superstition
Platinum Member
- Feb 2, 2008
- 2,219
- 221
- 101
1prophet
Diamond Member
- Aug 17, 2005
- 5,313
- 534
- 126
The flea syndrome.
To train a flea put it in a box with a lid, it will continually jump and hit its head until it realizes it can't jump higher than the lid and adjust its jump accordingly.
Then you remove the lid but the flea never jumps higher than the height of the box after that, the physical barrier has been replaced by a psychological one.
Along comes a flea that never had a barrier placed over its head and can't understand why the previous flea can't jump out of the box since it wasn't there to witness the lid in place over its head.
So the flea that can jump says to the one that can't "what's wrong with you, there is nothing over your head holding you back, you expect me to come give you a handout, jump out of that box yourself and if you can't you must be lazy and like it in there"
To train a flea put it in a box with a lid, it will continually jump and hit its head until it realizes it can't jump higher than the lid and adjust its jump accordingly.
Then you remove the lid but the flea never jumps higher than the height of the box after that, the physical barrier has been replaced by a psychological one.
Along comes a flea that never had a barrier placed over its head and can't understand why the previous flea can't jump out of the box since it wasn't there to witness the lid in place over its head.
So the flea that can jump says to the one that can't "what's wrong with you, there is nothing over your head holding you back, you expect me to come give you a handout, jump out of that box yourself and if you can't you must be lazy and like it in there"
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
eh? english much? victim card cut your tongue?
You mean like the onerous burden of suffering you experience in your perceived world of phony victims?[/
originally posted by the band Staind in the song "Falling"
So simple and yet so incredibly profound.
So simple and yet so incredibly profound.
In a nutshell:
I guess to me victim mentality is people who want to blame others for thier own poor choices in life.
ie... I set a scalding hot cup of MC Donalds coffee in between my legs as I am driving off.
The resulting burns are not due to my own carelessness or stupidity.
They are due to MC Donalds brewing thier coffee to hot. I'm just a victim.
Moonbeam: My point was, not that victim mentality and blaming the victim are the same thing, but that the notion of victim mentality, its evocation as a put down of victims exists as a result of the impulse to blame the victim.
chucky2: I really don't see it that way at all. While I might say that the woman in my example was F'ing stupid for doing what she did, I certainly wouldn't take objection to her wanting the man in question to face justice. I wouldn't take objection to her seeking help to deal with her trauma. Neither of those things would be "victim mentality", they would be proper and just. Despite her carelessness, she should never expect to be raped, so while in my example she basically stacked the deck against herself as much as possible, that still doesn't really matter. The guilt and wrongness lays with the man, not her.
M: It matters because it works on juries. We blame victims.
---------
M: They are the product of the same rationalization, a rejection of personal responsibility, a refusal to look at the self.
c2: Would you be talking about her or us, I'm not sure here?
I was speaking of blaming the victim and victim mentality both. They exist because we are protecting ourselves from our negative feelings.
----------
M: Victimization, victim mentality, and blaming the victim all arise out of the simple single phenomenon, the refusal to recognize our own self hate. Attacking others, attacking those who attack, attacking those attacked, it's all the same thing, a need to keep the blame out there.
c2: I don't agree much (but to some extents I do) this at all. I don't have self hate. I have things I'd like to change about myself, but what is your constant fixation on everyone having self hate? If some whiny woman is running around screaming that she was raped and sueing everyone in sight, that's not someone who's handling her trauma correctly, that's someone capitalizing on her prior misfortune. I don't need to have self hate to call BS on her, since her doing something like that is BS in and of itself.
M: I will have to settle for what you can accept as I sure can't force you to see. You feel like the worst person in the world, I know it and you do not. My constant fixation on it self hate is that you are stuck with it unless you can see you have it and that something can be done that you bought into that lie. There is nothing wrong with you, but that is not how you feel. You have no idea how deeply buried are those feelings. What truth you see in another is one thing. How you react to what you see is another. Without self hate you won't use words like shin, screaming, BS etc. You will see a person who has no self love and needs help. There is only love.
c2: I don't need to have self hate to tell someone who's advocating expensive handouts to the same people who were in the same/largely the same circumstances as me...yet I made it and they're poor b@stards because they were slackers and didn't take applying themselves seriously. That's not self hate...that's telling some bleeding heart that I don't want my hard earned tax dollars to go to some lazy F'ers.
