For the uninitiated, Victimhood Poker is based on the premise that different victim groups have varying levels of validity to their victimhood status and that playing cards are assigned upon value accordingly.
It is perhaps (most likely) an urban myth, but it is said to have originated in the USA following Harvard's decision to transfer the sliding scale of extra admission points for different 'victimised' groups to a pack of playing cards for easy reference by staff. Of course, they fell in to the hands of some students, who invented 'Victimhood Poker' (VP), with a full set of rules.
Regardless of the veracity of this story, much schoolboy fun can have by taking the spirit of VP and applying to news reports and propositions of the left to see if you can guess which angle will be taken from just knowing the subjects of the story. This is easy when it is X vs Rupert Murdoch, X will always win. The fun is had when two of their causes collide and the left starts tying itself in knots justifying the rights of one group over the other (which of course is the fundamental hypocrisy of the left). For example, ethnic minorities victimhood status trumps that of women or homosexuals*.
You can further have fun by extending this to Cause Poker (OK, I made that term up) whereby the same principle applies but to favoured causes of the left; the most topical would be the UK Uncut's tax avoidance scam, which continues to attack big business tax avoiders but is strangely silent on, er, left-wing tax avoiders.
Now I'm not disparaging any grievances that may be had by any of these or other 'victim' groups or causes but I am enjoying the moral and philosophical fun that is to be had watching the left try to justify their wholly discriminatory and hypocritical positions whilst they simultaneously fail to recognise them as such.
*H/T to Mark Wadsworth for saving me the time of finding examples.
P.S. I was going to make a joke about UK Uncut and anagrams, but I'm above all that...