the presenting problem, but rather were used fluidly and switched between by the actors in a way that achieved unconscious goals and agendas. The outcome in such cases was that the actors would be left feeling justified and entrenched, but there would often be little or no change to the presenting problem, and other more fundamental problems giving rise to the situation remained unaddressed.

I have seen people play the victim for years, overplaying an injury, so as to maximise their workers comp claims. They invariably end up paranoid, disturbed and unhappy. When life kicks you in the head - and someone is to blame - we can either play the victim or deal with our situation as best we can, or a blend of each. Generally speaking, pressing forward will lead to more happiness than always referring back to the bad times.

[Good_Egg]

Do you mean that victims are above being wrong? What if a victim commits war crimes, murder, rape, and so on? Assuming some Lamas terrorist on October 7 are victims by virtue of their grandparents evicted from the holyland 75 years ago, such that they can earn the "victum" title, would you excuse them?

I wouldn't. I'm exposing this cult of victimhood - trying to shine some light on how it works. Not advocating it.

What I'm arguing for is that moral rules are universal.
That if you think terrorism - the deliberate targeting of civilians - is a greivous wrong, then it is a greivous wrong whoever does it.

And that's not callous, or victim-blaming. It's a philosophy that treats victims as morally adult, people responsible for their own actions.

Ii look at the current conflict and see the wrongs committed by Hamas as objectively worse than what Israel has done.

Whereas others appear to look at the current conflict, identify which side they think most victim-like, and conclude that those people are in the right whatever they now do. Because they have the label "victim".

I'm trying to gently suggest that such a philosophy is an inadequate approach that we should all just grow out of.

[Pattern-chaser]

[Good Egg]'s voicing the attitude of those who misguidedly pander to those who choose to play the victim for benefits. It only encourages people to play the victim.

That's reprehensible. In addition, there are the aggressors who play the victim to avoid criticism or punishment. That might even be worse.

What I'm arguing for is that moral rules are universal.
That if you think the deliberate targeting of civilians is a grievous wrong, then it is a grievous wrong whoever does it.

I cannot imagine an argument against this. If it's wrong today, it's wrong tomorrow; if it's wrong in Canada it's wrong in the Ukraine too. And so on.

[Sy Borg]

[Good Egg]'s voicing the attitude of those who misguidedly pander to those who choose to play the victim for benefits. It only encourages people to play the victim.

That's reprehensible. In addition, there are the aggressors who play the victim to avoid criticism or punishment. That might even be worse.

The benefits of victimhood know no boundaries. In context, however, if I was Jewish I would be afraid, possibly depressed, knowing what lay ahead. It would be disturbing to watch their society vigorously defend all groups from prejudice except for them. I wouldn't call that victimhood so much as societal PTSD.

Imagine the outcry if there was a protest march that included signs saying "Keep the world clean" with a picture of a black being put in a rubbish bin. Now consider the relative lack of outcry about signs saying "Keep the world clean" with a picture of a Star of David being put in a rubbish bin. Where was The Guardian in its fight against racism there? I guess Jewish skin isn't dark enough to qualify.

I see both Palestinian and Israeli people suffering from ideologically blinkered governance. The various leaders of Palestine have repeatedly failed to accept compromise solutions that would have hugely benefited their people because they see any compromise as lost face. Meanwhile, Sharron and Netanyahu have repeatedly failed to reign in their invasive settlers, presumably for fear of civil war, which has lead to all these decades of existential danger.

It's common in history for wars to be fought because each side has an extremist element that either attacks, or conducts raids into, their neighbours' territories. These extremists often operate away from main population centres as they push into vulnerable neighbouring territory, and they are aggressive and difficult for governments to control.

This dynamic has lead to the downfall of more than once society in the past - the many suffering through the actions of a culpable few, with an inability of the many to protect themselves from the extreme few. I have forgotten the details (old fart disease), but there was apparently a leader in the past (Roman?) who refused to help unruly invasive (Roman?) fringe groups, based on a utilitarian calculation. Why make many innocent (Roman?) citizens suffer to save a small number of selfish troublemakers?

Perhaps the answer in this war is for each side to stop fighting each other and to instead face theiir internal conflicts? In a sense, the endless war allows each side's leadership to avoid tackling problematic schisms in their own countries. Nothing heads off political trouble at home and unites people like war.

[Pattern-chaser]

...consider the relative lack of outcry about signs saying "Keep the world clean" with a picture of a Star of David being put in a rubbish bin.

That is religious discrimination, opposed by all right-minded people of all persuasions and beliefs. It is wrong in all circumstances.

This conflict is not between Jews and Moslems, it's between the geopolitical nations of Israel and Palestine. It is a nationalistic dispute.

Palestine has been occupied for 75 years, and Palestinian nationalists seek to recover their homeland. In their desperation, some of those willing to adopt more extreme measures to achieve this fired missiles at their captor's homeland. Then the world erupted with cries of "Terrorism!", without a thought for three generations of brutal and oppressive occupation and theft.

No, this is not one-sided; I cannot and will not condone killing innocents of any creed or nationality. But any reasonable person can understand the frustration that Palestinians must be enduring, can't they?

[Sy Borg]

...consider the relative lack of outcry about signs saying "Keep the world clean" with a picture of a Star of David being put in a rubbish bin.

That is religious discrimination, opposed by all right-minded people of all persuasions and beliefs. It is wrong in all circumstances.

People proudly marched by these signs. No one complained. There was no internal dissent.

Most protesters seem to strongly agree with a one-state solution and the re-scattering of the Jewish people .,. "from the river to the sea" ... chants of "Gas the Jews".

