History UsefulNotes / VictimBlaming

22nd Jul '17 8:05:39 PM MasterofGalaxies4628
Is there an issue? Send a Message


->''"Ignoring the fact that they would probably be the first ones to [[BringMyBrownPants piss themselves]] and/or [[LeeroyJenkins get]] [[TooDumbToLive killed]], their reaction is the worst of the bunch, because it's more than a misguided attempt to offer comfort or find an explanation. It's actively shifting the blame from the perpetrator to the victims, as if it's their own fault for getting killed because they were a bunch of pussies who couldn't manage the [[BlatantLies simple]] task of disarming a gunman who kicked his way into their classroom.\\
\\
"It also shows staggering amounts of condescension and poor logic. Much like everyone knows what UsefulNotes/SuperBowl winning plays should have been called the day after the game, it's a lot easier to analyze a shooting in the calm comfort of your warm monitor glow and Cheetos-stained sweatpants than it is while you're busy wondering if your math teacher will survive having his lung perforated."''
-->''Website/{{Cracked}}'', "[[http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-least-helpful-ways-people-react-to-tragedy/ The 5 Least Helpful Ways People React to Tragedy]]"[[note]]Referring to those who have the reaction, "If I Had Been There..."[[/note]]



# Victim blaming comforts you by reassuring you that bad things only happen to people who 'deserve' it because they didn't 'do the right thing': '''"People choose to become victims."'''[[note]]In troper terms, this would be labeling all misfortunes as LaserGuidedKarma and all victims as [[AssholeVictim Asshole Victims]]. We intentionally refrained from making potholes in the main phrase because [[UnfortunateImplications we could be seen as]] [[{{Hypocrite}} engaging in victim blaming ourselves]].[[/note]]

to:

# Victim blaming comforts you by reassuring you that bad things only happen to people who 'deserve' it because they didn't 'do the right thing': '''"People choose to become victims."'''[[note]]In [[TVTropesWillRuinYourVocabulary troper terms, terms]], this would be labeling all misfortunes as LaserGuidedKarma and all victims as [[AssholeVictim Asshole Victims]]. {{Asshole Victim}}s. We intentionally refrained from making potholes in potholing the main phrase because then [[UnfortunateImplications we could be seen as]] [[{{Hypocrite}} engaging in victim blaming ourselves]].[[/note]]



We are not instinctively rational beings who decide what to believe on the basis of rational thought. Instead, we instinctively [[ConfirmationBias use our reasoning to justify what we already believe]]. Belief in victim blaming offers us great comfort and hope, and abandoning it would give us cause to fear. Accordingly, [[ConfirmationBias we remember information which justifies our belief in it and ignore or reject information which inspires doubt]]. The factual invalidity of victim blaming is irrelevant: if we wanted to do so badly enough, [[IRejectYourReality we could keep believing in it forever]].

to:

We are not instinctively rational beings who decide what to believe on the basis of rational thought. Instead, we instinctively [[ConfirmationBias use our reasoning to justify what we already believe]]. Belief in victim blaming offers us great comfort and hope, and abandoning it would give us cause to fear. Accordingly, [[ConfirmationBias we remember information which justifies our belief in it and ignore or reject information which inspires doubt]]. The factual invalidity of victim blaming is irrelevant: irrelevant; if we wanted to do so badly enough, [[IRejectYourReality we could keep believing in it forever]].



