That makes a lot of sense. Funny thing is that this is precisely the opposite of what the liberals in America tell thier minions, and ol' Matt here is a liberal.
Ummm. No. If someone rapes you or stabs you- you’re literally a victim. It’s importannt not to take a victim mentality, or define who you are as being a victim, but telling someone they aren’t a victim is pretty much what assholes do. The British Empire or any number of invading or imperialist nations tell their victims things like this. They weren’t invaded, they were “civilized by a greater power.” They’re ”lucky it happened.” It’s important to check entitlement but at the same time you should assume you are entitled to certain things like basic human rights and dignity. That doesn’t mean you can’t find yourself in a situation where those things aren’t given to you, but you should demand them, and if not given them you should take them. You don’t have to earn basic human rights, but sometimes you have to fight for them to be recognized. The rich pretty man is telling people not to speak up when they feel victimized. That sounds like an abusive husband, not a “hard truth.”
I dont think thats what hes talking about. In your 2nd sentance you talk about dont take the victim mentality. Hes playing off of that. Hes not denying that you were victimized i think hes saying dont let it define you. I think the "you are not" statement can change based on tone of voice. It can be an encouragement or are criticizim. Id have to hear it myself to be sure. But what your talking about is valid i dont think thats what this is. But i could be wrong.
Just based on what we have to work with, The quote is “... of feeling like a victim, you are not.” Not that you shouldnt let it define you, not that you don’t have to remain a victim- flatly that you are not a victim. While often we are not victims in the sense that our own actions or behavior were primary causes of the situation and not someone else acting maliciously, and often we can argue that even where things aren’t “fair” or are stacked against us that we can achieve a goal with enough work and thought- we can’t say that one isn’t a victim in all cases where one feels like a victim. And the idea that “life will never be fair” (<sic>) is self fulfilling prophecy. Even if it won’t truly be “fair” by natural right, seas humans can make it more so, and more equitable- unless we decide not to, unless we silence people who would speak out against what they see as wrong. Wether a person is victimized or not has little bearing on them feeling victimized. It’s important that....
... even if we choose not to act, or a consensus determines no reasonable action contrary could have been taken or should have been, that we are st least aware of how thing effect other people. No, you aren’t responsible for the thoughts or feelings of others, but we are each responsible for our own deeds and how they effect others. Being mindful of your own existence is a novel concept to most, by default we view the world from our own perspective in the terms that relate to us. However we exist as a part of a society. The well being of others determines our own well being, and in an inherently unfair world some of us havens easier time than others, it’s easy to forget that a flip of a coin is all that determines or can change wether we are on the side of privilege or not. When a system allows some to be trampled, how much one cares is directly proportional to how far one is from being trampled. Or in simple terms- the “golden rule” exists for a reason.
This is the problem of taking a quote and piecemealing it up. Context, context, context in this case the context of the quote means you can't separate any section of it up without changing the entirety of the quote. In this case it revolves around the unfairness and sense of entitlement. Both must be taken into account as they work together for his quote to mean what he intended it to mean. So @quest_ while you may be completely correct in what your saying it doesn't negate what he said at all.
Hey @lucky. I agree with your sentiments completely, but the qualifiers in the original statement I disagree with are that 1. “The entitlement trap” is not defined and is subjective. Since the condition is subjective, the prescribed action can’t be absolute. See; “If someone is a jerk, they should be locked in jail.” The condition of being a jerk is not defined, and is subjective to the perspective of the listener, so the absolutism of the response can’t be logically upheld. In this statement, what constitutes an entitlement trap? We only have the rest of the quote to go off of here. We know he has stated that life is not fair and never will be. Another absolute, and since the fairness of life is largely determined by those living life- a commitment to personally not commit to creating a fair life. At the finish, we have the statement that you (the person who feels victimized, through violation of entitlement,) are not a victim.
I don’t know about you, but I think people should feel entitled to certain things. We should be entitled to some degree of personal freedom, privacy, human respect and equality- and if we do not receive those things: if someone video tapes you without consent using the bathroom, if someone locks you in a basement and won’t let you leave, if someone tells you that you are fired because you are <prejudice slur> then you are made a victim and should demand you be treated otherwise. So in context to the entire quote- it is a blanket condition with a specific response. By default such statements should be challenged as at best they are 0 sum, and 0 sum doesn’t work in real life. Kill 5 people and make 5 babies and the population stays the same, yet it doesn’t pencil out in reality. So this statement is right as often as it is wrong. The positives do not outweigh the negatives, and it should be better phrased to the speakers intent, if that is their intent.
Right we are entitled to certain inalienable rights. Though people often take it to far and think they are entitled to protection from views that differ from their own. We should stop encouraging people that by claiming victim status for something that doesnt actualy violate laws or freedoms then that take away from the legitimacy of REAL victims.
I would largely agree @texas ranger. Some people, in my opinion, take things too far. Who is taking it too far though, and who determines that? If you fave a situation, you must ask yourself first if you feel victimized right? So what if your best judgment says you have? Do you sit there and ask yourself if you are right about how you feel? How long do you self debate, and what is the burden of proof you weigh it against? You could say “society” but society as a majority has classically considered many wrongs to be right. Do you let the world dictate your morals or let your morals shape your world? So freedom of speech- at what point do we say that all the hate speech has been invented and we can stop adding to the list? It’s all subjective. It must be determined case by case and by people who have the facts to do so. You can’t make a blanket statement that this person or that person is or isn’t exaggerating by default.
So, maybe you aren’t objectively a victim, you still feel like a victim no? If t were as simple as telling someone to “stop being a snowflake” no one on earth would ever be offended or hurt by anything again would they? So who judges what is and is not an acceptable tolerance threshold for such matters as how you feel? If you are not “legitimately a victim” and you still feel like one, the logical action would be to find a way to deal with that. Telling someone they aren’t a victim is like telling someone they aren’t sad. They have some control over their emotions but aren’t machines. How we process the feeling is important, but it’s more constructive to approach such feelings and address them than to dismiss them.
You're damn right it's not