Victims

[wesmorris]

Pardon I just finished watching an HBO documentary "To Die in Jerusalem".

If you are victimized by an oppressor and fight back, are you still a victim?

In my mind, by fighting back you show you are no victim but at the same time lose the "moral highground" of victimhood.

If you say you'll never surrender and fight but lose, are you still then a victim (disregarding "victim of circumstance")?

Victimhood is a pure source political altruism. No need to defend the actions of a victim, they must be right because they were righting a wrong or at least resisting the oppression.

Again though I can't help but think that in resisting you lose the right to argue victimhood. Makes me wonder if it's a ruse. ANYway.

I suppose what victimhood is in reality is the collapse of some mental state into despair, and/or a political tool to garner emotional capital. Nearly all minds could likely be reduced to this state dependent upon circumstance. Is it the foundation of social responsibility or perhaps equinimity to minimize the occurence of victimhood? Is it that simple really? Is that what "maximizes justice"?


Well, I don't suppose it's that simple besides to say it. It's so very the manifestation of the abstract to complicate things so, with the circumstance, motice, subterfuge, the whole bit. Contemplating its complexity in terms of how it relates throughout our entire species blows me away.

And I diverge completely. *sigh*

For a minute i thought i had a point, then I felt it blown away... lost in the infinite regress of some big picture.

 

[Tiassa]

A question of degrees?

If you are victimized by an oppressor and fight back, are you still a victim?

In my mind, by fighting back you show you are no victim but at the same time lose the "moral highground" of victimhood.

If you say you'll never surrender and fight but lose, are you still then a victim (disregarding "victim of circumstance")?

Victimhood is a pure source political altruism. No need to defend the actions of a victim, they must be right because they were righting a wrong or at least resisting the oppression.

To be honest, the first thing that occurred to me was, What if you're a rape victim? Which would seem to complicate the whole thing, but then I decided I had the wrong context. I mean, sure, it's a form of oppression, but it strikes me as being of the wrong context.

So I tried flipping it up to sexism. Women fought to be something more than property to be traded away for sociopolitical benefits (e.g. romantic/love-based marriage); women fought for the right to vote; women are still fighting for equal pay and also to keep sovereign control over their bodies°. When did they stop being victims of sexism?

Or have I missed the context again?

Anyway, it's what comes to mind at ten to four in the morning. Let me know.
____________________

Notes:

° sovereign control over their bodies — Perhaps it's a digression, but if the solution to the abortion question is that women should stop being so "sexually irresponsible", where does that leave, well, men? You know, like, the men who ask the women to be "sexually irresponsible"? I mean, if women said, collectively, "Fine, we're factories, but production runs on our schedule," and stopped having sex with men unless they intended to reproduce, human society would go insane. Okay, so it's a complete digression. But, again, it's what comes to mind at ten to four. I'll try to remember it for a more relevant discussion.

 

[everneo]

If a slut is raped, she is a victim of rape.

If the rapist contracts AIDS by this then he is a victim of his own action, she is still a victim.

If she cuts his d**k off during/after rape and thus if he is saved from HIV he is not a victim but a damaged aggressor and she still remains victim.

If she cuts that in the beginning itself, none is victim.

 

[wesmorris]

To be honest, the first thing that occurred to me was, What if you're a rape victim?

Well I guess i get a little tripped up between someone having been victimized and someone believing themselves to be a victim. It seems like a state of mind to me that as I mentioned, virtually anyone could end up feeling given some horrific event or whatever. I suppose maybe it's just the self-reference "I'm a victim of" that bothers me for some reason. I think it simply seems indicative of some sort of surrender on the part of the person making that claim. Perhaps I'm just trying to sort out the dogma that seems fairly well epitomized by the two mothers arguing with each other in that documentary. It's self-preservation vs. self-preservation.

I really do think the suicide bomber for instance, thought she was doing the right thing, but it brings up all sorts of questions. It would seem if 'victimization' could be minimized, or rather that was the intention of the parties involved - stuff would suck less. But then I'm awash with circumstances that are just imaginary to me, knowing I can't really get the full effect of living someone else's life.

Which would seem to complicate the whole thing, but then I decided I had the wrong context.

Yeah that does complicate it but does seem a fair objection to a sweeping use of the term. I'm trying very poorly to sort it out.

I mean, sure, it's a form of oppression, but it strikes me as being of the wrong context.

I guess maybe it's just that to me, in my fairly comfy perception of my circumstance it's easy to consider that it's okay for others to recognize a misdeed by saying someone was victimized, but you can't really say it about yourself in a complaining kind of way and maintain any credibility as once an event has occured, it doesn't get undone. Perhaps it rubs me wrong because it violates acceptance.

