Two Sides to Every Coin

So... the following argument has gotten me into trouble a few different times, so please be warned that what I'm about to say might be what some call a "spicy take." I advise those of you who are inclined to be frustrated or angry about spicy topics to read something more soothing - like perhaps a short story or some holiday-themed poetry. :) 

Alright, is everyone braced? Are we all ready? 

Okay, here we go. 

I propose that in every conflict, there are at least two sides, sometimes more. 

I further suggest that in every conflict, even one where a certain party is "obviously the victim," there are choices being made on both sides of the conflict. 

And to conclude, I would put forth the idea that, victim or not, every person involved in a conflict should be expected to take responsibility for the choices they made and the actions they took. 

Now, the most common argument I hear in response to these points I made above is that I am "victim-blaming," which is entirely missing the point of what I said. Not that the victims are responsible for their own suffering - not at all. But that BOTH sides of the conflict were active participants in a conflict. 

If you say a thing, do a thing, or donate to a thing, you should reasonably be held accountable for the thing you said, did, or donated to. Sometimes the accountability boils down to "you were operating on incomplete information." Other times, it's a rewarding, satisfying feeling for doing, saying, or donating to "the right thing." 

Being held responsible for your choices should not be an automatic negative. In the worst scenarios, of course, there are folk that need to be held responsible for actions that were indisputably bad. Actions that result in the harm or death of other human beings, for example, or words that make others hurt in inside places that don't heal easily. Even when performed without ill intent, or without knowing that harm was coming of their choices, actions that result in harm should be considered the responsibility of the person who performed them. 

I'm not going to site a specific situation, conflict, or topic. I'm sure you can think of several without very much effort at all. And I will admit that there are some circumstances where the victim in a given situation was not an active part in anything, but is suffering due to someone else's reaction to their existence. But these are certainly exceptions to the rule, not the rule itself. When I feel myself in the position of the victim, I ask myself "what have I done, said, or implied that might have made this worse, and is there something I can do to make it better?" Obviously, sometimes I'm too upset to think this at the time, but it is a change I am trying very hard to implement in myself. And more often than not, I can identify in my own actions some things that might have provoked or aggravated the unpleasant situation. 

I cannot change the choices of others. Only my own. 

So when I can, I try to look at both sides of the coin before I decide how to react.