** It should be noted that the phrase "fight or flight instinct", referring to the adrenaline rush that gives people the necessary energy and strength to either run from or fight off a threat, is over-simplified, leading some people to think that not fighting or escaping means that there was no survival instinct and thus the victim didn't really feel threatened and thus allowed themselves to be victimized. The more correct idiom would be "fight, flight, or ''[[TakeAThirdOption freeze]]''". [[labelnote:There are times when it makes perfect sense to respond to danger by freezing up and waiting for it to go away.]]Essentially, by remaining motionless, the chance of the threat ''noticing'' them decreases dramatically (objects in motion are more easily detected by the eyes of many animals, and moving objects also tend to make more noise than motionless objects). Granted, in the situations we're talking about, it's too late to escape the danger ''entirely'' by freezing up, and indeed, many animals will fall back to fight or flight when it becomes clear that freezing has failed, but... keep reading.[[/labelnote]] It's an equally valid instinct to simply [[DeerInTheHeadlights wait for the attack to end in order to walk away alive]], especially against an attacker who is likely to be further provoked by resistance. It may sound counter-intuitive, but there are times when the safest and smartest thing a person can do to survive an attack is to do nothing at all.
*** Or to even collaborate and bargain with the attacker/abuser/person threatening you -- for example, begging a rapist to put on a condom or doing what they tell you to do even if you're doing something illegal or "wrong" in the process, just to ''get out of there alive'' and somewhat less harmed. (So we can expand to "[[AddedAlliterativeAppeal fight, flight, freeze]], or... [[TheLastOfTheseIsNotLikeTheOthers beg]]".) StockholmSyndrome and LimaSyndrome are also very real things, especially in situations of abuse and/or confinement (e.g. a situation one cannot leave without potentially getting killed or otherwise put in danger, anything from being in an [[DysfunctionJunction abusive family]] or [[{{Cult}} religious sect]] to, in some cases, simply being in someone's car and not knowing if there is a gun hidden under the driver's seat/if he'll stop and let you out somewhere safe if you say no). ''Doing what you have to do to protect your safety and life'' does ''not'' make you "less of" a victim or somehow complicit.
* If someone who is transgender or HIV positive doesn't reveal this fact about themselves to a sex partner, who finds out and reacts in the worst possible way. In many cases the victim ''and only the victim'' is blamed for non-disclosure, with no criticism whatsoever towards the assailant. Over the years, the "trans-panic" defense has allowed people to literally get away with murder.

to:

** It should be noted that the phrase "fight or flight instinct", referring to the adrenaline rush that gives people the necessary energy and strength to either run from or fight off a threat, is over-simplified, leading some people to think that not fighting or escaping means that there was no survival instinct and thus the victim didn't really feel threatened and thus allowed themselves to be victimized. The more correct idiom would be "fight, flight, or ''[[TakeAThirdOption [[TakeAThirdOption or]] ''[[DeerInTheHeadlights freeze]]''". [[labelnote:There are times when it makes perfect sense to respond to danger by freezing up and waiting for it to go away.away...]]Essentially, by remaining motionless, the chance of the threat ''noticing'' them (if it hasn't already) decreases dramatically (objects in motion are more easily detected by the eyes of many animals, and moving objects also tend to make more noise than motionless objects). Granted, in the situations we're talking about, it's too late to escape the danger ''entirely'' by freezing up, and indeed, many animals will fall back to fight or flight when it becomes clear that freezing has failed, but... keep reading.[[/labelnote]] It's an equally valid instinct to simply [[DeerInTheHeadlights wait for the attack to end in order to walk away alive]], alive, especially against an attacker who is likely to be further provoked by resistance. It may sound counter-intuitive, but there are times when the safest and smartest thing a person can do to survive an attack is to do nothing at all.
*** Or to even collaborate and bargain with the attacker/abuser/person threatening you -- for example, begging a rapist to put on a condom or doing what they tell you to do even if you're doing something illegal or "wrong" in the process, just to ''get out of there alive'' and somewhat less harmed. (So we can expand we've now expanded the instinct to "[[AddedAlliterativeAppeal fight, flight, freeze]], or... [[TheLastOfTheseIsNotLikeTheOthers beg]]".) StockholmSyndrome and LimaSyndrome are also very real things, especially in situations of abuse and/or confinement (e.g. a situation one cannot leave without potentially getting killed or otherwise put in danger, anything from being in an [[DysfunctionJunction abusive family]] or [[{{Cult}} religious sect]] to, in some cases, simply being in someone's car and not knowing if there is a gun hidden under the driver's seat/if he'll stop and let you out somewhere safe if you say no). ''Doing what you have to do to protect your safety and life'' does ''not'' make you "less of" a victim or somehow complicit.
* If someone who is transgender or HIV positive HIV-positive doesn't reveal this fact about themselves to a sex partner, who finds out and reacts in the worst possible way. In many cases the victim ''and only the victim'' is blamed for non-disclosure, with no criticism whatsoever towards the assailant. Over the years, the "trans-panic" defense has allowed people to literally get away with murder.