M: You have no idea how poor you really are. All that contempt and disdain for the broken are your feelings about your self.
chucky2: I really don't see it that way at all. While I might say that the woman in my example was F'ing stupid for doing what she did, I certainly wouldn't take objection to her wanting the man in question to face justice. I wouldn't take objection to her seeking help to deal with her trauma. Neither of those things would be "victim mentality", they would be proper and just. Despite her carelessness, she should never expect to be raped, so while in my example she basically stacked the deck against herself as much as possible, that still doesn't really matter. The guilt and wrongness lays with the man, not her.
M: It matters because it works on juries. We blame victims.
---------
M: They are the product of the same rationalization, a rejection of personal responsibility, a refusal to look at the self.
c2: Would you be talking about her or us, I'm not sure here?
I was speaking of blaming the victim and victim mentality both. They exist because we are protecting ourselves from our negative feelings.
----------
M: Victimization, victim mentality, and blaming the victim all arise out of the simple single phenomenon, the refusal to recognize our own self hate. Attacking others, attacking those who attack, attacking those attacked, it's all the same thing, a need to keep the blame out there.
c2: I don't agree much (but to some extents I do) this at all. I don't have self hate. I have things I'd like to change about myself, but what is your constant fixation on everyone having self hate? If some whiny woman is running around screaming that she was raped and sueing everyone in sight, that's not someone who's handling her trauma correctly, that's someone capitalizing on her prior misfortune. I don't need to have self hate to call BS on her, since her doing something like that is BS in and of itself.
M: I will have to settle for what you can accept as I sure can't force you to see. You feel like the worst person in the world, I know it and you do not. My constant fixation on it self hate is that you are stuck with it unless you can see you have it and that something can be done that you bought into that lie. There is nothing wrong with you, but that is not how you feel. You have no idea how deeply buried are those feelings. What truth you see in another is one thing. How you react to what you see is another. Without self hate you won't use words like shin, screaming, BS etc. You will see a person who has no self love and needs help. There is only love.
c2: I don't need to have self hate to tell someone who's advocating expensive handouts to the same people who were in the same/largely the same circumstances as me...yet I made it and they're poor b@stards because they were slackers and didn't take applying themselves seriously. That's not self hate...that's telling some bleeding heart that I don't want my hard earned tax dollars to go to some lazy F'ers.
M: You have no idea how poor you really are. All that contempt and disdain for the broken are your feelings about your self.
You hear a hear wrenching story about a teenage kid who was caught up in a house fire and is burned over 80% of his body.
Turns out that the victims brother had a history of starting fires and playing with lighters.
the brother has been warned time and time again about it, his family has done everything they can to keep fire starting materials away from him, he has seen a specialist but somehow he finds a way to get what he needs to set fires.
Victim mentality is when the brother who started the fire and his family completely disregard these facts and blame the store, the state and the maker of the lighter that he used to cause the fire.
"it's not his fault....if the maker of the lighter had made it more child proof, if the store had not sold it to him or if we had a law that stated people under 18 should not be allowed to have lighters then this would not have happened."
he is not the victim directly in this case, but he is portraying himself as one to deflect the responsibility of his actions and how they affected someone else.
it's like saying "car accident"...no such thing.
car wrecks are a direct result of someones negligence behind the wheel, either distracted by a radio, cell phone, food or just not paying attention or not being safe.
if it is a mechanical failure then it is the car makers fault for not following proper quality guidelines, the mechanic that performed any work on the car and did not follow proper procedure to fix it or the owners fault for not following proper maintenance guidelines.
The only victim is the unfortunate SOB that happens to be in the path of that vehicle at the wrong time...not the driver that caused it.
Turns out that the victims brother had a history of starting fires and playing with lighters.
the brother has been warned time and time again about it, his family has done everything they can to keep fire starting materials away from him, he has seen a specialist but somehow he finds a way to get what he needs to set fires.
Victim mentality is when the brother who started the fire and his family completely disregard these facts and blame the store, the state and the maker of the lighter that he used to cause the fire.