So I tried flipping it up to sexism. Women fought to be something more than property to be traded away for sociopolitical benefits (e.g. romantic/love-based marriage); women fought for the right to vote; women are still fighting for equal pay and also to keep sovereign control over their bodies°.

Whilst I recognize all that to whatever extent, it seems rather circumstantial. Maybe I just can't see past the individual.

When did they stop being victims of sexism?

Well hell everyone's a victim of some sort of ismishness. I guess that doesn't make it any less of a victim thingy, but when you're fighting against it - the expression of that fight is a practice of freedom given whatever circumstance you're limited by? Every person has their own cross to bear. In fighting against whatever limits one's capacity, one is not being victimized. They fight for what they believe. Hmmm. Bah. I dunno. I keep feeling like I'm brushing up close to a point and losing it.

Regardless, I think maybe they stop being victims when they start to fight against it.

How do you know you're a victim? Rape? Okay fairly cut and dry. Sexism? Hmm.. sometimes more gray. If you decide you're a victim, are you? Who says? If so, how long do you stay that way? If not, why not and again, who says? On and on is pointless I guess. Meh.

I'm mostly thinking of the victim "state of mind", but keep skittering around without enough focus on it.

Or have I missed the context again?

I'd have to clearly establish one for you to miss it. I was just thinking about that conversation between the parents in the documentary and thought i had something important to say for a minute.

Anyway, it's what comes to mind at ten to four in the morning. Let me know.

Well that's all I can muster atm, weaksauce that it is.

° sovereign control over their bodies — Perhaps it's a digression, but if the solution to the abortion question is that women should stop being so "sexually irresponsible", where does that leave, well, men?

Horny, gay, creepy or any combination thereof.

You know, like, the men who ask the women to be "sexually irresponsible"?

Lol, well - it's not like it isn't basically compulsory. Many guys never learn to really reign that thing in. I think many minds are rather fragmented in this regard. "gotta get laid" trumps "be responsible and respectful" as much as it does, which is apparently fairly often. We both probably know a bit about that... hehe.

Mind you I don't mean to make excuses, but rather report what seems undeniable - people want sex. Some people try to live responsibly with the repurcussions, others run.

I mean, if women said, collectively, "Fine, we're factories, but production runs on our schedule," and stopped having sex with men unless they intended to reproduce, human society would go insane.

Yeah biology is a jackass but ... we're stuck with it for now. Really the sexual side of humanity disgusts me on an intellectual level. I really feel rather prudish when I consider the reality of it and how liken to dogs farking in the street we are. But then I really like boobies and stuff, so it's confusing. Lol. Not that confusing actually after having relegated it to simply 'how it is'.










It's just that the two women just couldn't relate. The mother of the suicide bomber was proud of her daughter. The mother of the girl, same age, looked very similar, you should watch it if you haven't.. anyway she couldn't get where the other lady was coming from. I thought for a moment as I was watching it I saw a thread of commonality I could coax from it and exploit for a larger point, but as I toy with the ideas it dances around me, mocking me. The thing seems to be that the capacity to relate to one another's circumstances are mutually exclusive until there is a common choice to the contrary.

And then also, there seemed something more wrong with the palestinian lady's rhetoric than the israeli lady's. She accepted martyrdom. She accepted her role as a slave to islam basically, her fate pre-ordained by allah. Her daughter blew herself up because of god's will. She basically said as long as Israel exists in palestine, it is god's will for martyr's to kill israeli's (deducing a smidge from her comments). To me her status in her own mind as a victim of the state of Israel (which I'm not saying she isn't) justified to her beyond question again that it was god's will to fight. To her, palestine is her land and give it back, share it fully or die. I can't say as I blame her I guess, because to her that's real. But is it? How real?

Meh all in all, nature forces a balance regardless of whether there are humans around to appreciate it. Revenge is really a terrifyingly low pivot-point for human misery. How else to fill the void eh? One of the sisters of the girl who blew herself up (i think, i might have it backwards, might have been the israeli girl's sister) was sobbign uncontrollably and screaming how she would "kill 30 people for you" or something. SO SO sad.

 

[draqon]

If a slut is raped, she is a victim of rape.

If the rapist contracts AIDS by this then he is a victim of his own action, she is still a victim.

If she cuts his d**k off during/after rape and thus if he is saved from HIV he is not a victim but a damaged aggressor and she still remains victim.

If she cuts that in the beginning itself, none is victim.

what you are saying is not true. I understand your wish to cast men is the oppression of light, but reality is different. The court is not sexist.

 

[cosmictraveler]

If she cuts that in the beginning itself, none is victim.

