Victimhood as Political Ideology

[WIP]

Interesting thread.

Firstly, there is no shortage of those who can capitalize on victimhood.

It seems, particularly to the left, that victims are necessary for their existence for without them what would the left have to champion. The heroes of the left are "the champions of the victim". Of course, in the eyes of the left, it is the political right that manufactures the victim. The left and the victim are, however, in a symbiotic relationship. The "most vulnerable" in society need protection from the mean, nasty people. The left percieves themselves as above the fray and government as their agency to enforce a balance, to make things more equal.

You sure seem to have a blind spot when it comes to rightwing claims to victimhood; such as their claims that "The Family" is threatened by gay marriage. And that one is especially revolting, since they are claiming victimhood by the extension of rights to others. It's really no different than white Southerners who felt victimized by the forced removal of segregation laws a generation ago.

Is Sarah Palin a victim?

NO! What is she a victim of....except her personal attributes of having great ambition combined with limited intelligence.

If so, as is claimed here by the left, why do they not defend her? I suppose the answer lies in the left's perception of what a victim is and she obviously doesn't fit that perception - she is not needy or desperate. She is fiercely independent and individualistic. She will thus be villified for all time. Many like-minded people support her and they too are painted with many pejoratives, such as racist, homophobes, those groups that are also painted as, and connected with, guess - victimhood.

Oh cry me a river! Even many conservatives threw in the towel when she made the shooting up of Congresswoman Gifford's public event all about her, and how upset she is to be made to feel partially responsible for the violent political rhetoric that has become the staple of rightwing politicians and talk show hosts.

[Pliny]

You sure seem to have a blind spot when it comes to rightwing claims to victimhood; such as their claims that "The Family" is threatened by gay marriage. And that one is especially revolting, since they are claiming victimhood by the extension of rights to others. It's really no different than white Southerners who felt victimized by the forced removal of segregation laws a generation ago.

You have to get it straight WIP. You are defending the victim. As far as I know the Family has not traditionally been equated with being a victim. Gays have traditionally been victims. White southerners were not traditionally known as victims. Slaves and Blacks are traditionally known as victims. Families and White Southerners; anyone, can be "victimized" which is different than being a victim. Being a "victim" in the political liberal sense requires certain criteria.

The State has given entitlements to families in the form of benefits and privileges which are privileges they shouldn't have been given. It put government squarely in the bedrooms of the nation. "Civil Unions" should not be denied these same "rights". I would call them entitlements myself and not rights. In essense, this is just an example of how governments get themselves in trouble by granting privileges to special interests - in this case the family. No one should be given special consideration in the form of largesse from the public coffers.

Is Sarah Palin forgetting she is a woman and mother and thus is a victim . She doesn't get this point. She must pave the way for women and anecdotally highlight her own vicitmization as a woman and mother if she wants proper respect in the political arena. Of course, if she did that, she would be a liberal. Since she is not portraying herself as a victim, only as being victimized, she is a conservative.

Is Sarah Palin a victim?

NO! What is she a victim of....except her personal attributes of having great ambition combined with limited intelligence.

Just a few posts ago you agreed with Bitsy she was a victim. Once again it's the fuzzy world of Liberal identity politics.

Oh cry me a river! Even many conservatives threw in the towel when she made the shooting up of Congresswoman Gifford's public event all about her, and how upset she is to be made to feel partially responsible for the violent political rhetoric that has become the staple of rightwing politicians and talk show hosts.

I thought you guys had been shut up about that. Still whining, I see - And continuing on with the usual name-calling of political opponents, such as Scott Walker, as Hitler or Mussolini.

[bloodyminded]

Is Sarah Palin forgetting she is a woman and mother and thus is a victim . She doesn't get this point. She must pave the way for women and anecdotally highlight her own vicitmization as a woman and mother if she wants proper respect in the political arena. Of course, if she did that, she would be a liberal. Since she is not portraying herself as a victim, only as being victimized, she is a conservative.

Sarah Palin has continually been painting herself as a victim. What you're saying is the literal opposite of the truth.

Your argument is with her; but you don't want to go there, for some reason.

[Pliny]

Sarah Palin has continually been painting herself as a victim. What you're saying is the literal opposite of the truth.

It's working! Soon she actually will be a victim....bwaahhahhaaa..haaa

Your argument is with her; but you don't want to go there, for some reason.

She doens't fit the left's definition of "champion of victims" if she did she would be a liberal. I don't see women's groups defending her against the villification she experiences at the hands of the lamestream media. Why is that? Is it because she doesn't discriminate against the masculine gender, long known for their oppression of women.

[bloodyminded]

It's working! Soon she actually will be a victim....bwaahhahhaaa..haaa

I'm not saying she's a victim, Pliny.

She is saying it. All the time.

When people criticize her, she claims it's an attack on her freedom of speech!

Meaning she doesn't understand what the concept even means.

She's forever making remarks about how mean the media is to her. And yet she's a media darling---she's a media elite, Pliny. A media elite.

She doens't fit the left's definition of "champion of victims" if she did she would be a liberal. I don't see women's groups defending her against the villification she experiences at the hands of the lamestream media. Why is that?

Because she isn't experiencing vilification at the hands of the mainstream media. You believe she is, because she keeps repeating this "fact."

That is, she's playing the victim; and that's why you think she being vilified (because she says so); and yet you say she isn't playing the victim...even as she actually is doing so...because then she'd be a liberal...who...uhhhh...

What kind of moebius strip are trying to construct here? These are pretty crazed contortions.

At bottom, I think your only point here is: "The Left! The Left! The Left!"

Is it because she doesn't discriminate against the masculine gender, long known for their oppression of women.

