History UsefulNotes / VictimBlaming

7th Jul '15 4:46:58 AM EgoProxy
Is there an issue? Send a Message
to:
** It also implies that the perpetrator has the understood right to deliberately harm another person, if that person meets certain criteria. An easy reference is any movie with an interracial romance where one partner is told they're "asking for trouble" because the other partner's family will have them killed if they found out; regardless of how ''likely'' the negative reaction will be, that doesn't mean it's the lover's fault for falling in love with the wrong person if the family decides to murder the lover, and it doesn't mean the family is morally justified in killing the lover because they don't approve of his or her race.
7th Jul '15 3:43:33 AM EgoProxy
Is there an issue? Send a Message
to:
* Be careful with the words "You're just asking for it!", 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.
9th Apr '15 10:15:53 AM Scabbard
Is there an issue? Send a Message
30th Jan '15 2:59:04 AM imadmagician
Is there an issue? Send a Message
added how people have different personal opinions of what provides "good protection" against misfortune, and how the male student can be scarred
** 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.
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, 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 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.
to:
*** And a nasty DoubleStandard version of the "universal consent" fallacy centers around 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. limits, nor that the student may have been horribly scarred / traumatized from this unwanted experience.
21st Oct '14 8:41:31 AM hbi2k
Is there an issue? Send a Message
* In real life, personal morality, kindness, and a good attitude don't deflect random tragedies. Likewise, wild sex acts, excessive drug use, and acting like a prick don't invite them. Hurricanes are not summoned by gay sex, eating 6 servings of fruit every day will not ward off rapists, earthquakes are not caused by cleavage, and donating to the Salvation Army does not prevent cancer. We like to think that our day-to-day actions can dictate the course of our lives because it gives us a measure of control over what is often, to our limited perspective, a chaotic and unsympathetic world. We want good to be rewarded and evil to be punished, and that just plain doesn't happen unless we take it into our hands to do exactly that. The easiest way to avoid this use of victim blaming is a little substitution:\\ [Entity responsible] caused [tragic event] to befall [victim] because of [victim's actions].\\ If you can replace "entity responsible" with "[[TheLordOfTheRings Gandalf]]", and Gandalf is engaging in vigilante justice, a hate crime, or is just being a real asshole, you're blaming the victim.\\ * Even in cases where there is a definite cause and effect relationship between the action and the tragedy, that ''still'' doesn't entirely justify placing ''all'' blame upon the victim and their choice. For one example, their choice may well have been itself compromised, made ''for'' them by another person or by a situation, or otherwise not fully their own. Even if it ''was'' their complete and free choice to smoke or to be the receiver in an unprotected sex act or to live in an area prone to a specific disaster, for example, there's still an element of absolutely chance as to who falls victim to the tragedies and who does not - people who do the same exact things or take more or ''worse'' risks can survive unscathed, whereas others don't. It's often more constructive, in general, to focus on ''what'' happened and what can be done for it than ''why,'' especially in regard to something that truly can't be undone anyway, even ''if'' the person entirely accepted "their responsibility."
to:
* In real life, personal morality, kindness, and a good attitude don't deflect random tragedies. Likewise, wild sex acts, excessive drug use, and acting like a prick don't invite them. Hurricanes are not summoned by gay sex, eating 6 servings of fruit every day will not ward off rapists, earthquakes are not caused by cleavage, and donating to the Salvation Army does not prevent cancer. We like to think that our day-to-day actions can dictate the course of our lives because it gives us a measure of control over what is often, to our limited perspective, a chaotic and unsympathetic world. We want good to be rewarded and evil to be punished, and that just plain doesn't happen unless we take it into our hands to do exactly that. The easiest way to avoid this use of victim blaming is a little substitution:\\ [Entity responsible] caused [tragic event] to befall [victim] because of [victim's actions].\\ If you can replace "entity responsible" with "[[TheLordOfTheRings Gandalf]]", and Gandalf is engaging in vigilante justice, a hate crime, or is just being a real asshole, you're blaming the victim.\\ that. * Even in cases where there is a definite cause and effect relationship between the action and the tragedy, that ''still'' doesn't entirely necessarily justify placing ''all'' blame upon the victim and their choice. For one example, their choice may well have been itself compromised, made ''for'' them by another person or by a situation, or otherwise not fully their own. Even if it ''was'' their complete and free choice to smoke or to be the receiver in an unprotected sex act or to live in an area prone to a specific disaster, for example, there's still an element of absolutely chance as to who falls victim to the tragedies and who does not - people not. People who do the same exact things or take more or ''worse'' risks can survive unscathed, whereas others don't. It's often more constructive, in general, to focus on ''what'' happened and what can be done for it than ''why,'' especially in regard to something that truly can't be undone anyway, even ''if'' the person entirely accepted "their responsibility."