* There are many forms of victimization that don't "just happen" to people; they have a perpetrator, someone who actively harms someone else. Writing characters or situations where someone has invited retribution on themselves may make for good drama, but drawing a connection between someone murdering puppies and then being sexually violated by an unrelated stranger is at best lazy writing and at worst evokes ValuesDissonance. We love to see [[LaserGuidedKarma a bad person get punished]], but the punishment should come from the consequences of their actions, not whatever misfortune would best pay off their karmic debt ([[YouPutTheXInXY that's what puts the "Laser" into]] LaserGuidedKarma, and why it's not called "Random-Ass Unguided Karma"). Doing otherwise insinuates both that other victims of similar events must have done ''something'' to deserve it, and can create ugly {{Double Standard}}s; avoiding it keeps the trauma dramatically viable for other characters.

* On the other hand, there are many forms of victimization that ''do'' "just happen" to people. Natural disasters, diseases, blights, and droughts fall under that umbrella. In fiction, there's a little more leeway to let these types of things be karma-driven (there's a reason they're sometimes called "Acts of God"), but again, these things need a connection to the victim's actions or attitude to be viable punishment if the reader is expected to think they deserve it. For a very, very broad example, one might argue that the guys who named it the ''Titanic'' and proudly assured everyone that nothing on Earth could sink it deserved to be punished for their hubris, but did they really deserve to die a gruesome death for it? And what about the ''passengers'', who only wanted a boat ride?

to:

* There are many forms of victimization that don't "just happen" to people; they have a perpetrator, someone who actively harms someone else. Writing characters or situations where someone has invited retribution on themselves may make for good drama, but drawing a connection between someone murdering puppies and then being sexually violated by an unrelated stranger is at best lazy writing at best and at worst evokes ValuesDissonance. ValuesDissonance at worst. We love to see [[LaserGuidedKarma a bad person get punished]], but the punishment should come from the consequences of their actions, not whatever misfortune would best pay off their karmic debt ([[YouPutTheXInXY that's That's what puts the "Laser" into]] in]] LaserGuidedKarma, and why it's not called named "Random-Ass Unguided Karma"). Doing otherwise insinuates both that other victims of similar events must have done ''something'' to deserve it, and can create ugly {{Double Standard}}s; avoiding it keeps the trauma dramatically viable for other characters. \n\n
* On the other hand, there are many forms of victimization that ''do'' "just happen" to people. Natural disasters, diseases, blights, and droughts fall under that umbrella. In fiction, there's a little more leeway to let these types of things be karma-driven (there's a reason they're sometimes called "Acts "[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_God Acts of God"), God]]"), but again, these things need a connection to the victim's actions or attitude to be viable punishment if the reader is expected to think they deserve it. For a very, very broad example, one might argue that the guys who named it the ''Titanic'' ''[[UsefulNotes/RMSTitanic Titanic]]'' and proudly assured everyone that nothing on Earth could sink it deserved to be punished for their hubris, but did they really deserve to die a gruesome death for it? And what about the ''passengers'', who only wanted a boat ride?
ride?










* Don't confuse cause and effect. A person doesn't deserve to have their home broken into because they didn't buy a security system, and ''not'' buying a security system didn't summon a criminal to their house. A person doesn't deserve to be raped because they didn't dress modestly, and ''not'' dressing modestly did not summon a rapist to their car. It's that cause-and-effect fallacy again; we want to reassure ourselves that the victim was responsible for their own misfortune because we want to believe that it won't happen to us. If we define a right and wrong course of action in order to classify the break-in or the rape as a ''reaction'', rather than ''an action taken by others over which we have no control'', we maintain the illusion that we are, and will always be in control, and thus will never be made a victim.

to:

\n* Don't confuse cause and effect. A person doesn't deserve to have their home broken into because they didn't buy a security system, and ''not'' buying a security system didn't summon a criminal to their house. A person doesn't deserve to be raped because they didn't dress modestly, and ''not'' dressing modestly did not summon a rapist to their car. It's that cause-and-effect fallacy again; we want to reassure ourselves that the victim was responsible for their own misfortune because we want to believe that it won't happen to us. If we define a right and wrong course of action in order to classify the break-in or the rape as a ''reaction'', rather than ''an action taken by others over which we have no control'', we maintain the illusion that we are, are and will always be in control, and thus will never be made a victim.