"it's not his fault....if the maker of the lighter had made it more child proof, if the store had not sold it to him or if we had a law that stated people under 18 should not be allowed to have lighters then this would not have happened."
he is not the victim directly in this case, but he is portraying himself as one to deflect the responsibility of his actions and how they affected someone else.
it's like saying "car accident"...no such thing.
car wrecks are a direct result of someones negligence behind the wheel, either distracted by a radio, cell phone, food or just not paying attention or not being safe.
if it is a mechanical failure then it is the car makers fault for not following proper quality guidelines, the mechanic that performed any work on the car and did not follow proper procedure to fix it or the owners fault for not following proper maintenance guidelines.
The only victim is the unfortunate SOB that happens to be in the path of that vehicle at the wrong time...not the driver that caused it.
There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle. Here's the whole story.
Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.
After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.
During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.
McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.
Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.
McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of
the hazard.
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee
sales.
Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.
The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.
No one will ever know the final ending to this case.
The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never
been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public
case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting.
Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.
-----
excerpted from ATLA fact sheet. © 1995, 1996 by Consumer Attorneys of
California
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle. Here's the whole story.
Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.
After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.
During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.
McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.
Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.
McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of
the hazard.
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee
sales.
Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.
The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.
No one will ever know the final ending to this case.
The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never
been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public
case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting.
Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.
-----
excerpted from ATLA fact sheet. © 1995, 1996 by Consumer Attorneys of
California
You are missing the distinctions:
"Victim Mentality" belongs to the person wronged (or person perceiving themself wronged). Falling down is easy. We all make mistakes. We all make poor choices. We all get the shaft in life sometimes. We all get treated like crap, beaten up, stolen from, and lied to by advertisers/government/supposed-loved-ones. But at some point, if you don't get up, then you become the problem, and no amount of positive outside influence will fix you.. only you can make that choice. Until then, you are living the Vicitm Mentality, and you only have yourself to blame.
"Blaming the victim" belongs to defense attorneys and other outside parties with no vested interest in the person wronged (or person perceiving themself wronged).
Jesus stood up against the corrupt religious leaders and prevented them from stoning the prostitute. But after saving her, His most important words in the incident were spoken to her: "Now go and sin no more."
"Victim Mentality" belongs to the person wronged (or person perceiving themself wronged). Falling down is easy. We all make mistakes. We all make poor choices. We all get the shaft in life sometimes. We all get treated like crap, beaten up, stolen from, and lied to by advertisers/government/supposed-loved-ones. But at some point, if you don't get up, then you become the problem, and no amount of positive outside influence will fix you.. only you can make that choice. Until then, you are living the Vicitm Mentality, and you only have yourself to blame.
"Blaming the victim" belongs to defense attorneys and other outside parties with no vested interest in the person wronged (or person perceiving themself wronged).
Jesus stood up against the corrupt religious leaders and prevented them from stoning the prostitute. But after saving her, His most important words in the incident were spoken to her: "Now go and sin no more."
You are blaming people and condemning them to victim status because they don't get up. Don't you think if people could get up they would, you God damned arrogant fool? What sort of moron screams get up you bums in a room full of people with no legs. You are a simpleton who gets his rocks off by self flattery that you're a walker when what you are is fucking lucky. You are as much an accident as they. Go and sin no more.
and you are under the mistaken assumption that everyone wants to get up on their own....many do not and would rather depend on others to carry them not because they cannot or are incapable...but because they have no desire to walk themselves on their own.
It is human nature to take the path of least resistance.....in anything. To some that means doing as little as possible to get by and portray themselves as victims of anything just so they have to do the least amount of work for the most rewards.
There are many people who prey upon this idea of victim mentality, women who cry rape when they were not so they can get money from something that never happend, in divorce proceedings both sides portray themselves as victims when they are not just so they get more in the end, those on welfare or disability who are not injured or incapable of making a living on their own but choose that path because it is easier.
It is because of people like that suspicion is cast on all who cry victim.
Do not blame us because we question authenticity, blame those that cried wolf one too many times when there was none to be seen.
Are there true victims out there? sure there are.....but not all victims are true victims .
What people talk about Moonbeam though in regards to "victim mentality" isn't someone with say severe bi-polar disease (which is one F'd up condition in and of itself btw) and not on meds behaving like a nut - that's expected, that's not "victim mentality", that's the way they truly are. "Victim mentality" is someone b1tching and moaning about how their allergies are making their eyes water everyday, when they won't take the F'ing allergy medicine they've been proscribed (and can afford).
