Playing the Victim: Manipulation through Morality and Power

Playing the victim involves manipulating morality to gain power through coercion, guilt, and hidden expectations, as discussed in Nietzsche's work.

### Understanding and Dealing with Victims Who "Play the Victim" According to Nietzsche
* 🔍 Nietzsche explores the origins of morality in /On the Genealogy of Morals/ and discusses how some people use morality to **control others like a dog-leash**.
* 🎭 "Playing the victim" is a concept where individuals use morality to gain power by **pretending to be victims** and seeking rescuers to solve their problems.
* 🎯 To differentiate between genuine victims and those playing the victim, **consent plays a crucial role**.
* 💔 A true victim is someone who did not give consent or was not in a position to give consent and was **taken advantage of**.
* 😈 Those who play the victim manipulate situations by either falsely claiming they didn't give **legitimate consent** or imposing expectations through **covert contracts**.
* 🛡 Victims who play the victim often use two main weapons: **obligation and guilt**, and **pity and disgust** to coerce others into saving them.
* ✅ The key to not playing the victim or being manipulated by others who play the victim is to **establish mutual consent** with those who can give it.
* 📜 "As always, this is just my opinion, understanding, and interpretation of some of Nietzsche’s ideas, **not advice**."

In /On the Genealogy of Morals/, Nietzsche searches through history for the origins of morality. And in it, he talks about how some people use morality like a dog-leash to control others. They use morality to get people to do what they want. It’s an interesting idea with lots of implications, but I’m interested in exploring one particular version of this idea: /playing the victim/. Someone who plays the victim is an example of someone who uses morality to gain power, and that’s what I wanna explore in this essay. But before we can understand what it means to /play the victim/, we need to understand what it means to be a victim. For this essay, we can define a /victim/ as /someone who is taken advantage of by another person/. And we can call /the act of taking advantage of someone/ a /crime/. And typically, what we want for all victims is /justice/. And /justice/, as discussed by Nietzsche, can be thought of as /giving back to the victim.

what was lost when the crime was committed? In other words, you can think of justice as
the repaying of debts: the criminal must repay the debt they acquired by taking advantage
of the victim. I’m not saying this is what justice means,
but this is a way many people understand justice, and this definition is important in the context
of this video. So what does it mean to play the victim? What separates a genuine victim from someone
playing the victim? A genuine victim was actually taken advantage
of, but someone playing the victim wasn’t. And how do you determine whether someone was
actually taken advantage of? It comes down to consent. Someone is taken
advantage of when their presence is used in a way they didn’t agree to. And so a true victim did not give consent
or was not in a position to give consent, such as in the case of a child or someone
who was severely intoxicated. But someone who plays the victim gives legitimate
consent and then claims they didn’t.

Or they claim you consented to things which you didn’t consent to, or were not in a position to consent to. I’ll explore what both cases look like a little later on. So why would someone play the victim? To put it simply, they play victim so someone will save them from their problems. They’re looking for a rescuer. And how do they get people to save them? Someone who plays the victim has two main weapons: obligation and guilt, and pity and disgust. Let’s take a look at the first weapon: obligation and guilt. Here, the person playing the victim claims that you consented to things that you didn’t consent to, or were not in a position to consent to. They impose an obligation on you and make you feel guilty for not living up to the obligation. They try to coerce you into paying a debt that you did not consent to taking on. Let’s look at an example.

At the age of 22, Jane’s husband left her
with their two sons: Jamie and Michael. Jane told herself that she would dedicate
her life to her sons, and that in return they would take care of her. I will take care of them, she thought, and
in return, they can never leave me. So keep that in mind: Jane is imposing an
obligation on her sons. She’s binding them into a covert contract. But they’re children. They’re not in a position to consent to
such a contract. So how does this play out? Jane will do anything for them as long as
they don’t leave her alone. But as they start growing up, naturally, they
start wanting to live their own lives. They want to spend time with their friends
and lovers. And anytime they want to leave the house,
anytime they want to do something without her, anytime she feels them creating some
distance from her, their mom uses guilt and

obligation to make them stay. She says, “after everything I’ve done
for you, after all the time, energy, and money I’ve spent on you, you’re just going to
leave me?! You are terrible sons! You should be ashamed!” But is this fair of Jane to do? She imposed this contract on her kids—/I
will take care of you as long as you never leave me/—when they were not in a position
to consent to such a contract. And whenever they seem to threaten her contract,
she uses guilt and obligation to force them to comply again. Instead of handling the problem of loneliness
in a mature and healthy way, she emotionally blackmails her sons into rescuing her. Now let’s look at the second weapon someone
uses when playing the victim: pity and disgust. Here, the person playing the victim claims
that they did not give /you/ legitimate consent when they actually did. They’re trying to claim they didn’t give
you legitimate consent so that others feel