*** And tertiary to ''that'' is the "universal consent" fallacy, the idea that anyone who appears to want to have sex is offering themselves to ''literally anyone'', rather than exercising their right to consent or refuse sex at their discretion; most commonly this is phrased as "She was asking for it". It is an open declaration that a person who wants to have sex is obligated to sexually service anyone who wants them to do so. Some have argued that this brand of InsaneTrollLogic is an extension of MenAreGenericWomenAreSpecial. Any woman seeking sex (or just ''looks'' like she is) is implicitly making herself available to ''any man'' or ''all men'', and her wants and desires are just her "being picky".

to:

*** And tertiary to ''that'' is the "universal consent" fallacy, the idea that anyone who appears to want to have sex is offering themselves to ''literally anyone'', rather than exercising their right to consent or refuse sex at their discretion; most commonly commonly, this is phrased as "She was asking for it". It is an open declaration that a person who wants to have sex is obligated to sexually service anyone who wants them to do so. Some have argued that this brand of InsaneTrollLogic is an extension of MenAreGenericWomenAreSpecial. Any woman seeking sex (or just ''looks'' like she is) is implicitly making herself available to ''any man'' or ''all men'', and her wants and desires are just her "being picky".



*** Furthermore, there is the [[FridgeHorror unsettling fact]] that no crime or misfortune is 100 percent preventable. Carrying a weapon (lethal or nonlethal) ''can'' allow a victim to fight off an attacker, but there are a hundred different ways that an attempt at self-defense can be thwarted. Pepper spray can simply not work. Guns can miss. Or the attacker could be armed as well. While suggesting potential victims arm themselves is good advice [[note]] and people who do this should NOT be automatically vilified as "victim shamers" [[/note]] , one should never, ever, '''ever''' write off a crime with "You should have been carrying mace/a gun/that katana I gave you last Christmas." '''Even if the victim ''had'' been prepared at the time of the attack, that is no guarantee the crime would have been prevented.'''

to:

*** Furthermore, there is the [[FridgeHorror unsettling fact]] that no crime or misfortune is 100 percent 100% preventable. Carrying a weapon (lethal or nonlethal) ''can'' allow a victim to fight off an attacker, but there are a hundred different ways that an attempt at self-defense can be thwarted. Pepper spray can simply not work. Guns can miss.miss or jam. Or the attacker could be armed as well. While suggesting that potential victims arm themselves is good advice [[note]] and advice[[note]]and people who do this should NOT ''not'' be automatically vilified as "victim shamers" [[/note]] , shamers"[[/note]], one should never, ever, '''ever''' write off a crime with "You should have been carrying mace/a gun/that katana katana/{{Noodle Implement|s}} I gave you last Christmas." '''Even if the victim ''had'' been prepared at the time of the attack, that is no guarantee the crime would have been prevented.'''
'''




* In fiction, these can be flexible [[ItMakesSenseInContext when the right arrangement of narrative devices are in place]]; your volcano god may well be known to punish those who don't eat their vegetables with lightning bolts, your villain may have a legion of creepy baby-eaters to send out into the world to eat the children of smokers. The tone your work takes, how it characterizes the events and the people involved, makes all the difference.

to:

\n* In As a final note, remember that in fiction, these can be flexible [[ItMakesSenseInContext when the right arrangement of narrative devices are in place]]; your volcano god may well be known to punish those who don't eat their vegetables with lightning bolts, your villain may have a legion of creepy baby-eaters to send out into the world to eat the children of smokers. The tone your work takes, and how it characterizes the events and the people involved, makes all the difference.
difference.



->[[TheStinger This page is, of course]], ''[[TheStinger all your fault]]''. [[TheStinger How could you? Huh? And after all we did for you]]!

to:

->[[TheStinger This page is, of course]], course,]] ''[[TheStinger all your fault]]''. fault.]]'' [[TheStinger How could you? Huh? And after all we did for you]]!you!]]
12th Jul '17 11:22:41 AM Luigifan
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** It should be noted that the phrase "fight or flight instinct", referring to the adrenaline rush that gives people the necessary energy and strength to either run from or fight off a threat, is over-simplified, leading some people to think that not fighting or escaping means that there was no survival instinct and thus the victim didn't really feel threatened and thus allowed themselves to be victimized. The more correct idiom would be "fight, flight, or ''[[TakeAThirdOption freeze]]''". It's an equally valid instinct to simply [[DeerInTheHeadlights wait for the attack to end in order to walk away alive]], especially against an attacker who is likely to be further provoked by resistance. It may sound counter-intuitive, but there are times when the safest and smartest thing a person can do to survive an attack is to do nothing at all.
*** Or to even collaborate and bargain with the attacker/abuser/person threatening you - for example, begging a rapist to put on a condom or doing what they tell you to do even if you're doing something illegal or "wrong" in the process, just to ''get out of there alive'' and somewhat less harmed. StockholmSyndrome and LimaSyndrome are also very real things, especially in situations of abuse and/or confinement (e.g. a situation one cannot leave without potentially getting killed or otherwise put in danger, anything from being in an abusive family or religious sect to, in some cases, simply being in someone's car and not knowing if there is a gun hidden under the driver's seat/if he'll stop and let you out somewhere safe if you say no). ''Doing what you have to do to protect your safety and life'' does ''not'' make you "less of" a victim or somehow complicit.

to:

** It should be noted that the phrase "fight or flight instinct", referring to the adrenaline rush that gives people the necessary energy and strength to either run from or fight off a threat, is over-simplified, leading some people to think that not fighting or escaping means that there was no survival instinct and thus the victim didn't really feel threatened and thus allowed themselves to be victimized. The more correct idiom would be "fight, flight, or ''[[TakeAThirdOption freeze]]''". [[labelnote:There are times when it makes perfect sense to respond to danger by freezing up and waiting for it to go away.]]Essentially, by remaining motionless, the chance of the threat ''noticing'' them decreases dramatically (objects in motion are more easily detected by the eyes of many animals, and moving objects also tend to make more noise than motionless objects). Granted, in the situations we're talking about, it's too late to escape the danger ''entirely'' by freezing up, and indeed, many animals will fall back to fight or flight when it becomes clear that freezing has failed, but... keep reading.[[/labelnote]] It's an equally valid instinct to simply [[DeerInTheHeadlights wait for the attack to end in order to walk away alive]], especially against an attacker who is likely to be further provoked by resistance. It may sound counter-intuitive, but there are times when the safest and smartest thing a person can do to survive an attack is to do nothing at all.
*** Or to even collaborate and bargain with the attacker/abuser/person threatening you - -- for example, begging a rapist to put on a condom or doing what they tell you to do even if you're doing something illegal or "wrong" in the process, just to ''get out of there alive'' and somewhat less harmed. (So we can expand to "[[AddedAlliterativeAppeal fight, flight, freeze]], or... [[TheLastOfTheseIsNotLikeTheOthers beg]]".) StockholmSyndrome and LimaSyndrome are also very real things, especially in situations of abuse and/or confinement (e.g. a situation one cannot leave without potentially getting killed or otherwise put in danger, anything from being in an [[DysfunctionJunction abusive family family]] or [[{{Cult}} religious sect sect]] to, in some cases, simply being in someone's car and not knowing if there is a gun hidden under the driver's seat/if he'll stop and let you out somewhere safe if you say no). ''Doing what you have to do to protect your safety and life'' does ''not'' make you "less of" a victim or somehow complicit.



* People react differently to stressful situations of all kinds, and different pressures on a person can result in different, sometimes counter-intuitive, actions and ideas. A victim's personality, their level of self-confidence before and after the victimization, the amount of support they have in recovery and the circumstances of the event itself can all have a huge impact on how they cope with it, before, during and after, and while there may be a few [[FiveStagesOfGrief observable trends]], there is no pre-written script for dealing with loss, pain, suffering, and grief. A victim's reaction, no matter how bizarre, or passive, or self-destructive, is ''never'' an indication that they had it coming.

to:

* People react differently to stressful situations of all kinds, and different pressures on a person can result in different, sometimes counter-intuitive, actions and ideas. A victim's personality, their level of self-confidence before and after the victimization, the amount of support they have in recovery and the circumstances of the event itself can all have a huge impact on how they cope with it, before, during during, and after, and while there may be a few [[FiveStagesOfGrief observable trends]], there is no pre-written script for dealing with loss, pain, suffering, and grief. A victim's reaction, no matter how bizarre, or passive, or self-destructive, is ''never'' an indication that they had it coming.