There is a point where proper sympathy ends and personal responsiblity going forward begins. Some people need help in different ways...unfortunately that's calling people on their "victim mentality" sometimes, not letting it continue so their condition and its affects drags on until they choose to stop...
Chuck
I disagree with your first point, that there is some point at which sympathy ends. What you mean by sympathy, I fear, is a far cry from what it means to me. I operate under the assumption that you must always beware of people you help and that people for whom you have sympathy may wish a knife in your back. I think what you call sympathy I would call enabling, playing into the delusion that somebody is actually defeated.
I think you are expressing an anger toward people because they reject your help whereas I already knew they would. This is why I would say it's better to help people without them knowing it.
I just heard some comment on PBS about some study of attitude or something that talked about how people's attitude toward things in a day change if early on the find a ten dollar bill. Everything is attitude, but the art or science of changing it is profoundly subtle.
I think you may be one who gets pissed if you can't help people. 'Shit, I gave that guy some money and he bought a bottle of booze.' No shit, Sherlock. You can't help people if you're ego is involved and your tough love stuff is just an emotional reaction to failure, in my opinion. What's tough about love is having it.
Of course I'm aware of the people that I help may end up misusing the help I give them, but that's their choice, not mine. If I give a homeless person who has a sign on the sidewalk that says, Will lick the bottom of your shoes clean for food...and I flip him a $10 and say Good luck buddy, that may well be enabling. To me, that's a lesser evil than walking past and thinking, Well, he can just go find some homeless handout place and get food, me giving him money he'll just drink it away. That may be true, but maybe he doesn't know about the shelter, maybe he's not welcome there, maybe it's full, maybe he's mentally handicapped and doesn't know about it, WhoTF knows. All I know is if I flip him a $10 and decide to eat at home tonight instead of going out, he may be able to walk into a place, hand them $10, and ask for food. It comes down to him though, not me...I've done my part, it's his choice to do his.
Why would I feel anger to people who reject my help? If I try and give the guy money and he says No, then that's fine, it's his decision. I'm not angry, it's the decision he made.
If you want to work behind the scenes to ensure people are helped that's super too. There's nothing wrong with that...the beauty of helping is that it's helping period, doesn't matter what you do. You want to donate money to a shelter, you're helping. You want to go lend time instead of money to that shelter, you're helping. You want to campaign for additional homeless/needy help, you're helping. You're helping at least the people that are helped by that system. The people you aren't...the guy you walk past who doesn't know about food kitchen's and is eating cigarattes because that's all he can find, and you don't flip him that $10...you haven't helped him at all. I just do a little bit of both...it's as much give and take as I'm prepared to go all things considered...
With the days I've been having, it'd have to be a $100 bill....oh sh1t!! Now I've got "victim mentality"!!! :Q
What you just said really makes 0 sense. First, as I said before, I don't get PO'd if people reject my help - that's their decision about themselves, not mine. That has nothing to do with ego and everything to do with people making decisions about themselves for themselves. Unless it's a mental condition where they're not competant to do so (such as bi-polar disorder and not on meds yet), it's their call. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. I may feel bad for them that they'll continue to suffer since they rejected my help, but that's something minor I have to live with for a short period of time...they're the ones that have to deal with the immediate consequences and then live through them.
Chuck
Wow interesting. . .I always interpreted "victim mentality" as a phrase used to describe the mindset of somebody who always seems to have a reason why something that has happened to them is because of somebody else's doing, never wanting to see or able to see how they have brought circumstances upon themselves. Basically somebody who is always blaming somebody else for all their problems and does nothing to try and improve their situation but just resigns to being angry at the world for screwing them over. It's a form of denial.
I can see now though that is NOT how all other people interpret the phrase. It's interesting because it's one of those types of things you just say with the implicit expectation that the other person knows what you mean. It's not a phrase people use that you really think of as needing additional explanation. Moral of the story, you never know how the other guy is interpreting your words and therefore what you are really saying as far as he is concerned.
I can see now though that is NOT how all other people interpret the phrase. It's interesting because it's one of those types of things you just say with the implicit expectation that the other person knows what you mean. It's not a phrase people use that you really think of as needing additional explanation. Moral of the story, you never know how the other guy is interpreting your words and therefore what you are really saying as far as he is concerned.
