Is victimhood sacred to those who faulsly claim to be victimized

[just_me]

I want to ask you guys your thoughts about people who fraudulently claim to be somehow brutalized. I mean hate crimes are something that this country has been dealing with for as long as this country has been around. Are these people actual trying to promote awareness of these crimes by reporting a fake crime or is it that they think that somehow being a victim gains them some state of popularity?

Are these people just looking for attention and if so what do they think true victims of hate crime are about? Could this be a mental disorder like Munchausen syndrome or do you think it is a plea for help

This whole thing is quite bazaar in my book, but in my book I think it is disruptive and diminishes the true horror of hate crimes. How would anyone want to go through the insanity of being attacked violently for nothing but their state of being instead of what they physically did or did not do?

There is something seriously wrong with people like this and needs to be addressed because it overshadows legitimate hate crimes.

 

[dismal]

I think some people are deeply vested in the belief that the world if full of mean horrible people out to get them, but the world does not always cooperate in sending the mean horrible people fast enough so they help it along.

This feels like one of those cases:

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/n...-leader-accused-burning-down-home/2816523002/

 

[just_me]

I think some people are deeply vested in the belief that the world if full of mean horrible people out to get them, but the world does not always cooperate in sending the mean horrible people fast enough so they help it along.

This feels like one of those cases:

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/n...-leader-accused-burning-down-home/2816523002/

How could someone not be satisfied with success? It's like he's addicted to activism or something.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think pretend victimhood is more about gaining power, but yes, I think attention seeking is another big factor.

And I also agree with you that it does more harm than good to the actual victims, especially when the purported victims stretch terms to claim their label.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think some people are deeply vested in the belief that the world if full of mean horrible people out to get them, but the world does not always cooperate in sending the mean horrible people fast enough so they help it along.

Agreed.

There are a lot of people out there that have done some very, very evil things, some bad things, I would say some treasonous things against our country. And hopefully people that have done such harm to our country — we’ve gone through a period of really bad things happening — those people will certainly be looked at.

I’ve been looking at them for a long time, and I’m saying why haven’t they been looked at? They lied to Congress, many of them, you know who they are. They’ve done so many evil things.

 

[RVonse]

This whole thing is quite bazaar in my book, but in my book I think it is disruptive and diminishes the true horror of hate crimes. How would anyone want to go through the insanity of being attacked violently for nothing but their state of being instead of what they physically did or did not do?

There is something seriously wrong with people like this and needs to be addressed because it overshadows legitimate hate crimes.

I see absolutely no difference with this than all the fake adult abuse charges during most every divorce proceeding. People just use the law for whatever works and think nothing of any other side effect.

Its the human condition.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think some people are deeply vested in the belief that the world if full of mean horrible people out to get them, but the world does not always cooperate in sending the mean horrible people fast enough so they help it along.

This feels like one of those cases:

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/n...-leader-accused-burning-down-home/2816523002/

How could someone not be satisfied with success? It's like he's addicted to activism or something.

Exactly. While this is an extreme case it's the usual fate of activism. The cause becomes what the leaders care about, whether they should continue what they're doing or not doesn't enter into it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

People on a crusade, regardless of how noble the reason for that crusade may be, need demons to slay, and as dismal points out, sometimes those demons aren't within convenient reach, so others need to be demonized. Especially sad is when they do this to people who may otherwise be helping their cause and helping them to reach the actual demons.

And sometimes these movements against evil succeed, and then there is little need for the group against it to exist, but the group against it has bonded, careers have been made within them, and the fight must go on long after it has been won.

I think a lot of it is also just about basic virtue signalling. You get thousands of people reposting something to twitter or on facebook, and thinking they've accomplished something noble, and enjoy the pats on the back for it. But how many of them would do so if it instead invited scorn or disgust? Its easy to champion a "Save the Fluffy Bunnies" campaign, but not so much to champion a "Kill the Fluffy Bunnies" (because they are overbreeding and doing ecological harm) campaign.

 

[Jokodo]

...abuse charges during most every divorce proceeding...

Sure you can back that up with actual sources?

 

[zorq]

There are lots of opinions in the post. Fair warning.

Trying to pigeonhole all the people who do activity X is pointless. There are nearly as many motivations for people to do activity X as there are people doing activity X. And believe it or not, even though you might believe that activity X is always a bad thing, there are usually circumstances where activity X is beneficial to society as a whole.

The world is a complicated place, and I understand the desire to make it seem more simple, but obsessing over the motivations of other groups of people is ridiculous.

As a side note, it is this sort of thing that bugs me the most about conservative media in the US. Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilley, Jones, etc. are always telling their audiences about the motivations of liberals. For example, "Liberals like abortion because they have no objective morals/ are trying to eliminate the white race/ are deceived by the devil/ just want to shift personal responsibility to someone else." Whatever motivation they attribute to liberals it is ALWAYS the wrong one that almost NO liberal would ever subscribe to. And it happens every single fucking time on every single fucking issue that is brought up. I honestly could tolerate listening to Rush Limbaugh if he didn't lie to his audience constantly about the motivations of his political enemies. It is THE most consistent category of lie that conservative media tell, at least in the US.

Anyway, motives are complex and trying to categorize people based on their motives can be counterproductive. When dealing with large populations, it's better to focus on the results you are working toward rather than trying to psychoanalyze a million people who might think margarine is made from plastic. Therapy can be performed on an individuals, not groups.

 

[just_me]

There are lots of opinions in the post. Fair warning.

Trying to pigeonhole all the people who do activity X is pointless. There are nearly as many motivations for people to do activity X as there are people doing activity X. And believe it or not, even though you might believe that activity X is always a bad thing, there are usually circumstances where activity X is beneficial to society as a whole.