** Secondary to this is the "failure to prevent" fallacy. A person who fails to sufficiently protect themselves from danger that they know exists is often blamed for their misfortune, because they are seen as having consciously taken a risk by exposing themselves to danger. This ignores any reason beyond outright hubris a person may have for being in such a risky situation, and places the blame on the victim by directly ''removing'' it from the perpetrator. Not only that, but the exact criteria for "optimal protection" widely differs in each person's opinion. For example, in the matter of sexual assault, when it comes to "non-provoking clothing", some people find a regular and decent T-Shirt with a pair of jeans doing the trick, other think that one must wear long and thick sleeves as to not expose anything other than their hands and head, a third faction thinks that one should be almost completely veiled (like women wearing burkas). Never mind that there are (still to this day) rape victims who were wearing clothes of each of these categories at the moment of the crime.

to:

** Secondary to this is the "failure to prevent" fallacy. A person who fails to sufficiently protect themselves from danger that they know exists is often blamed for their misfortune, because they are seen as having consciously taken a risk by exposing themselves to danger. This ignores any reason beyond outright hubris a person may have for being in such a risky situation, situation (for instance, it doesn't account for being outright ''unaware'' of the danger), and places the blame on the victim by directly ''removing'' it from the perpetrator. Not only that, but the exact criteria for "optimal protection" widely differs in each person's opinion. For example, in the matter of sexual assault, when it comes to "non-provoking clothing", some people find a regular and decent T-Shirt with a pair of jeans doing the trick, other think that one must wear long and thick sleeves as to not expose anything other than their hands and head, a third faction thinks that one should be almost completely veiled (like women wearing burkas). Never mind that there are (still to this day) rape victims who were wearing clothes of each of these categories at the moment of the crime.



*** And a nasty DoubleStandard version of the "universal consent" fallacy centers around [[DoubleStandardRapeFemaleOnMale male victims of rape as well]] - when AManIsAlwaysEager becomes "universal consent," e.g. that ''simply by being male and present,'' one must want any and all sex that doesn't involve anal penetration by another male, and this is often paired with the NotIfTheyEnjoyedItRationalization. For example, a young teenage boy who is molested by a female teacher may well get blamed and demanded to take responsibility for ruining ''her'' life/getting her pregnant/initiating the "relationship," never mind that it was the teacher's responsibility to understand the boy wasn't a consenting adult and was therefore off limits, nor that the student may have been horribly scarred/traumatized from this unwanted experience.

to:

*** And a nasty DoubleStandard version of the "universal consent" fallacy centers around [[DoubleStandardRapeFemaleOnMale male victims of rape as well]] - -- when AManIsAlwaysEager becomes "universal consent," e.g. that ''simply by being male and present,'' one must want any and all sex that doesn't involve anal penetration by another male, and this is often paired with the NotIfTheyEnjoyedItRationalization. For example, a young teenage boy who is molested by a female teacher may well get blamed and demanded to take responsibility for ruining ''her'' life/getting her pregnant/initiating the "relationship," never mind that it was the teacher's responsibility to understand the boy wasn't a consenting adult and was therefore off limits, nor that the student may have been horribly scarred/traumatized from this unwanted experience.
12th Jul '17 9:32:39 AM Luigifan
Is there an issue? Send a Message


# Victim blaming comforts you by reassuring you that bad things only happen to people who 'deserve' it because they didn't 'do the right thing': '''"People choose to become victims."'''

to:

# Victim blaming comforts you by reassuring you that bad things only happen to people who 'deserve' it because they didn't 'do the right thing': '''"People choose to become victims."'''"'''[[note]]In troper terms, this would be labeling all misfortunes as LaserGuidedKarma and all victims as [[AssholeVictim Asshole Victims]]. We intentionally refrained from making potholes in the main phrase because [[UnfortunateImplications we could be seen as]] [[{{Hypocrite}} engaging in victim blaming ourselves]].[[/note]]