Not exactly. . .if somebody really is a victim then they are a victim. People who suffer from the victim mentality often seek out perceived injustices done to them to justify their station in life and their lack of motivation to do anything to change the situation. Someone with the victim mentality always has an excuse for everything. They will resort to Herculean stretches of the imagination to try and place blame for their situation anywhere but on themselves but when it comes to actually doing so much as one simple thing that might better their situation, you will can make suggestions to them until you're blue in the face but you will get nowhere. To the "victim minded" person it's always society and it's laws that's fucked up, that brings them pain and suffering. The "victim" insists on swimming upstream and then bitches that the stream should change it's current. But this person is usually a victim of nothing more than their own laziness and overly active imagination. Not a REAL victim in any REAL sense of the word.
A victim of a rape taking no responsibility for what happened to them, for example, is NOT an example of "victim mentality." They actually were the victim of a very real crime.
Not taking responsibility for your actions and/or refusing to adjust & overcome obstacles after plenty of time has passed are essentially the same thing. Playing the victim to avoid action because it is easier than getting off your rear end and improving your situation.
My uncle, after 10 years, still blames my aunt for the birth of their son, because she wanted to have a baby and wasn't using birth control. He knew she wasn't, and yet it is her fault because she wanted it and he didn't. That is a prime example of victim mentality and just about as bad as people who live their whole life below sea level and expect a free ride when the water comes.
Hehe, you use funny language for somebody who isn't pissed. But then you don't know what you feel.
That it is. But ask yourself this too. . .is the flea that has never been in a box right or wrong in what he says to the flea that used to be, but is not any longer, in a box? Physically, both fleas are equally capable. The physical barrier has been removed from the "boxed" flea now and he can jump as high as he is physically able if only he can break his mode of "victimized" thinking. The barrier is in his mind now and his mind only. But if fleas are like people, they can be remarkably stubborn and the flea that used to be in the box will simply refuse to accept the reality that the other flea tells him. If only our minds were as adaptable mentally as our bodies are physically. . .You can start working out in the gym and start seeing results in a month or less. . .but when it comes to changing people's minds. . .it is amazing how long people will hold on to old, outdated modes of thinking. It has a lot to do with the willingness a person has to step outside their established mental "comfort zone" and explore new ideas and new possible realities.
Not really because the thing of which somebody who has "victim mentality" thinks they are a victim is often imaginary. Blaming the victim implies that the victim really is the victim of some real thing that happened to them or some real condition. . .For example, maybe a drunk makes a rude comment to some other guy's girlfriend in a bar and so the girl's boyfriend punches drunk guy in the mouth and knocks out 3 of his teeth. Blaming the victim, I'd say the drunk guy brought the punch in the mouth on himself. It was his fault for mouthing off to the other guy's girlfriend. In this case, I'd really be blaming the victim. A real fist really did hit him in his mouth.
Somebody with "victim mentality" often only perceives they have been somehow wronged whether or not they actually have. The person suffering victim mentality is really the victim of nothing that has been perpetrated on them by somebody else and that they cannot change if they so desire.
Blame the victim means there is a real victim.
With victim mentality, people imagine themselves victims and will distort their view of the world to make it fit their beliefs.
GTaudiophile
Lifer
- Oct 24, 2000
- 29,776
- 31
- 81
Perfect example...
Media says that those who recently lost their homes in the sub-prime mess are "victims". I say BS. They didn't read the loan contract, made a bad deal, and now they're getting burned by it. They made their own bed and have to sleep in it.
Media says that those who recently lost their homes in the sub-prime mess are "victims". I say BS. They didn't read the loan contract, made a bad deal, and now they're getting burned by it. They made their own bed and have to sleep in it.
That may be true in a lot of cases but there were (and probably still are) some very shady and even down right deceitful lenders out there. Some of the things some of them were doing were just plain dishonest. You have to take each case on it's own merits. There really are some people out there caught up in bad loans that really are victims of predatory or dishonest lending practices. I liken it to a con man taking advantage of an elderly person. Or maybe taking candy from a baby. It is just wrong to prey on the weak. . .or "misinformed/stupid" as the case may be in with these lenders.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter