Talk:Playing the victim
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Untitled[edit]
Sorted --Penbat (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Determinism vs. Victim playing[edit]
I believe it needs to be further discussed how victim playing is different than determinism. As of the moment, the article discusses that victim playing is a fabrication of reasons for why things occurred, which is different than the actual reasons for why things occurred as they did. --Cyberman (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Cyberman! You seem be knowledgeable about this subject, so find good, secondary sources and then please be bold and write about it! With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 10:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I believe this comes to a level of basic or specific intent of the action conducted against the person who claims to be victim and whether or not the victim acts against the perpetrator because of the alleged intentional acts. However, the thing comes down to proving intent on behalf of the individual who the "victim" alleges caused an infliction onto the victim. As such, I think it would be argued that a fabrication is a fabrication of intent, whether basic or specific, regardless of the act occurring. So, if the victim cannot prove intent, then the person is victim playing when fabricating intent. Otherwise, if intent can be shown, reaction by the victim toward the alleged perpetrator can be considered, which is what I think really is the basis of the abuse defense (a defense of individuality and self). That is, however, a legal argument. A determinist argument, however, would state that the person who claims to be a victim is a victim of various causes. Nonetheless, when brought to the barebones realm of law theory, the person can be shown to be delusional when intent cannot be proven, despite acts occurring. As such, although acts occurred, which are definitely calculated into the cause-effect realm of determinism, the person is little more than delusional about attributing intent. As such, if the alleged victim can properly apply intent to those who have held intent to cause acts to harm him or her, the person would then have justification for alleging that he or she is a victim, whether or not the individual is a large number of individuals who the perpetrator intended to victimize or harm: Although, such an action by a perpetrator may fall under basic intent rather than specific intent, unless a group of individuals were targeted: Ex. Hitler targeting Jews through his military. In general, an individual who is truly a victim will have a perpetrator who held a mens rea. Otherwise, it would be difficult for someone to claim that he or she is a victim except by the accidental if not stupid, incompetent, or insane actions of others. --Cyberman (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply Cyberman! I must say that I have a hard time to understand your reasoning. Could you be very specific and say which sentences in the article you would like to replace with what? And, once more, do you have good, secondary sources? Lova Falk talk 08:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I believe this comes to a level of basic or specific intent of the action conducted against the person who claims to be victim and whether or not the victim acts against the perpetrator because of the alleged intentional acts. However, the thing comes down to proving intent on behalf of the individual who the "victim" alleges caused an infliction onto the victim. As such, I think it would be argued that a fabrication is a fabrication of intent, whether basic or specific, regardless of the act occurring. So, if the victim cannot prove intent, then the person is victim playing when fabricating intent. Otherwise, if intent can be shown, reaction by the victim toward the alleged perpetrator can be considered, which is what I think really is the basis of the abuse defense (a defense of individuality and self). That is, however, a legal argument. A determinist argument, however, would state that the person who claims to be a victim is a victim of various causes. Nonetheless, when brought to the barebones realm of law theory, the person can be shown to be delusional when intent cannot be proven, despite acts occurring. As such, although acts occurred, which are definitely calculated into the cause-effect realm of determinism, the person is little more than delusional about attributing intent. As such, if the alleged victim can properly apply intent to those who have held intent to cause acts to harm him or her, the person would then have justification for alleging that he or she is a victim, whether or not the individual is a large number of individuals who the perpetrator intended to victimize or harm: Although, such an action by a perpetrator may fall under basic intent rather than specific intent, unless a group of individuals were targeted: Ex. Hitler targeting Jews through his military. In general, an individual who is truly a victim will have a perpetrator who held a mens rea. Otherwise, it would be difficult for someone to claim that he or she is a victim except by the accidental if not stupid, incompetent, or insane actions of others. --Cyberman (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- So, I am a Latinist, and grammarian. I am reading the article sections about Bosnia, and political victimisation. If you take the semiotics of it - this person is literally rambling. It doesn't clearly mean anything. It cannot be reduced to a coherent point, and uses a vast array of unnecessary synonyms to cover its incomprehensibility. If this is contested, I am happy to draw up a "semiotic/semantic" chart, to show that it is more akin to word-salad than an argument. 2001:8003:144B:8400:C2A:77C:222D:F8DC (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- I assume this was written by a low-level Uni student, who has learned the vocab, but not how to think. I challenge the writer to write, in his/her own way, dot points, and coherent links between the arguments, and to state which aArtian dictionary he/she uses when picking words. 2001:8003:144B:8400:C2A:77C:222D:F8DC (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Martian
- 2001:8003:144B:8400:C2A:77C:222D:F8DC (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Well, this comes from a variety of sources of legal and moral interpretaton.
- (I don’t have references)
- However, morality tends to be a different ballgame from legality.
- Right and wrong aren’t the same as Law.
- Nonetheless, law is often about the application of liability.
- (determining - fault? Why “application”?)
- What I'm saying is that if an individual is claiming that he or she is a victim,
- rather than playing the victim, then it is necessary to prove liability.
- If a party (IS INNOCENT), one must prove who is GUILTY.
- This is nothing. This is not information.
