When someone suffers at the hands of something they become a victim of said thing. How you utilize being a victim is up to you after that. Some people use it as a lesson to make themselves stronger, or turn around and use their experience for good. Some — and this is happening way too much these days — use it as a way to win an argument.
Case in point, during the recent impeachment hearings, you’ll notice that no one really had any information that President Donald Trump did anything illegal, demanded quid pro quo, or even, for that matter, did anything wrong. What they did have, however, was hurt feelings.
During the testimony of Marie Yovanovitch, her big moment was when she thinks Trump bashed her over a phone call the Ukrainian President. Nothing in the transcripts shows Trump mentioned her at all. In short, she just thinks that, and her feelings were hurt because of something speculated on but had no proof of.
Here's a key detail:
In her deposition, Yovanovitch and Schiff speculated that President Trump and President Zelensky had discussed her on this call and "bash[ed]" her
But as the transcript shows, Yovanovitch was not discussed pic.twitter.com/uYNWBrqJnS
— Zach Parkinson (@AZachParkinson) November 15, 2019
Trump had fired Yavanovitch from her position, which apparently is a crime now, but Presidents fire and hire ambassadors. It’s well within their right to do that, and it does happen throughout every presidency. With that in mind, the key point being made here is that Yavanovitch felt disrespected, and therefore Trump has got to go.
Yavanovitch was a victim of Trump’s discernment about who should be ambassador, and somehow that’s evidence of wrongdoing according to Democrats, and a reason why her word has weight.
It’s ridiculous in the high halls of Washington, but it’s even more ridiculous here on the ground when social justice advocates get involved.
Yesterday, I talked about the feminist backlash to the new Star Wars show “The Mandalorian” which apparently featured too much violence and not enough women. One of those people leading the charge was feminist Anita Sarkeesian of the failed “Feminist Frequency” organization.
Naturally, her tweet was responded to with derision and debate, which are two things Sarkeesian uses to enrich herself…or at least used to when more people were buying her schtick.
The thing is, when you tell a bunch of people that something is bad because it doesn’t check all the boxes on a social justice/feminist checklist, people are going to clap back. Something doesn’t have to be feminist or even run near a social justice topic to be good. In fact, it becomes socio-political propaganda when it does and tends to fail miserably.
Just check out the latest Star Wars sequels if you want to see that in action.
In any case, Sarkeesian later came back and highlighted all the blowback she received for her asinine statement and turned it into victimhood, which to her apparently proves her point.
Wow. Nearly 3000 replies because one woman voices her opinion that we shouldn’t be at a point anymore where we just accept media that normalizes patriarchy. Cool cool cool. Everyone’s having a normal one I see. pic.twitter.com/N8vMHJZ09e
— Anita Sarkeesian (@anitasarkeesian) November 21, 2019
This is what’s known as a Kafka trap. It’s a person using people’s anger toward them or their argument as proof that their point has merit.
In Sarkeesian’s case, she’s blanket blaming our society for hating women and being patriarchal because a show that has gained popularity doesn’t pass her feminist test. It’s natural that society, in turn, wouldn’t take this well.
As a result, Sarkeesian used the backlash as proof of her point.
But it’s not any proof at all.
Sarkeesian doesn’t have a leg to stand on as quite a bit of media nowadays has strong women front and center, be it children’s movies like Cars 3, superhero movies like the Marvel franchise, or even Star Wars itself with its new lead character being the Mary Sue, Rey.
Her argument was hollow from the start and people pointed that out. So, in order to make her point have any kind of weight, she used the backlash against her as a way to make it seem like her original point had merit.
Do you see the pattern here? There’s no substance, just victimhood.
The left views victimhood as a kind of currency and has for years on end. You’ll notice today that many hold the color of their skin, their gender, their sexuality, and more in front of them like a shield when they make any point or argument no matter what. Any response to the contrary is absorbed by their identity and used as a way to make others seem guilty of something sinister. This, in turn, can be used to silence someone or make others stop listening to them.
Al Sharpton has used victimhood to enrich himself for decades. He’ll stand up and speak out like some brave civil rights warrior about the injustices of the black community and receive applause from leftist talking heads and politicians. If anyone argues, they’re racist.
Meanwhile, they don’t show you the people from the black community shouting him down and calling him a phony.
And Sharpton is a phony. He’s been a phony since he appeared on the scene during the Tawana Brawley hoax.
These aren’t victims, these are hucksters, and they’re making it hard for real victims to be taken seriously. The more people cry wolf, the more very real situations with very real victims are drowned out in the noise. It helps no one and does nothing to improve society.
In fact, all things considered, the “victims” are actually the societal offenders.