We are not instinctively rational beings which decide what to believe on the basis of rational thought. Instead, we instinctively use our reasoning to justify what we believe already. Belief in victim blaming offers us such great comfort and hope, and abandoning it would give us cause to fear. Accordingly, [[ConfirmationBias we remember information which justifies our belief in it and ignore or reject information which inspires doubt]]. The factual invalidity of victim blaming is irrelevant: if we wanted to do so badly enough, [[IRejectYourReality we could keep believing in it forever]].

to:

We are not instinctively rational beings which who decide what to believe on the basis of rational thought. Instead, we instinctively [[ConfirmationBias use our reasoning to justify what we believe already. already believe]]. Belief in victim blaming offers us such great comfort and hope, and abandoning it would give us cause to fear. Accordingly, [[ConfirmationBias we remember information which justifies our belief in it and ignore or reject information which inspires doubt]]. The factual invalidity of victim blaming is irrelevant: if we wanted to do so badly enough, [[IRejectYourReality we could keep believing in it forever]].



* Blaming the victim for reacting negatively to hurtful things said to them/about them by telling them that they need to suck it up or that [[JustJokingJustification the hurtful things that were said was not meant to be taken seriously]].

to:

* Blaming the victim for reacting negatively to hurtful things said to them/about them by telling them that they need to suck it up or that [[JustJokingJustification the hurtful things that were said was were not meant to be taken seriously]].
23rd Jun '17 5:50:25 AM DesertDragon
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Blaming a victim of homo/transphobia for being openly queer. Even if people agree that the actions were wrong, GLBT people are still told that violence and discrimination against them wouldn't happen if they "tone it down".

to:

* Blaming a victim of homo/transphobia for being openly queer. queer in public, such as a same-sex couple holding hands, a CampGay man, ButchLesbian, or transgender person being themselves, etc. Even if people agree that the actions were wrong, wrong (itself not a guarantee), GLBT people are still told that violence and discrimination against them wouldn't happen if they "tone it down".




to:

* If someone who is transgender or HIV positive doesn't reveal this fact about themselves to a sex partner, who finds out and reacts in the worst possible way. In many cases the victim ''and only the victim'' is blamed for non-disclosure, with no criticism whatsoever towards the assailant. Over the years, the "trans-panic" defense has allowed people to literally get away with murder.
24th Mar '17 5:12:49 AM DesertDragon
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Blaming a victim of homo/transphobia for being openly queer/trans. Even if people agree that the actions were wrong, GLBT people are still told that violence and discrimination against them wouldn't happen if they "tone it down".

to:

* Blaming a victim of homo/transphobia for being openly queer/trans.queer. Even if people agree that the actions were wrong, GLBT people are still told that violence and discrimination against them wouldn't happen if they "tone it down".
14th Mar '17 5:10:50 PM DesertDragon
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Blaming a victim of homo/transphobia for being openly gay/trans. Even if people agree that the actions were wrong, GLBT people are still told that violence and discrimination against them wouldn't happen if they "tone it down".

to:

* Blaming a victim of homo/transphobia for being openly gay/trans.queer/trans. Even if people agree that the actions were wrong, GLBT people are still told that violence and discrimination against them wouldn't happen if they "tone it down".
12th Mar '17 8:16:35 AM DesertDragon
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

* Blaming a victim of homo/transphobia for being openly gay/trans. Even if people agree that the actions were wrong, GLBT people are still told that violence and discrimination against them wouldn't happen if they "tone it down".
27th Jan '17 7:13:33 PM Idek618
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Be careful with the words "You're just asking for it!" and "You brought it on yourself", because no one ever is. Unless someone is deliberately harming or violating the rights of others (and no, no one has the right to be exist in a perfect vacuum where they never have to hear or see anything objectionable), they are not doing anything that gives those others the right to punish or retaliate against them. An intelligent being (or a group of intelligent beings) that presents a danger to others because of their intolerance does ''not'' mean that anyone they choose not to tolerate is "asking for it". Doing this holds the victim responsible for the behavior of the perpetrator, and absolves the perpetrator of being responsible for their own behavior. Unless the perpetrator is a very small child, a mindless animal, or otherwise mentally compromised, their inability to behave properly is no one's fault but their own.

