The victim-perpetrator cycle

[Estro Felino]

My religion entirely focuses on the notion of victim.
Its symbol is a crucified man, a victim, for instance.
Victims exist because perpetrators exist. It is a basic philosophical concept, but I am wondering whether everyone can understand the victim-perpetrator cycle.


I am realizing this cycle is often overturned.
The victim is considered perpetrator, and the perpetrator is considered the victim.

 

[Estro Felino]

How this cycle is overturned, it is clearly due to bias and Freudian denial.
And also to the denial of free will.
Free will implies that our single choice has consequences towards others. So we can willfully victimize others.

Example: the French revolution.
People being oppressed by the aristocracy and the absolute monarchy. So the French people are the victim.
The people reacts, the revolution breaks out.
People assault and storm the Bastille.

Obviously they are seen as perpetrators by the aristocracy.

But they still are victims. Who reacted.

 

[Stevicus]

My religion entirely focuses on the notion of victim.
Its symbol is a crucified man, a victim, for instance.
Victims exist because perpetrators exist. It is a basic philosophical concept, but I am wondering whether everyone can understand the victim-perpetrator cycle.


I am realizing this cycle is often overturned.
The victim is considered perpetrator, and the perpetrator is considered the victim.

I think people can understand it on a certain level, although much of our culture worships strength, violence, and war - the domain of perpetrators. Oftentimes it's justified on the basis of protecting victims from other perpetrators or gaining justice in victims' names.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think people can understand it on a certain level, although much of our culture worships strength, violence, and war - the domain of perpetrators. Oftentimes it's justified on the basis of protecting victims from other perpetrators or gaining justice in victims' names.

Right.
Self-defense is always legitimate.
If a minority within a country is harassed and persecuted, they are the victims. That country is the perpetrator.

If another country wants to defend that minority by attacking that country, they are not perpetrators.
The perpetrators remain those who persecuted the minority in the first place.

I think people tend to overturn the notion of "victim " and "perpetrator" on the basis of their own partial and subjective perception.

 

[Estro Felino]

Same as for revolutions.
If an oppressed people rises up against an elite and chases away these elites from the buildings of power, this does not mean these elites are the victim.
They still are the perpetrators.

 

[Revoltingest]

If another country wants to defend that minority by attacking that country, they are not perpetrators.
The perpetrators remain those who persecuted the minority in the first place.

Attacking a country for the benefit of an oppressed
minority is fraught with risk of the attacker being a
perpetrator. War is messy, chaotic, destructive, & deadly.
The wisdom to do good using violence is rare.
So if Putin wants to oppress gays, Jews, & political
opponents, I say to allow this rather than have a cold
war. But that's a hard sell to voters.

 

[Estro Felino]

Attacking a country for the benefit of an oppressed
minority is fraught with risk of the attacker being a
perpetrator. War is messy, chaotic, destructive, & deadly.
The wisdom to do good using violence is rare.
So if Putin wants to oppress gays, Jews, & political
opponents, I say to allow this rather than have a cold
war. But that's a hard sell to voters.

The notions of victim and perpetrator are very clear. Self-defense does not make the victim who defends themselves a perpetrator.

 

[Revoltingest]

The notions of victim and perpetrator are very clear.

Most of the time.
But you posed the scenario of another country
preventing victimization within another. This
complicates things.
Would you trust Hillary or Obama to militarily
protect a victimized minority in another country
without perpetrating crimes?

Self-defense does not make the victim who defends themselves a perpetrator.

Agreed...regarding this one scenario.

 

[Estro Felino]

Would you trust Hillary or Obama to militarily
protect a victimized minority in another country
without perpetrating crimes?

Those two people practically sided with the ISIS both in Syria and in Libya.

This minority consider themselves a victim of the Westernization and modernization.
Because they would like to implement their fundamentalist ideologies everywhere.
Are they really?

 

[Revoltingest]

Are they really?

No.
Victimization is sometimes only in the mind of the victim.

 

[Estro Felino]

No.
Victimization is sometimes only in the mind of the victim.

Exactly.
Hence my thread.
That is what I mean by the tendency to overturn the notions of "perpetrator" and "victim".

Not respecting people's free will make us perpetrators.

 

[Nakosis]

My religion entirely focuses on the notion of victim.
Its symbol is a crucified man, a victim, for instance.
Victims exist because perpetrators exist. It is a basic philosophical concept, but I am wondering whether everyone can understand the victim-perpetrator cycle.