The world is a complicated place, and I understand the desire to make it seem more simple, but obsessing over the motivations of other groups of people is ridiculous.

As a side note, it is this sort of thing that bugs me the most about conservative media in the US. Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilley, Jones, etc. are always telling their audiences about the motivations of liberals. For example, "Liberals like abortion because they have no objective morals/ are trying to eliminate the white race/ are deceived by the devil/ just want to shift personal responsibility to someone else." Whatever motivation they attribute to liberals it is ALWAYS the wrong one that almost NO liberal would ever subscribe to. And it happens every single fucking time on every single fucking issue that is brought up. I honestly could tolerate listening to Rush Limbaugh if he didn't lie to his audience constantly about the motivations of his political enemies. It is THE most consistent category of lie that conservative media tell, at least in the US.

Anyway, motives are complex and trying to categorize people based on their motives can be counterproductive. When dealing with large populations, it's better to focus on the results you are working toward rather than trying to psychoanalyze a million people who might think margarine is made from plastic. Therapy can be performed on an individuals, not groups.

Who is trying to pigeonhole anyone? This is a discussion about things that concern me. You first assume we are trying to pigeonhole someone which is a determination of motive, which you claim to dislike the right does to the left, but you seem to be doing that to the left as well.

I am unconcerned with what people think of my motivations when they don't take the time to ask, but I do take exception to someone projecting on me anything that they've seen elsewhere.

The reason this here is to take a good look at those whose actions reflect on us in a way that will give those who stand against us the very ammo they fire at us every day.

If you have any question in the future. I would appreciate you asking me instead of trying to scold people for exercising their rights as members here.

 

[zorq]

Who is trying to pigeonhole anyone? This is a discussion about things that concern me.

You did indeed start a discussion speculating about why people who are not very victimized claim to be victimized. You gave no indication that you wanted to evaluate each individual on a case by case basis, but instead used pronouns like "they," and "these people." You made no indication that you think ALL of the options you suggested might be true, instead you used conjunctions like "or." This to me suggests strongly that you would like to pigeonhole this phenomenon.

You first assume we are trying to pigeonhole someone which is a determination of motive, which you claim to dislike the right does to the left, but you seem to be doing that to the left as well.

Am I? Am I really?

I am unconcerned with what people think of my motivations when they don't take the time to ask, but I do take exception to someone projecting on me anything that they've seen elsewhere.

The reason this here is to take a good look at those whose actions reflect on us in a way that will give those who stand against us the very ammo they fire at us every day.

If you have any question. I would appreciate

What motivations do you think I'm projecting on you? I think you want to understand the reasons people might falsely claim to be victims. I think you think false victimization is a bad thing (I also). I think you want to understand these people so that you can reduce their negative impact, or address them better if confronted with them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

...abuse charges during most every divorce proceeding...

Sure you can back that up with actual sources?

He's going way too far there.

1) A lot of divorce proceedings have little to fight over and are reasonably friendly. There would be no reason for such allegations in those cases.

2) The main reason for abuse allegations is to get the guy to roll over on custody. Thus they would be unlikely if there were no children involved.

When it's an unhappy divorce and involves custody, though, abuse allegations are common.

 

[just_me]

You did indeed start a discussion speculating about why people who are not very victimized claim to be victimized. You gave no indication that you wanted to evaluate each individual on a case by case basis, but instead used pronouns like "they," and "these people." You made no indication that you think ALL of the options you suggested might be true, instead you used conjunctions like "or." This to me suggests strongly that you would like to pigeonhole this phenomenon.

Am I? Am I really?

I am unconcerned with what people think of my motivations when they don't take the time to ask, but I do take exception to someone projecting on me anything that they've seen elsewhere.

The reason this here is to take a good look at those whose actions reflect on us in a way that will give those who stand against us the very ammo they fire at us every day.

If you have any question. I would appreciate

What motivations do you think I'm projecting on you? I think you want to understand the reasons people might falsely claim to be victims. I think you think false victimization is a bad thing (I also). I think you want to understand these people so that you can reduce their negative impact, or address them better if confronted with them.

I said next time ask me. End of discussion!

 

[Jokodo]

...abuse charges during most every divorce proceeding...

Sure you can back that up with actual sources?

He's going way too far there.

1) A lot of divorce proceedings have little to fight over and are reasonably friendly. There would be no reason for such allegations in those cases.

2) The main reason for abuse allegations is to get the guy to roll over on custody. Thus they would be unlikely if there were no children involved.

When it's an unhappy divorce and involves custody, though, abuse allegations are common.

How common? "It does happen" common or "most every" common? And how many of those allegations to we know to be false?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He's going way too far there.

1) A lot of divorce proceedings have little to fight over and are reasonably friendly. There would be no reason for such allegations in those cases.

2) The main reason for abuse allegations is to get the guy to roll over on custody. Thus they would be unlikely if there were no children involved.

When it's an unhappy divorce and involves custody, though, abuse allegations are common.

How common? "It does happen" common or "most every" common? And how many of those allegations to we know to be false?

I very much doubt we have remotely decent data because such things are likely to simply be used as a threat, so long as he backs down no charges are filed.

 

[Jokodo]

He's going way too far there.

1) A lot of divorce proceedings have little to fight over and are reasonably friendly. There would be no reason for such allegations in those cases.

2) The main reason for abuse allegations is to get the guy to roll over on custody. Thus they would be unlikely if there were no children involved.

When it's an unhappy divorce and involves custody, though, abuse allegations are common.

How common? "It does happen" common or "most every" common? And how many of those allegations to we know to be false?

I very much doubt we have remotely decent data because such things are likely to simply be used as a threat, so long as he backs down no charges are filed.

In other words, we have no reason at all to believe it's common in any meaningful sense, but it sounded nice when you typed it.