Makes me very nervous about having sex ever again!! Why wouldn't I be the victem if she cut my penis off before she knew my intentions? She could go to court and say I was trying to rape her when actually we were going to have agreed upon sex. :shrug:

 

[draqon]

Makes me very nervous about having sex ever again!! Why wouldn't I be the victem if she cut my penis off before she knew my intentions? She could go to court and say I was trying to rape her when actually we were going to have agreed upon sex. :shrug:

he is lying thats why.

 

[greenberg]

I suppose maybe it's just the self-reference "I'm a victim of" that bothers me for some reason. I think it simply seems indicative of some sort of surrender on the part of the person making that claim.

I see two issues here:

One, identifying with a label. Which tends to mean, 'to identify with a label from one specific time on, forever'.
Some people who have been wronged many years back, still define themselves in relation to that event, and so do many others. Consider, for example, that traditionally, a woman who was raped was considered "damaged goods" - and this was it for her, for her whole life. Other people expected her to see herself as "raped", as "damaged goods". She was expected to feel guilty for not considering herself as "damaged goods" - "Look at her, she was raped, and yet she goes around smiling as if nothing happened! She is worthless scum!"

(But labelling is of course also broader than just defining oneself by a crime that one has committed or has had committed to. Ask people who they are, and they'll say "student", "architect", "engineer", "housewife", "war pilot" etc. etc.)


Two, the thinking that If I am not a victim, this means the other person has done nothing wrong. Ie., in order to deem oneself justified to condemn the action of another, one believes one must be negatively affected by it - one's life must come to a complete halt and be marred forever or at least for a considerably long time. As in - "If, after a man has forced himself on her, a woman doesn't feel wretched for the rest of her life, no rape happened."

I think this issue has to do with the autonomy of a person's moral reasoning. Whether they deem themselves justified to condemn an action, including an action that happened against themselves, even though they do not claim that this action has permanently diminished the quality of their life.

I think many people would feel guilty if they would reason thus, for example: "Well, I was raped. That was that. Such things happen in this world. I will move on with my life. I don't have to be defined by being raped." I think that for many people, such reasoning would be the same as condoning the rape, saying it wasn't wrong.


IOW, how is a crime measured? By what was done, or by how it is experienced?

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Pardon I just finished watching an HBO documentary "To Die in Jerusalem".

If you are victimized by an oppressor and fight back, are you still a victim?

In my mind, by fighting back you show you are no victim but at the same time lose the "moral highground" of victimhood.

If you say you'll never surrender and fight but lose, are you still then a victim (disregarding "victim of circumstance")?

Victimhood is a pure source political altruism. No need to defend the actions of a victim, they must be right because they were righting a wrong or at least resisting the oppression.

Again though I can't help but think that in resisting you lose the right to argue victimhood. Makes me wonder if it's a ruse. ANYway.

I suppose what victimhood is in reality is the collapse of some mental state into despair, and/or a political tool to garner emotional capital. Nearly all minds could likely be reduced to this state dependent upon circumstance. Is it the foundation of social responsibility or perhaps equinimity to minimize the occurence of victimhood? Is it that simple really? Is that what "maximizes justice"?


Well, I don't suppose it's that simple besides to say it. It's so very the manifestation of the abstract to complicate things so, with the circumstance, motice, subterfuge, the whole bit. Contemplating its complexity in terms of how it relates throughout our entire species blows me away.

And I diverge completely. *sigh*

For a minute i thought i had a point, then I felt it blown away... lost in the infinite regress of some big picture.

You are not one thing. You can be a victim and a fighter. Even a victim and an oppressor.

A woman who is raped and still suffering PTSD - wakes up screaming in bed, agoraphobia - is still, in some ways a victim even if she also goes to court and testifies despite the threats of the rapist and his nasty fictional brothers. And if she is beating her kid she is also a perp. I think we need to be cautious when we decide that one word can sum us up completely and for all time.

 

[S.A.M.]

It seems like a state of mind to me that as I mentioned, virtually anyone could end up feeling given some horrific event or whatever.

Hmm, lets take an example.

Here is a Caterpillar come to bulldoze his home.

If he moves and allows it to, is he a victim?

If he does not and it goes over him, is he a victim?

If he does not and it does not go over him, is he a victim?

If he attaches a bomb to himself so he can blow up the bulldozer (say because he is tired of it after 60 years of losing homes to bulldozers), is he a victim

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Well I guess i get a little tripped up between someone having been victimized and someone believing themselves to be a victim. It seems like a state of mind to me that as I mentioned, virtually anyone could end up feeling given some horrific event or whatever. I suppose maybe it's just the self-reference "I'm a victim of" that bothers me for some reason.

I think it depends on how the word is used. If it means that you are recovering from something, that it's negative or unpleasant impact is still coursing through you - body, emotions, mind - well, that just seems like a fact. If it means now I am this. That is what I am. Identity. That can be problematic. But even there I think some flexibility on outsiders part needs to be granted. Language is expressive not just factual descriptions. It is not something that has to always be inserted in syllogisms, etc.