- I think what has originally bothered me here is how the article discussed the aspect of fabrication.
- As such, if a person who claims to be a victim and can prove that an object,
- objects, individual or group of persons is or are liable for making that person a victim, then the individual is not "victim playing."
- “As such”? why “as such”? That’s not… a valid connector: “It being the way it stands, if someone shows they are actually a victim, they aren’t acting.”
- This is so obvious it’s ludicrous it was included!
- The standard, however, that I'm using is an equation that is often used to determine criminal and civil liability.
- What equation do judges use? Algebra or Trig?
- There are other issues, such as tort(ure - ed.) and punishment, that would relate to the realm of an autonomus group of individuals who have developed social relations as to whether or not they can claim that individuals in that social group are liable and to be punished for having victimized a member of the group:
- Other topics, such as
- Torture (etc.)
- relate to
- a self-ruling place with its own rules in society
- as to ? as to? what?
- “whether or not they can claim victimisation in reality, or as a “move”.
- What? Obviously! But what is that to do with faking being a victim? Are you saying it’s relative to whether a country condones torture? LIterally, I can’t tell! I looked up all the verbs and participles!
- As such, this would go into the realm of whether or not a person is justified in abusing other, whereby it may be better said that a person was 'punishing' someone for a wrong that he or she commited that had victimized the individual.
- YOu aren’t a victim, if you have done wrong. You are deserving. OK.
- I definitely think there is not a large amount of philosophical literature on this, because the courts do not like the idea of groups of individuals breaking off from the legal system to determine their own brand of justice (the legal system does not like vigilante justice). I do, however, see a niche for this.
- THe Law, being taken into individuals’ hands, might have some worth.
- So, relate this to people who actually feign being victim? 2001:8003:144B:8400:C2A:77C:222D:F8DC (talk) 06:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Well, this comes from a variety of sources of legal and moral interpretaton. However, morality tends to be a different ballgame from legality. Nonetheless, law is often about the application of liability. What I'm saying is that if an individual is claiming that he or she is a victim, rather than playing the victim, then it is necessary to prove liability. I think what has originally bothered me here is how the article discussed the aspect of fabrication. As such, if a person who claims to be a victim and can prove that an object, objects, individual or group of persons is or are liable for making that person a victim, then the individual is not "victim playing." The standard, however, that I'm using is an equation that is often used to determine criminal and civil liability. There are other issues, such as tort and punishment, that would relate to the realm of an autonomus group of individuals who have developed social relations as to whether or not they can claim that individuals in that social group are liable and to be punished for having victimized a member of the group: As such, this would go into the realm of whether or not a person is justified in abusing other, whereby it may be better said that a person was 'punishing' someone for a wrong that he or she commited that had victimized the individual. I definitely think there is not a large amount of philosophical literature on this, because the courts do not like the idea of groups of individuals breaking off from the legal system to determine their own brand of justice (the legal system does not like vigilante justice). I do, however, see a niche for this. -Cyberman
- I assume this was written by a low-level Uni student, who has learned the vocab, but not how to think. I challenge the writer to write, in his/her own way, dot points, and coherent links between the arguments, and to state which aArtian dictionary he/she uses when picking words. 2001:8003:144B:8400:C2A:77C:222D:F8DC (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
"Crybully" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Crybully. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 24#Crybully until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Existential validation?[edit]
"Justification, to themselves, in transactional analysis known as existential validation, as a way of dealing with the cognitive dissonance that results from inconsistencies between the way they treat others and what they believe about themselves." Can you cite a source of for this statement? Did Eric Berne use the term "existential validation?" Also, it would be helpful to clarify in what way playing the victim game resolves the "inconsistencies" that you mention. Thanks. 2600:8801:BE26:2700:F838:CD00:D09E:88AF (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC) Jim.
Learned Helplessness?[edit]
Is this in any way related to Learned Helplessness? E.g. getting comfortable in learned helplessness and starting to play victim for more comfort. Wapall (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- I does seem to be very similar. Why not add that to the article? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Polish the “Political contexts” section[edit]
The phrasing of this section seems a little too different from the rest of the page. For a moment, I thought I was reading about a completely different topic. It’s more verbose and reads very differently to the rest of the page. IronPikachu26 (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Language and tonal adjustment?[edit]
Reading this article gave me a much different feel than the standard unified presentation quality from the rest of the site. The odd usage of metaphors and language around certain phrases lacks the quality of neutral language the rest of Wikipedia presents. If not for the logo at the top of the page, I wouldn't have guessed this came from a Wikipedia article. Also, is there a particular reason the title isn't "Self-Victimization" since this would be more in line with the psychology topic of introjection. 173.190.222.135 (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Missing goal: to achieve punishment/ negative consequences for the accused "perpetrator"?[edit]
Eg when fabricating claims of rape or other crimes, whether online or towards an (ex) partner. The reason is often a hurt ego or some personal grievance, the goal is usually to see them punished or hurt, while the mechanism or means would usually be the justice system or the public, who are often quick to punish and hurt supposed offenders, even without any evidence and before/outside of any court decisions.
Is this not related to this page? Geronator (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)