You might have a nuanced take on the situation but most of your political allies do not.

[Good_Egg]

I cannot and will not condone killing innocents of any creed or nationality. But any reasonable person can understand the frustration that Palestinians must be enduring, can't they?

Philosophically I ask, what does "condone" mean, here ?

We humans have hearts as well as minds. We can become emotionally invested in ideas. Maybe in order to act on an idea we have to have some emotion behind it; just thinking it true isn't enough ?

Suppose you meet someone who says that yes, technically speaking they agree that some act is morally wrong, but all their emotion is in favour of the perpetrator. They sympathize, they feel for the wrongdoer. They have zero emotional payoff from asserting their professed belief in the wrongness of the act. They advocate no punishment. Instead, the message they want to convey is how understandable how forgivable, the act is. They ask "Would we not do the same, in their situation?"

Is that not "condoning" ?

Frustration, sure. It's a horrible thing to do to a child - to bring them up to feel an entitlement to what they don't possess. To make re-fighting a battle that was lost three generations ago part of their identity, the story of their life. To raise them in hate for their supposed oppressor.

[Pattern-chaser]

...consider the relative lack of outcry about signs saying "Keep the world clean" with a picture of a Star of David being put in a rubbish bin.

That is religious discrimination, opposed by all right-minded people of all persuasions and beliefs. It is wrong in all circumstances.

People proudly marched by these signs. No one complained. There was no internal dissent.

Most protesters seem to strongly agree with a one-state solution and the re-scattering of the Jewish people .,. "from the river to the sea" ... chants of "Gas the Jews".

You might have a nuanced take on the situation but most of your political allies do not.

That is more than regrettable, if true. "From the river to the sea" simply describes the wish of the Palestinian people to reclaim their own homeland. Chants of "Gas the Jews" are not excusable, under any circumstances.

As we have discussed, this conflict is multi-facetted. There is no easy fix. I don't know how best to proceed, but I hope some sort of solution can be found. The only thing I'm reasonably sure about is that moves toward the extremes are counter-productive.

[Pattern-chaser]

I cannot and will not condone killing innocents of any creed or nationality. But any reasonable person can understand the frustration that Palestinians must be enduring, can't they?

Philosophically I ask, what does "condone" mean, here ?

We humans have hearts as well as minds. We can become emotionally invested in ideas. Maybe in order to act on an idea we have to have some emotion behind it; just thinking it true isn't enough ?

Suppose you meet someone who says that yes, technically speaking they agree that some act is morally wrong, but all their emotion is in favour of the perpetrator. They sympathize, they feel for the wrongdoer. They have zero emotional payoff from asserting their professed belief in the wrongness of the act. They advocate no punishment. Instead, the message they want to convey is how understandable how forgivable, the act is. They ask "Would we not do the same, in their situation?"

Is that not "condoning" ?

Frustration, sure. It's a horrible thing to do to a child - to bring them up to feel an entitlement to what they don't possess. To make re-fighting a battle that was lost three generations ago part of their identity, the story of their life. To raise them in hate for their supposed oppressor.

"Condone" means "Excuse, overlook, or make allowances for; be lenient with", according to my dictionary app. That seems about right. And yes, conviction or belief usually involves emotion. And yes, I think your description is correct, whereby one can sympathise with the situation the Palestinians find themselves in, even though one cannot approve of the atrocities committed by both sides in this conflict. I see no contradiction there. When I'm thinking about this, I do wonder if I, or any reasonable person, could or would do what has been done?

This situation has deteriorated over a long period, and the wrongs and the rights are hopelessly intertwined. I don't think it's possible to take a simple 'A is right and B is wrong' approach. I do sympathise with the Palestinians, and I don't condone or approve of the atrocities, any of them. This is not contradictory, I don't think, but only regretful and regrettable. This whole conflict is regrettable, but there is no one cause we can refer to, and even if there was, that cause happened long ago, and has been overlaid with what has happened since.

[Sy Borg]

...consider the relative lack of outcry about signs saying "Keep the world clean" with a picture of a Star of David being put in a rubbish bin.

That is religious discrimination, opposed by all right-minded people of all persuasions and beliefs. It is wrong in all circumstances.

People proudly marched by these signs. No one complained. There was no internal dissent.

Most protesters seem to strongly agree with a one-state solution and the re-scattering of the Jewish people .,. "from the river to the sea" ... chants of "Gas the Jews".

You might have a nuanced take on the situation but most of your political allies do not.

That is more than regrettable, if true. 😥 "From the river to the sea" simply describes the wish of the Palestinian people to reclaim their own homeland. Chants of "Gas the Jews" are not excusable, under any circumstances.

As we have discussed, this conflict is multi-facetted. There is no easy fix. I don't know how best to proceed, but I hope some sort of solution can be found. The only thing I'm reasonably sure about is that moves toward the extremes are counter-productive.

From the River to the Sea refers to the erasure of Israel. There's complexity there, but that's the general gist.

The right thing is easy and obvious. A two-state solution where no one is encroaching and no one is firing missiles. Hamas does not ascribe to the two-state solution:

[gad-fly]

Can someone desribe to me what the two state solution is? Is it a separate Jewish state co-exisitng with a Palestine state? It appears there are now three independant states: Israel, East Bank, and Gaza. "No encrachment and misssiles" is wishful thinking. Ironically, two states can be fulfilled if you take East Bank and Gaza as one Palestinian state, in which case none can gainsay what only the Palestinian people can decide upon.