Victimhood Poker

Whilst this stems from rocket post one and rocket post two [both open in new window or tab], the points made are more generally about blog policy at NO.

If you go through the comments thread in the second post, there are barbs either way but you’ll also notice a lot of smilies. In other words, adults disagreeing and agreeing to disagree – or that’s how I read it.

The nature of blogs is that even though that was the second post, the last comments were back on post one.

The gracious “maybe I am just an overly-sensitive little flower who somehow has read those comments wrong,” was quite to the point and would seem to have ended the matter.

You can imagine my surprise though to suddenly see offense being taken and frankly, I was bemused because there seemed no deeply personal comment anyone had made beyond the odd barb here and there. Plenty of strong words on topic but none designed as hatchet jobs on a person.

Now I was annoyed and so, looked back at the blog policies on comments:

1. Defamation;
2. Breach of copyright;
3. Arguing off-topic in order to push a certain political line;
4. Trying to advertise one’s site by leaving a link.

Oh dear, I forgot to put in Victimhood Poker. That shall be rectified. It goes in at N5.

Anyone centre or right knows what VP is but many on the left might not know it as such, even though the main perpetrators in the public sphere tend to come from that sector.

Here’s a post which deals with an example of it.

Here’s another.

And here’s another.

And another.

The notion of victimhood poker is that one gets offended for dodgy reasons, sometimes dishonestly so. In the case of Diane Abbott and Co, it’s for political reasons in order to push an agenda and quite dishonest.

With other people, it can be getting one’s knickers in a twist over nothing.

With yet others,it can be a response to not winning an argument. One then resorts to taking offense in order to win the day.

And as I wrote, that’s something up with which this blog will not put and shall go in as N5. As you can see from various bloggers’ posts on the matter, it’s a sensitive issue in itself, Victimhood Poker and no blogger I know likes it or will put up with it.

My attitude on commenting here is that issues are always going to be touched on which someone, somewhere, is going to be sensitive to. Thus, to me, it’s deeply annoying the way Hamas acts and using children as human shields is just subhuman. Someone else might be sensitive to other issues, e.g. abortion.

So, with that in mind, discussion is going to get hot. My attitude to ad hominem is that things said in the heat of battle and in the context of the point made are par for the course – we’re big boys and girls and can handle ourselves. We’re not sensitive little flowers.

If someone deliberately comes in though to destroy someone else, as a couple of the banned commenters at this site try to do with me, then that’s another matter. That ad hominem will be Monty Python footed. I don’t mean things like: “I don’t care what you think,” which are mild but deliberately telling porkies about someone else in order to hurt them and having zero to do with the topic. The intention here is the critical factor.

To most people who visit this site, all of this is self-evident, obvious, but for the unaware, I felt it needed to be stated yet again.

I hasten to add that that all of the parties – offenders and offendees, at either of those two posts are always welcome and will be luvved to bits. 😉

4 comments for “Victimhood Poker

  1. Wolfie
    July 14, 2014 at 09:54

    The Palestinian/Israeli conflict is a topic best avoided at all costs, I don’t know why you think it wise to post about it. There are just some topics that get people so stupid and angry that they lose all perspective, particularly daft is that each of the protagonists concerned cannot in any way be called allies or friends of the United Kingdom. They simply aren’t worth the time or trouble.

    Palestine, like dog mess should simply be circumvented quickly and forgotten.

    • July 14, 2014 at 11:27

      Editorial advice always welcomed, Wolfie.

  2. Rossa
    July 14, 2014 at 13:15

    Trouble with doing that Wolfie, is that there are plenty of topics that garner the same sort of response. Avoiding them just leads to more repression of free speech and the ubiquitous ‘thought’ crimes that the progressive left seem to be determined to impose on us.

    There are plenty of things I could disagree with but choose not to. It’s called maturity! In the overall scheme of things getting hot under the collar over another person’s opinion would be more a reflection on me than others. The right/left, them v us, divide and conquer meme is very successful these days in TPTBs attempts to keep US distracted from core issues that really should matter to us all. Unless we sort out the fundamental wrongs in the ‘system’ for everyone, issues like Israel/Palestine that cause this level of dispute will never get sorted anyway. But then they’re not meant to get resolved, are they.

    • Wolfie
      July 14, 2014 at 14:46

      As James knows, I am not one to shy away from boisterous debate or the controversial. I do however think that some topics simply seem to go nowhere and are simply divisive in the long-run. Generally blog posts that run in to trouble are on this topic (or many other land disputes) or criminal legal cases. Both suffer from a central problem. Facts and getting to them. Land disputes are bogged down in too many to make reasoned debate on and the latter too little, with what is available protected from the public by statute.

Comments are closed.