What the hell are you talking about?

Who, in your mind, is discriminating against the masculine gender? Obama? Liberals? Hillary, maybe?

Who...and how so? And how is Palin distinct in this matter?

Edited March 6, 2011 by bloodyminded

[BC_chick]

It has lead the Left to defend gay rights while also leading to the defence of homophobic Islamists.

Your first premise is incorrect, the "Left" does NOT defend homophobic Islamists. I have heard some people on the left (and many on the right) argue that Muslims are not a monolithic culture and we should refrain from painting them all as homophobic Islamists and/or Jihadis... but I have never heard anyone actually defend homophobic Islamists and/or Jihadis.

But then again, if you use the term the "Left" so loosely, I suppose it's not surprising that you are unable to make the distinction between defending innocent people who happen to be Muslim as opposed to defending Muslims criminals who actually are guilty.

[August1991]

And you consider making everyone blind, to be a fitting analogy to reducing income inequality? And yes, equality is a noble goal! The evidence can be seen when comparing societies with greater and lesser levels of relative equality.

If equality were a noble goal, and according to your link, a requirement to meet certain criteria, then why don't we in the rich West give all our wealth to the impoverished people elsewhere? If we did this, would the world be a better place?

WIP, your link is naive - and you should start another thread to debate this question.

Is Sarah Palin a victim? If so, as is claimed here by the left, why do they not defend her? I suppose the answer lies in the left's perception of what a victim is and she obviously doesn't fit that perception - she is not needy or desperate.

Pliny, you have put the lie to my OP.

How does the Left define "victim"? It seems arbitrary. "Needy or desperate" is a weak basis for any ideology.

Rather than decide which group Leftists defend, I am inclined to believe that Leftists view themselves as victims. IOW, political Left/Right is based on self-perception.

Noam Chomsky is a Leftist because he views himself as victim. Maybe his mother never loved him...

Edited March 9, 2011 by August1991

[August1991]

Sarah Palin has continually been painting herself as a victim.

I don't think that's true but if you see it that way, perhaps what you mean is that she's not really a victim. She's only pretending to be one to garner votes. I think this used to be called the "sympathy vote". Then again, the Left wants strong politicians who defend victims - not victim politicians.

Your first premise is incorrect, the "Left" does NOT defend homophobic Islamists. I have heard some people on the left (and many on the right) argue that Muslims are not a monolithic culture and we should refrain from painting them all as homophobic Islamists and/or Jihadis... but I have never heard anyone actually defend homophobic Islamists and/or Jihadis.

BC_Chick, what an argument!

You avoid the question by saying that there is not a monolithic culture and in effect, there are victims among both gays and Muslims - since both groups are subject to homophobia and Islamophobia. IOW, you focus on "individual victims".

In a sense, I laud your logic. You are a true liberal, individualist and libertarian.

But I wonder about something. BC_Chick, how do you pick your "individual victims"? Does only a non-homophobic Palestinian meet the grade? Why not Palestinians in general? What about homophobic Palestinians?

If a poor older woman living on the streets of Calcutta happens to hate homosexuals (yes, I once had a conversation with such a woman), does that mean she is not worthy of Leftist protection?

Edited March 9, 2011 by August1991

[bloodyminded]

How does the Left define "victim"? It seems arbitrary. "Needy or desperate" is a weak basis for any ideology.

Yes it is. but it is not accurate. You and Pliny are concocting definitions and meanings from thin air.

That's why--as you may or may not have noticed--both you and Pliny are speaking in empty generalizations, avoiding concrete examples and explanations.

Noam Chomsky is a Leftist because he views himself as victim. Maybe his mother never loved him...

This is the foolish speculation and pop psychologizing. And certainly Chomsky does not view himself as a victim.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

[Bitsy]

Just a few posts ago you agreed with Bitsy she was a victim. Once again it's the fuzzy world of Liberal identity politics.

I think it is a Conservative world view who is fuzzy here but maybe I should have been more specific rather than nuanced in my comment.......Sarah Palin considers herself the victim, and plays the role masterfully.

I don't see women's groups defending her against the villification she experiences at the hands of the lamestream media.

She has the support of many women groups, Concerned Women for America, Independent Women’s Council, Women of Joy, Feminist for Life, Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, etc.

[Oleg Bach]

Years ago, in 2006, I posted this here:Link

(My post in 2006 concerned the arrest in Toronto of fanatical Islamists who sought to bomb various Canadian sites.)

Is victimhood an ideology?

Recently, I read this:Link h/t

And then, I read this:Link h/t

----

There are genuine victims in life. They are people who have done nothing wrong but who happen to suffer. There are also people who falsely claim to be victims.

I think this thread asks whether this question should give rise to a sustainable political ideology.

This is bull shit....."there are people who have done nothing wrong but who happen to suffer"???? Does that mean that those that make mistakes intentionally or other wise - who do something "wrong" must suffer? This is that classic fight against evil - Even GOD himself treats those that are evil or good with equality - It is not up to us to play god..we simply are not very good at it.

[Bitsy]

Sarah Palin, the new Al Sharpton? As in the tradition of the old GOP that I once supported, they are looking for a leader not a role-playing victim.

“The appeal of conservatism is supposed to be people taking responsibility for their own actions,” said Labash. “But if you close your eyes and listen to Palin and her most irate supporters constantly squawk or bellyache or tweet about how unfair a ride she gets from evil mustache-twirling elites and RINO saboteurs, she sounds like a professional victimologist, the flip side of any lefty grievance group leader. She’s becoming Al Sharpton, Alaska edition. The only difference being, she wears naughty-librarian glasses instead of a James Brown ‘do.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51218_Page2.html#ixzz1GcTgjdjs