pity for them, and disgust for you. If people feel pity for them, they get people
on their side and increase the chances that someone will come and rescue them. If people feel disgust for you, the person
playing the victim turns people against you, which will increase the chances that you submit
to their demands. Let’s return to our example. So Jane’s attempt to use guilt and obligation
works on one of her sons, Jamie, but they fail to work on Michael. Michael tells his mom that he’s moving away
to go to a good college. So what does Jane do when guilt and obligation
fail? She uses pity and disgust. She says to Jamie, the son who feels obligated
to her, “Can you believe Michael would do that to his own mother? He took all of my money and then left me all
alone!” She makes Jamie feel pity towards her, increasing
the chances he’ll rescue her, and makes him feel disgust towards his brother Michael,
increasing the chances Jamie will abandon

Michael or coerce him into submitting to his
mother’s demands. But is it fair for Jane to claim that Michael
took all of her money and left? Remember, Jane’s contract is /I will take
care of you as long as you never leave me./ Jane was an adult when she chose to enter that
contract for Michael, but Michael was just a baby. Jane was capable of giving legitimate consent
and did, but she expected a mutual consent from Michael that he wasn’t in a position
to give as a child. And even if Michael was able to give consent,
he might not have wanted to enter into that contract with his mother—one where she supports
him in exchange for him never leaving her alone. So she gave him legitimate consent to receive
her support as a child, but now that he’s not meeting her demands, she’s trying to
claim that she never gave him consent and that he took advantage of her. That’s just one example of someone playing
the victim, but it can happen in many different

types of relationships: between lovers, family,
friends, or co-workers. But everyone who plays the victim has one
thing in common: covert contracts. What’s that? It’s a hidden expectation of someone else. Remember, I said that a person can play the
victim in two ways. The first way is that they can give you legitimate
consent and then claim they never gave it to you. But why would they claim they didn’t give
it to you? Usually because they had a hidden expectation,
a covert contract, which you didn’t live up to. And so now they want to claim they never gave
you consent to punish you or to make you fulfill the hidden expectation they have. The second way someone can play the victim
is that they can claim /you/ gave consent when you didn’t or were not in a position
to. In our previous example with Jane, the mother,
she might say to her son Michael, “you were never supposed to leave me!”

But that was a hidden expectation, a covert
contract, that Michael’s mother had for him. Michael never gave legitimate consent to that
expectation. So how do we stop playing the victim or being
manipulated by other people playing the victim? The answer comes back to mutual consent between
people who are in a position to give legitimate consent. We need to be clear about what we want from
others and what they want in return, and then we have to mutually consent to give one another
those things. And in cases where the other party can’t
give us consent, such as our children, we are only free to give our consent to them,
but we can’t demand things of them that they aren’t in a position to give us consent
for. As always, this is just my opinion, understanding,
and interpretation of some of Nietzsche’s ideas, not advice. If you liked the video, please consider liking
the video. And if you’re looking for another Nietzsche
video to watch after this one, I recommend

watching my video “Nietzsche - Overcome
Shame, Become Who You Are.” I’ll put a link to it in the description
below and in the top right of the screen right now.

Nietzsche - Beware of People Playing the Victim

Freedom in Thought

The Use of Morality in Playing the Victim

Nietzsche explores the use of morality as a means of control, with a focus on the concept of "playing the victim.

" The essay delves into the definition of a victim, the idea of justice as repaying a debt to the victim, and the distinction between a genuine victim and someone playing the victim based on the presence of consent.

Someone playing the victim is characterized by giving consent and then falsely claiming that they didn't.

Playing the victim is a way for people to seek a rescuer to solve their problems.

They use two main tactics: obligation and guilt, and pity and disgust to manipulate others into saving them.

For example, a parent may impose an obligation on their children, making them feel guilty for wanting independence, in order to maintain control and avoid being alone.

Manipulative Tactics of a Controlling Mother

Jane uses guilt and obligation to manipulate her sons into staying with her, making them feel ashamed for wanting to leave.

She also employs pity and disgust, painting herself as a victim and turning one son against the other to get her way.

When guilt and obligation fail, she resorts to using pity and disgust to maintain control over her sons.

The Impact of Covert Contracts on Relationships

Jane's attempt to coerce Michael into meeting her demands raises questions about the fairness of their relationship.

Covert contracts, involving hidden expectations, can lead one person to play the victim and manipulate the other.

Whether it's a family, romantic, or professional relationship, the presence of covert contracts can lead to power imbalances and emotional manipulation.

Establishing Mutual Consent in Relationships

Mutual consent is essential to avoid feeling like a victim or being manipulated.

It's important to clearly communicate and agree on what we want from others, and vice versa.

When dealing with those who cannot give consent, such as children, we can only offer our own consent, without demanding anything in return.