I am realizing this cycle is often overturned.
The victim is considered perpetrator, and the perpetrator is considered the victim.

If one can position themselves as a victim you can usually justify any response.
Putin tried to position the Russian speaking citizens of Ukraine as victims.
He failed but imagine if he had succeeded. The world would have seen Putin as a savior.

 

[Stevicus]

Right.
Self-defense is always legitimate.
If a minority within a country is harassed and persecuted, they are the victims. That country is the perpetrator.

If another country wants to defend that minority by attacking that country, they are not perpetrators.
The perpetrators remain those who persecuted the minority in the first place.

I think people tend to overturn the notion of "victim " and "perpetrator" on the basis of their own partial and subjective perception.

In the U.S., this question has long perplexed many and has led to certain inconsistencies and contradictions within our overall political culture and the way most Americans look at their nation. We've been perpetrators, but in recent times our government has expressed some measure of regret and remorse over that.

What started out as a wild band of cutthroats, pirates, ruffians, and cowboys eventually turned into well-dressed, educated, civilized "gentlemen" who claim to be paragons of virtue and only want what is moral and righteous for the world. They're really, really sorry about what their ancestors did, and they'll try to make up for it - somehow. They don't see themselves as perpetrators anymore, but they're also not victims either. Being a victim is being seen as weak, and they definitely do not want to be seen as weak.

In the end, it may be better to be seen as a perpetrator than as a victim. Perpetrators are feared more and often command respect. More is the pity.

 

[Estro Felino]

If one can position themselves as a victim you can usually justify any response.
Putin tried to position the Russian speaking citizens of Ukraine as victims.
He failed but imagine if he had succeeded. The world would have seen Putin as a savior.

This is true.
If we think of Robin Hood, we tend to see the oppressors, that is Prince John and co., as the perpetrators. The oppressed are the victims.

But Prince John and others consider Robin Hood, the perpetrator who victimizes them.

So...who is right?
It is all about free will. Who violates people's free will start the victim-perpetrator circle.

 

[Nakosis]

This is true.
If we think of Robin Hood, we tend to see the oppressors, that is Prince John and co., as the perpetrators. The oppressed are the victims.

But Prince John and others consider Robin Hood, the perpetrator who victimizes them.

So...who is right?
It is all about free will. Who violates people's free will start the victim-perpetrator circle.

Sure, perhaps Prince John was simply trying to support a social program to feed the poor.

 

[Estro Felino]

In the U.S., this question has long perplexed many and has led to certain inconsistencies and contradictions within our overall political culture and the way most Americans look at their nation. We've been perpetrators, but in recent times our government has expressed some measure of regret and remorse over that.

What started out as a wild band of cutthroats, pirates, ruffians, and cowboys eventually turned into well-dressed, educated, civilized "gentlemen" who claim to be paragons of virtue and only want what is moral and righteous for the world. They're really, really sorry about what their ancestors did, and they'll try to make up for it - somehow. They don't see themselves as perpetrators anymore, but they're also not victims either. Being a victim is being seen as weak, and they definitely do not want to be seen as weak.

In the end, it may be better to be seen as a perpetrator than as a victim. Perpetrators are feared more and often command respect. More is the pity.

From a social and economic point of view, I see the American people as a people of winners.

But, there can be people who are victimized by the system. Despite that, these victims tend to do anything to fight back.
And that is positive.

 

[Stevicus]

From a social and economic point of view, I see the American people as a people of winners.

But, there can be people who are victimized by the system. Despite that, these victims tend to do anything to fight back.
And that is positive.

True, Americans do fight back, although sometimes they pick strange battles. Cops might run roughshod over people's rights, and many are okay with that. But if McDonald's runs out of chicken mcnuggets, it becomes the battle of the century.

 

[Estro Felino]

True, Americans do fight back, although sometimes they pick strange battles. Cops might run roughshod over people's rights, and many are okay with that. But if McDonald's runs out of chicken mcnuggets, it becomes the battle of the century.

After all the anthem underlines it is the land of the free and the brave.
Freedom and courage.

 

[Estro Felino]

No.
Victimization is sometimes only in the mind of the victim.

I also think that people arbitrarily and partially decide who is the victim and the perpetrator.

For example, in the Maidan coup, do you think the people who overthrew Yanukovič were the victims or the perpetrators?

 

[Revoltingest]

I also think that people arbitrarily and partially decide who is the victim and the perpetrator.

For example, in the Maidan coup, do you think the people who overthrew Yanukovič were the victims or the perpetrators?

I'm too unfamiliar to weigh in.