7 ms·
When you impose a decision on someone they do not like, they do not have to play the victim, they are the victim. We can discuss whether they are a victim that
by pessimizer 4y ago
When you impose a decision on someone they do not like, they do not have to play the victim, they are the victim. We can discuss whether they are a victim that you sympathize with or whether you think that they deserve their treatment, but accusing them of "playing the victim" is about as profound and distracting as accusing people of "playing the race card."
edit: I need to add that it is also intellectually dishonest to dismiss arguments based on who you think the arguments have been designed to appeal to.
- flebron 4y agoThat seems a weird use of the word. By that notion, every convicted criminal is a victim, because the court imposed a sentence that they, presumably, do not like. This removes practically all meaning from the word "victim". In common parlance, well-understood consequences of one's own actions occurring does not make one a victim.
- pessimizer 4y ago> This removes practically all meaning from the word "victim". No, it removes the personal judgement from the word "victim," where we decide whether a particular victim deserves their punishment as a preliminary to discussing their situation. ----- edit: i.e. where sympathetic people who are killed are victims, and unsympathetic people are killed are being portrayed as victims. It's an attempt to distract from the material facts of a situation with arguments about language. edit 2: In the spirit of tripling down, I'm also giving this discussion more credit than it deserves. This is about someone saying that the word "cancel" implies the word "victim." So here's the implied argument afaict. 1) Using the word "cancel" to refer to an imposition on your work means that you're implying you're a "victim." 2) A "victim" is someone who is undeserving of what has happened to them. 3) This person is deserving of what has happened to them. 4) Therefore, they are dishonest.
- enkid 4y agoBut your original reply didn't say "he didn't call himself a victim," it tried to argue why he was a victim. The gp to this reply was pointing out how absurd your definition of victim is. It's not making an argument about whether or not he called himself a victim, it makes an argument about what you yourself defined as a victim.
- pessimizer 4y agoI've made that argument, and you can accept it or not. The larger point is that accusing people of playing victims is always a distraction from actual argument, and the entire thread is evidence of that. It started with irrelevance and ended nowhere.
- posterboy 4y ago> The larger point is that accusing people of playing victims is always a distraction from actual argume Yes, and when they are really playing they become the victim of their own ploy.
- bdowling 4y agoIf a court ignored the law and imposed a criminal sentence merely because it didn't like the defendant, then that would be an injustice and you would call the convicted person a victim.
- epgui 4y agoPoint of order: a non-domain-expert produced a thing he called a “documentary”, and then he was criticized for totally reasonable reasons by actual subject matter experts. Using the word “cancel” in this context is petty.
- moloch-hai 4y agoIt is petty if it specifically avoids mention of any of the evidence, and instead invents groundless personal accusations. Hancock is being proved right about his accusers.
- posterboy 4y agoIt's damning evidence enough that Netflix aren't having an expert on the show, isn't it?
- moloch-hai 4y agoMight depend on whether they were invited and declined. But inventing spurious ad hominem accusations instead of offering a plausible counter-narrative is not a good look.
- epgui 4y agoWhat exactly are you referring to when you say “ad hominem accusations”? I don’t follow.
- moloch-hai 4y agoCalling him racist.
- epgui 4y agoThey don't call him racist. Read the referenced material carefully.