system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Victimhood is not sacred.

Victims of horrific crimes (i.e child abuse, rape, domestic abuse, genocide) do not have an unequivocal right to be the victims for posterity. A victim of a horrific crime could just as well be the perpertrator of another horrific crime. There is an expiration date to the victimhood that defines a person. 

Contentious example: Israel and the illegal settlements in Palestine. While it is regretable that the Jewish faith has been the target of hatred and violence for centuries, that does not excuse you from commiting simillar discrimination against another race of people. The 'anti-semitism' rebuttal to any discussion on this issue is uncalled for. There is only so far you could push the history of oppression till you become the oppressor.

Another contentious example: Women's Right's Movements. While it is regrettable that women have been treated, for all intentions, as second-class citizens in the past, the progress made in women's rights, including universal suffrage, equal rights to education, on top of other improvements, have dramatically improved the condition of women in today's society. Pushing the 'we are the weaker sex' rebuttal, or labelling any opinion that does not support the movement as 'sexist', does not help the discussion in anyway. Using the history of victimhood as the main sticking point in today's discussion on women's rights is unproductive. 

In conclusion, the sanctification of the 'victimhood', wherein the victim must be right and protected, cannot be a defining principle for discussions. There has to be a limit where the extent of harm comitted against the individual has been adequately compensated by society, whereby the victimhood becomes a null issue. 

Of course, this opinion does not condone any aggressive attacks or insults on a victim. Therein, while the victim should not claim victimhood, there should not be an active attack on the victim's experiences. An attack comes in the form of vitriol and insults on the victim. This is distinguished from discourse, wherein the intention of the statement is not to insult or mock the victim, but further understandings on the victims experiences.
gpt
>There is an expiration date to the victimhood that defines a person.

What is that expiration date and why does it have to exist?

Yes, victims can also be perpetrators. This is particularly common with abuse. But why does that necessitate an expiration date on victimhood?

If a person who is 60 now was abused frequently as a child and never got the therapy they needed to cope, and they still suffer PTSD because of it, and who they are was fundamentally altered as a result, why does their "victimhood" need an "expiration date"?