[pessimizer]

> This removes practically all meaning from the word "victim".

No, it removes the personal judgement from the word "victim," where we decide whether a particular victim deserves their punishment as a preliminary to discussing their situation.

-----

edit: i.e. where sympathetic people who are killed are victims, and unsympathetic people are killed are being portrayed as victims. It's an attempt to distract from the material facts of a situation with arguments about language.

edit 2: In the spirit of tripling down, I'm also giving this discussion more credit than it deserves. This is about someone saying that the word "cancel" implies the word "victim." So here's the implied argument afaict.

1) Using the word "cancel" to refer to an imposition on your work means that you're implying you're a "victim."

2) A "victim" is someone who is undeserving of what has happened to them.

3) This person is deserving of what has happened to them.

4) Therefore, they are dishonest.

[enkid]

But your original reply didn't say "he didn't call himself a victim," it tried to argue why he was a victim. The gp to this reply was pointing out how absurd your definition of victim is. It's not making an argument about whether or not he called himself a victim, it makes an argument about what you yourself defined as a victim.

[pessimizer]

I've made that argument, and you can accept it or not. The larger point is that accusing people of playing victims is always a distraction from actual argument, and the entire thread is evidence of that. It started with irrelevance and ended nowhere.

[posterboy]

> The larger point is that accusing people of playing victims is always a distraction from actual argume

Yes, and when they are really playing they become the victim of their own ploy.