About This File
The argument is that when people (academics, journalists, writers) use the word â€œvictimâ€ to describe people who have been done violence or abuse, it creates stigmas surrounding the construction of that identity of victimhoodâ€”this can include things like inferiority, passivity, images of being â€œdamagedâ€, etc. Most importantly, not everyone who has been done violence identifies as a victim willingly, which is why it is important that when we speak of violence, we need to be careful about how we discursively construct those whom we are speaking for (or speaking to).
This is a useful file to keep in your tub for critical affirmatives claiming a moral high-groundâ€”you would be surprised at how much critical literature uses rhetoric of victimization. A control + F search of their doc is a quick litmus test for a link.
There is a quasi-alternative which is to use the word â€œsurvivorâ€ instead of â€œvictimâ€â€”whether or not you want to spin this as a floating PIK is up to youâ€”which can be useful to check things like case as offense or net benefits to the perm
This file also includes some generic (yet effective) evidence and blocks to answer the go-to reactions to language Ks (apology, language policing, reps donâ€™t shape reality, etc) which can be applied to other language or discourse Ks that you already have.
Closing sellâ€”all of the evidence in this file is original research and high-quality. This file should provide you the tools to catch even some skilled teams off guard. ADDITIONALLY: while this is filed under the â€œCritiquesâ€ section, and has â€œ1NCâ€ as the block header, you could viably go for this on the affirmative if you make the argument that we should try to solve proximate violence first (in this case discursive) instead of the substance of your affirmativeâ€”this is also an offensive reason for not going for your Aff if this is the 2AR and they read an aff condo argument.
P.S. Also includes full block overviews and extensions!