2016 elections - because it's never too early

[The Minsky Moment]

[Marti] All those German women that got raped by Russian troops had it coming.  The poor dying SS soldiers were the true victims [/Marti]

[derspiess]

Indeed - and what she did NOT say is that women suffer more than men from war, despite you insisting that she did say just that.

She made a direct implication to that effect.  If women are the *primary* victims of war, men must be the secondary victims.  Unless you think women and men are both primary, in which case primary carries zero meaning and should not be used.

The point she never made is that men don't suffer,

Never claimed she did.

are not victims,

Never said that, either.

or that either men or women have some kind of trump card of suffering over the other one.

Okay now that she did say.

[Martinus]

[Marti] All those German women that got raped by Russian troops had it coming.  The poor dying SS soldiers were the true victims [/Marti]

Wow. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Wow. 

Exactly.

[derspiess]

WTF is a women card holder?

The woman card thing is a reference to a reference to a reference. It is a tower of memes.

Somebody said Clinton was playing the woman card. So Clinton's campaign made ironic woman cards. So now all of us who support Clinton are woman card holders.

Well, as long as it is clear their hysterical obsession with her gender is not about gender, it is all good.

Here's a link to order yours.  Only $5.  While supplies last, though I tested out the max. quantity and apparently it will let you add 1,000,000 to your cart.

https://shop.hillaryclinton.com/products/the-woman-card

[frunk]

or that either men or women have some kind of trump card of suffering over the other one.

Okay now that she did say.

No she didn't.  Being a victim isn't the same as suffering.  You can suffer without being a victim, and you can be a victim without suffering.

[Valmy]

No she didn't.  Being a victim isn't the same as suffering.  You can suffer without being a victim, and you can be a victim without suffering.

Yeah that is the only context that makes sense. That men, as primarily participants, are not primarily victims.

[The Minsky Moment]

It's a rather odd use of language to refer to military combatants in a war as the "victims" of the war.  There are some circumstances where that might make sense, but not typically.  That is not to say that the soldiers or combatants do not suffer, obviously they do - and our culture honors, commemorates and respects that suffering.

"Victims" of a war typically refers to civilians harmed by the war, i.e. non-combatants.  And HC is probably right that historically the brunt of that falls disproportionately on women and their children.

[derspiess]

Wow.

[Valmy]

Wow.

Wow.

I find it amusing you are so desperate to be classified as a victim. 21st century culture man. I guess there is no higher honor than to be included in the glorious ranks of the oppressed and victimized.

[The Minsky Moment]

Personally I suspect that a GI who gave his life defending his country from fascism wouldn't care much to be characterized as a "victim" of the war, as if he were some chump sent off to die.  I imagine some people might be insulted by that terminology. 

[Martinus]

It's a rather odd use of language to refer to military combatants in a war as the "victims" of the war.  There are some circumstances where that might make sense, but not typically.  That is not to say that the soldiers or combatants do not suffer, obviously they do - and our culture honors, commemorates and respects that suffering.

"Victims" of a war typically refers to civilians harmed by the war, i.e. non-combatants.  And HC is probably right that historically the brunt of that falls disproportionately on women and their children.

So, the WW2 was virtually a victimless war from the US and the UK perspective?

[garbon]

It's a rather odd use of language to refer to military combatants in a war as the "victims" of the war.  There are some circumstances where that might make sense, but not typically.  That is not to say that the soldiers or combatants do not suffer, obviously they do - and our culture honors, commemorates and respects that suffering.

"Victims" of a war typically refers to civilians harmed by the war, i.e. non-combatants.  And HC is probably right that historically the brunt of that falls disproportionately on women and their children.

So, the WW2 was virtually a victimless war from the US and the UK perspective?

I guess you don't care at all about what Hillary actually said. She noted how women can be victims which extends beyond being killed.

[The Minsky Moment]

So, the WW2 was virtually a victimless war from the US and the UK perspective?

No clearly the POWs that were horribly treated particularly in the Japanese theater were victims in the common sense of the word.  The British also suffered the Blitz, and IMO the US soldiers killed in the PH attack are one of the particular contexts where the use of that word makes sense as it was a surprise attack made in peacetime. 

But to say the regular Tommy or GI who died fighting was a "victim" seems IMO rather insulting and a denial of the meaning of what they were doing.

[The Minsky Moment]

Let's put it this way:

"During WW2 16 million Americans served in WW2.  Of that number, 300,000 were victimized by Axis forces."

OR

""During WW2 16 million Americans served in WW2.  Of that number, 300,000 gave their lives while fighting Axis forces."

Which of those sounds right to you?