I guess maybe it's just that to me, in my fairly comfy perception of my circumstance it's easy to consider that it's okay for others to recognize a misdeed by saying someone was victimized, but you can't really say it about yourself in a complaining kind of way and maintain any credibility as once an event has occured, it doesn't get undone. Perhaps it rubs me wrong because it violates acceptance.

To me it seems very useful as part of getting the crime acknowledged as 1) having happened 2) being as severe as it was experienced 3) that it is something to be struggled against. Until those things are met I can see shoving my victim status towards various authorities and perpetrators. If rape or a rape, for example, is minimized because 'she was wearing a short skirt' then it seems to me she is a good position to identify as a victim. Someone used power over her and this was not justified by the clothing. A crime did in fact happen despite the clothing issue. Given the nature of rape - perhaps an unfair example, but I think it is a good test case - there are hazy boundaries around acknowledgement. In relation to the rapist the idea that he victimized her may need to be permanent. Or may be naturally permanent until he 'gets' what he did, which he may never do, nor may the men 'out there' who think she is tainted by his choices.

 

[draqon]

Hmm, lets take an example.

Here is a Caterpillar come to bulldoze his home.

If he moves and allows it to, is he a victim?

If he does not and it goes over him, is he a victim?

If he does not and it does not go over him, is he a victim?

the answer is simple, once the cameras are rolling and footage is shown for others to see...he is a victim. Once the media stops the footage, in any case he is not a victim.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Hmm, lets take an example.

Here is a Caterpillar come to bulldoze his home.

If he moves and allows it to, is he a victim?

If he does not and it goes over him, is he a victim?

If he does not and it does not go over him, is he a victim?

He's not simply a victim. But he is about to be a victim. I mean the guy looks fairly calm from the back, but really he is already a victim. At least I would be. I'd be shaking for a month regardless of what happened next. But even if the worst happens, the man I am looking at should not be summed up as a victim, though that is likely to be a part of what he is for some indeterminate period of time. Perhaps only seconds until he dead. And then he moves into the past tense or heaven or........

 

[whitewolf]

Rape is a different matter. When you talk about politics, Machiavelli's words apply everywhere all the time no matter how poorly you think of him. In politics, the victim has no "moral high ground." Moral high ground is reserved for the victors, for the heroes. In case of rape, there's no hero.

 

[S.A.M.]

He's not simply a victim. But he is about to be a victim. I mean the guy looks fairly calm from the back, but really he is already a victim. At least I would be. I'd be shaking for a month regardless of what happened next. But even if the worst happens, the man I am looking at should not be summed up as a victim, though that is likely to be a part of what he is for some indeterminate period of time. Perhaps only seconds until he dead. And then he moves into the past tense or heaven or........

Hmm so the dead do not reserve the right to be victims?

What if he attaches a bomb to himself so he can blow up the bulldozer (say because he is tired of it after 60 years of losing homes to bulldozers), is he a victim

 

[draqon]

Power is everything. Victims are those who lack power over the situation to fully control the scheme of mentality of what is happening.

 

[greenberg]

More examples of retroactively concluding whether an action was a crime or not:

"She didn't cry. So how can anyone say she was wronged?"

"He moved on with his life. So how can anyone say he was wronged?"

"He fought back. So how can anyone say he was wronged?"

 

[whitewolf]

Hmm, lets take an example.

Here is a Caterpillar come to bulldoze his home.

If he moves and allows it to, is he a victim?

If he does not and it goes over him, is he a victim?

If he does not and it does not go over him, is he a victim?

If he attaches a bomb to himself so he can blow up the bulldozer (say because he is tired of it after 60 years of losing homes to bulldozers), is he a victim

He is a victim of his own folly and his people's idiocy. But he looks forward to being mowed down because then he will ho to heaven and have sex with thousands of virgins. I swear to you, there's not another thought in his head.

 

[Kadark]

He is a victim of his own folly and his people's idiocy. But he looks forward to being mowed down because then he will ho to heaven and have sex with thousands of virgins. I swear to you, there's not another thought in his head.

Yeah, and I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'm looking to sell you.

 

[S.A.M.]

He is a victim of his own folly and his people's idiocy. But he looks forward to being mowed down because then he will ho to heaven and have sex with thousands of virgins. I swear to you, there's not another thought in his head.

Muslims believe in 72 virgins like Christians believe they will be sitting on a cloud with a harp. But your ignorance in this matter is not surprising.

So you believe for him to stop a bulldozer mowing down his home is idiocy and folly?

What should he do when faced with a bulldozer manned by immigrants wants to mow down his home?