to:

* Be careful with the words "You're just asking for it!" and "You brought it on yourself", because no one ever is. Unless someone is deliberately harming or violating the rights of others (and no, no one has the right to be exist in a perfect vacuum where they never have to hear or see anything objectionable), they are not doing anything that gives those others the right to punish or retaliate against them. An intelligent being (or a group of intelligent beings) that presents a danger to others because of their intolerance does ''not'' mean that anyone they choose not to tolerate is "asking for it". Doing this holds the victim responsible for the behavior of the perpetrator, and absolves the perpetrator of being responsible for their own behavior. Unless the perpetrator is a very small child, a mindless animal, or otherwise mentally compromised, their inability to behave properly is no one's fault but their own.
21st Oct '16 8:27:01 PM Ferot_Dreadnaught
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* There are many forms of victimization that don't "just happen" to people; they have a perpetrator, someone who actively harms someone else. Writing characters or situations where someone has invited retribution on themselves may make for good drama, but drawing a connection between someone murdering puppies and then being sexually violated by an unrelated stranger is at best [[TheyJustDidntCare lazy writing]] and at worst evokes ValuesDissonance. We love to see [[LaserGuidedKarma a bad person get punished]], but the punishment should come from the consequences of their actions, not whatever misfortune would best pay off their karmic debt ([[YouPutTheXInXY that's what puts the "Laser" into]] LaserGuidedKarma, and why it's not called "Random-Ass Unguided Karma"). Doing otherwise insinuates both that other victims of similar events must have done ''something'' to deserve it, and can create ugly {{Double Standard}}s; avoiding it keeps the trauma dramatically viable for other characters.

to:

* There are many forms of victimization that don't "just happen" to people; they have a perpetrator, someone who actively harms someone else. Writing characters or situations where someone has invited retribution on themselves may make for good drama, but drawing a connection between someone murdering puppies and then being sexually violated by an unrelated stranger is at best [[TheyJustDidntCare lazy writing]] writing and at worst evokes ValuesDissonance. We love to see [[LaserGuidedKarma a bad person get punished]], but the punishment should come from the consequences of their actions, not whatever misfortune would best pay off their karmic debt ([[YouPutTheXInXY that's what puts the "Laser" into]] LaserGuidedKarma, and why it's not called "Random-Ass Unguided Karma"). Doing otherwise insinuates both that other victims of similar events must have done ''something'' to deserve it, and can create ugly {{Double Standard}}s; avoiding it keeps the trauma dramatically viable for other characters.
25th Jul '16 9:51:06 AM PugBuddies
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Furthermore, there is the [[FridgeHorror unsettling fact]] that no crime or misfortune is 100 percent preventable. Carrying a weapon (lethal or nonlethal) ''can'' allow a victim to fight off an attacker, but there are a hundred different ways that an attempt at self-defense can be thwarted. Pepper spray can simply not work. Guns can miss. Or the attacker could be armed as well. While suggesting potential victims arm themselves is good advice, one should never, ever, '''ever''' write off a crime with "You should have been carrying mace/a gun/that katana I gave you last Christmas." '''Even if the victim ''had'' been prepared at the time of the attack, that is no guarantee the crime would have been prevented.'''

to:

*** Furthermore, there is the [[FridgeHorror unsettling fact]] that no crime or misfortune is 100 percent preventable. Carrying a weapon (lethal or nonlethal) ''can'' allow a victim to fight off an attacker, but there are a hundred different ways that an attempt at self-defense can be thwarted. Pepper spray can simply not work. Guns can miss. Or the attacker could be armed as well. While suggesting potential victims arm themselves is good advice, advice [[note]] and people who do this should NOT be automatically vilified as "victim shamers" [[/note]] , one should never, ever, '''ever''' write off a crime with "You should have been carrying mace/a gun/that katana I gave you last Christmas." '''Even if the victim ''had'' been prepared at the time of the attack, that is no guarantee the crime would have been prevented.'''
This list shows the last 10 events of 64. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=UsefulNotes.VictimBlaming