-> This page is, of course, ''all your fault''. How could you? Hu? And after all we did for you!
to:
-> This page is, of course, ''all your fault''. How could you? Hu? Huh? And after all we did for you!
21st Oct '14 8:37:50 AM hbi2k
Is there an issue? Send a Message
People having a responsibility to protect themselves, and also a responsibility not to seek to harm people in such a way that they require protection are not mutually exclusive concepts. A full discussion on the matter would be far outside the scope of this article, though, so better to just remove the example (which is not strictly necessary to make the point being made anyway).
** 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. For a common (but by no means sole) example, one of the core tenets of [[http://www.shakesville.com/2009/10/rape-culture-101.html Rape Culture]] is that it is the responsibility of victims to monitor their behavior so as to avoid being raped, rather than the responsibility of offenders to ''not rape people''.
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, and places the blame on the victim by directly ''removing'' it from the perpetrator. For a common (but by no means sole) example, one of the core tenets of [[http://www.shakesville.com/2009/10/rape-culture-101.html Rape Culture]] is that it is the responsibility of victims to monitor their behavior so as to avoid being raped, rather than the responsibility of offenders to ''not rape people''.
3rd Oct '14 1:19:30 AM RevolutionStone
Is there an issue? Send a Message
** Even in cases where there is a definite cause and effect relationship between the action and the tragedy, that ''still'' doesn't entirely justify placing ''all'' blame upon the victim and their choice. For one example, their choice may well have been itself compromised, made ''for'' them by another person or by a situation, or otherwise not fully their own. Even if it ''was'' their complete and free choice to smoke or to be the receiver in an unprotected sex act or to live in an area prone to a specific disaster, for example, there's still an element of absolutely chance as to who falls victim to the tragedies and who does not - people who do the same exact things or take more or ''worse'' risks can survive unscathed, whereas others don't. It's often more constructive, in general, to focus on ''what'' happened and what can be done for it than ''why,'' especially in regard to something that truly can't be undone anyway, even ''if'' the person entirely accepted "their responsibility."
to:
** * Even in cases where there is a definite cause and effect relationship between the action and the tragedy, that ''still'' doesn't entirely justify placing ''all'' blame upon the victim and their choice. For one example, their choice may well have been itself compromised, made ''for'' them by another person or by a situation, or otherwise not fully their own. Even if it ''was'' their complete and free choice to smoke or to be the receiver in an unprotected sex act or to live in an area prone to a specific disaster, for example, there's still an element of absolutely chance as to who falls victim to the tragedies and who does not - people who do the same exact things or take more or ''worse'' risks can survive unscathed, whereas others don't. It's often more constructive, in general, to focus on ''what'' happened and what can be done for it than ''why,'' especially in regard to something that truly can't be undone anyway, even ''if'' the person entirely accepted "their responsibility."
3rd Oct '14 1:19:03 AM RevolutionStone
Is there an issue? Send a Message
to:
** Even in cases where there is a definite cause and effect relationship between the action and the tragedy, that ''still'' doesn't entirely justify placing ''all'' blame upon the victim and their choice. For one example, their choice may well have been itself compromised, made ''for'' them by another person or by a situation, or otherwise not fully their own. Even if it ''was'' their complete and free choice to smoke or to be the receiver in an unprotected sex act or to live in an area prone to a specific disaster, for example, there's still an element of absolutely chance as to who falls victim to the tragedies and who does not - people who do the same exact things or take more or ''worse'' risks can survive unscathed, whereas others don't. It's often more constructive, in general, to focus on ''what'' happened and what can be done for it than ''why,'' especially in regard to something that truly can't be undone anyway, even ''if'' the person entirely accepted "their responsibility."
27th Aug '14 5:24:34 PM lucy24
Is there an issue? Send a Message
markup problems (may still not be what author intended, though)

26th Jul '14 10:21:40 PM RevolutionStone
Is there an issue? Send a Message
*** Or to even collaborate and bargain with the attacker - 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:
*** Or to even collaborate and bargain with the attacker 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.
This list shows the last 10 events of 40. Show all.