If someone steals from you, you are victim of robbery. If someone rapes you, you are victim of rape. If your collegues assume you are not skilled cause something about your look, you are victim of bias. If your partner is verbaly abusing you, you are victim of that.
Thinking you are victim in those situations is using right words instead of building taboos.
The moment you admit yourself you was victim of something, you can act on it. If you don't, you end up like one of those victims that will ratilnalize their abusers behavior.
There is no shortage of women who instead of admitting they are victims and admitting partner is abuser, just don't want to be those girls. And they will excuse and rationalize and keep appearances.
So, first and foremost - apologies. I had read two replies and put them together in my head when replying to you. So, yes, I agree with what you are saying here.
The idea that I was trying to get at is that you can accept that you were a victim and do something about it. We are saying the same thing - but you are saying it better, so sorry for the confusion.
Additionally, some people are victims of situations - so say, poor family background, a minority race that is looked down upon by the majority, having a chronic illness - and you can accept that is true but mentally decide that you are going to take steps to make it better, however you can.
You don't want to land in "I have no control and am a victim" when you are being victimized. That is what you are getting at too.
As a society, we don't want to create a society where anyone being abused feels like continuing to be abused is actually better than looking for help / making a change. That's not the victim's fault... that's someone choosing what they see as the best of two not attractive outcomes.
No, if you are robbed you aren’t the victim. No more than you are the victim for tripping on your shoe laces. You make choices and those choices have consequences. Don’t tie your shoes? Trip! Go out in a sketchy area late at night? Robbed! You put yourself in the situation, and if you didn’t like the result, you change your actions. Seeing it as something done to you I think is the exact opposite of the main message.
This logic just seems twisted. Of course i could have avoided event x, if i had made some other choice at some previous point in time. The whole point of living in society is to offset some personal responibilty to the community so that individuals can live without having to constantly think of all possible negative consequences their actions might potentially bring. What you describe in your comment is little more than victim blaming, not even one step away from blaming rape victims for dressing immodestly.
“Epictetus was telling his students there can be no such thing as being the ‘victim’ of another. You can only be ‘victim’ of yourself.”
So no, I’m not victim blaming, I’m reading the article on what it means to be stoic. Obviously you disagree with the premise. Or... does being a stoic mean you support victim blaming?
You can get robbed anywhere (yes, even if the area isn't "sketchy") and if you do, it's not your fault. Of course, this does not mean that afterward you shouldn't take the right steps (perhaps you'll go to the police, or take self-defense classes). Knowing that it could have happened to anyone doesn't take away from your agency.
But if you are stoic it is not the offenders fault either. You are only promised suffering and it is up to you to manage that suffering. Maybe nobody on HN wants to be a stoic.
Thinking you are victim in those situations is using right words instead of building taboos.
The moment you admit yourself you was victim of something, you can act on it. If you don't, you end up like one of those victims that will ratilnalize their abusers behavior. There is no shortage of women who instead of admitting they are victims and admitting partner is abuser, just don't want to be those girls. And they will excuse and rationalize and keep appearances.