This discussion in the comments involves a lot of talk about “victimhood”, “narcissism”, “privilege”, etc. without a formal definition of these terms. A lot of

This discussion in the comments involves a lot of talk about “victimhood”, “narcissism”, “privilege”, etc. without a formal definition of these terms. A lot of the heat in the discussion would disappear if a common definition of these terms were proposed and agreed to. Even more would disappear if those definitions were measurable in some objective sense. Otherwise I find discussions like this devolve into an unnecessary and unpleasant exercise in semantics and a waste of good photons. It seems like a generational malady. As a side note, I find it is more rhetorically and psychologically powerful to simply describe a disadvantaged situation you (or someone else) are in, rather than adding “and I’m/they are a victim”. When you add the word “victim”, you leave yourself open to bickering about what a “victim” is and how you/they should respond as such, which is distracting from the main point of effectuating change. Allowing the reader/listener themselves to complete the thought “wow, you/they really got screwed over” in their own mind takes advantage of their natural psychological need for closure. Since the reader/listener themselves will be making that closure, your/their disadvantaged situation will make a more powerful impact on them and the description would be more likely to lead to positive action. If you are simply looking for an enabler to help feed your psychological need for being perceived as a victim, well, call yourself a “victim” all you want, and good luck in finding someone to complete that folie à deux.