> There's nothing wrong with "claiming victimhood" when one is rightly a victim.
Agreed, I only mean it pejoratively inasmuch as the parent ("victim culture that pervades the others") did as well.
That said, she has provided no evidence in this letter, and she is appealing to her identity as a member of a historically oppressed group, so I'm curious as to why her claims of victimhood seem to be believed by people who otherwise tend toward incredulity for such things.
She's not claiming she's the victim. She was a victim of a miscarriage of justice, and continues to have the story retold as though she was guilty. You're trying pretty hard to misinterpret this fairly straightforward situation.
You seem to have trouble between people who play the victim for attention (which is what that phrase refers to) and those who are actually victims. Just because some victims are capable of defending themselves doesn't change anything.
While I don't condone the attitude in the OP, providing background on the "victim" in this case is appropriate. She has offered nothing to substantiate her claims. As of yet, we know nothing, and calling her a "victim" is ignoring facts.
There's nothing wrong with "claiming victimhood" when one is rightly a victim. The problem is exaggerating everything to make oneself appear to be a victim, especially appeals to one's identity as a member of a historically oppressed group, to exploit the social protections we afford to bona fide victims. If Bari's claims (that she was unlawfully discriminated against, subjected to a hostile work environment, and constructively discharged) are substantiated, then she's a bona fide victim. And given what has come out about NYT internal culture in recent months and years as well as the supporting evidence she provides for her claims, I find it hard to disbelieve her.
>or are you just calling people victim blamers for acknowledging that these people exist
If someones only contribution to the conversation is blaming the victim of harassment for not have thick enough skin, they shouldn't be surprised to be called a victim blamer.
> It is one reason victim blaming is popular: If it is their fault, then other people don't have to wonder what they might do differently or get off their lazy duff and walk the walk instead of just engaging in smack talk.
I think the true reason is a bit deeper: victim blaming means that bad events can be compartmentalized to be the victim's problem. So a person engaging in it doesn't have to emotionally deal with the potential problems of the bad event, or even how it could affect them, as they can just say that they would have dealt with it better. A rendition of the just-world hypothesis, really.
That being said, I don't know if I'd call "she should sue" victim-blaming, even though the reason is probably about the same.
I am not sure what the point of your post is, but it seems argumentative and victim-blaming, which is a bit egregious given she’s posting an article about being gas-lighted and trying to recover a better sense of perspective.
Can you reframe your argument to be more constructive?
I agree that's how she feels. What I'm trying to say is that the problem isn't with her experiences, which are totally valid, but the extrapolation of those experiences into suggestions that place responsibility with victims rather than perpetrators.
Um, what? Victimhood has become THE status symbol of the left. If you aren't a victim you're an abuser, so anyone looking for status reaches for whatever victimhood they can get.
Victimhood is also a potent weapon - if anyone disagrees with you, you can claim they are oppressing you, denying your victimhood, gaslighting you, and so on.
Victimhood is the ultimate passive aggressive weapon in a culture that has seemingly forgotten that everyone lies.
> Something that keeps bugging me - and this is in no way limited to tech - how being a victim has become an identity to many
Victimhood is a strategy that has been used since forever to gain power, influence and control. Victimhood is both shield used to defend against criticism and spear used to attack others.
You could look back to ancient greece ( herodotus ) and the Peloponnesian War. Or more recently to the "settlement/extermination" of the natives. One of our excuses for exterminating the natives is that we were being victimized by the natives who were defending their land.
An interesting case is ww2 and the holocaust. The nazis painted themselves as the victims of jews and used that supposed victimization to attack, steal and murder jews. Of course that naturally led to push back from the jews and which the opportunistic nazis as further evidence of "victimization".
And as a juxtaposition, look at what the israelis are doing to palestinians. They are using the victimization via nazi germany as an excuse to seize palestinian land and to prevent anyone ( especially europe ) from criticizing it.
Look at japanese justification for ww2. They justified invading much of the pacific rim nations were that they were being victimized by european powers.
The same applies to gulf of tonkin and our official entry in the vietnam war. Or more recently with 9/11 and the invasion of iraq. We were victimized and used that victimization to invade iraq ( which
had nothing to do with 9/11 ).
The difference between seeking justice ( civil rights/suffrage/etc ) and victimization is that latter is vengeful and dishonest and greedy. Justice is a matter of what's right and fair. The ideology of victimhood is getting something for myself and taking something from others.
The civil rights and suffrage movement was about equality ( justice ). The modern victimhood movement is about taking from others. It's why the victimhood movement wants censorship. They want to take away someone else's rights. The civil rights movement was against censorship.
This is a hateful diatribe that only serves to show that today's mocking of calls for justice as "joyful victimhood" is not as new and creative as many seem to believe.
the "victim"-narrative is lazy yet insidious: because anyone mentioning a perceived wrong can be painted with the same non-argument, mocked, and ignored.
How are people like this author, bemoaning the loss of white male supremacy, never accused of playing the victim card? They are, after all, claim to somehow be personally harmed from the mere exposure to other people just mentioning poverty, discrimination, violence, etc.
Agreed, I only mean it pejoratively inasmuch as the parent ("victim culture that pervades the others") did as well.
That said, she has provided no evidence in this letter, and she is appealing to her identity as a member of a historically oppressed group, so I'm curious as to why her claims of victimhood seem to be believed by people who otherwise tend toward incredulity for such things.
reply