Victim Blaming

[キラ]

People can take nude photos if they want, there's nothing wrong with that. It's their bodies, they can do what they want. They're having naughty fun with their partners, and that's okay lol.

These photos are meant to be private and I don't blame these celebrities for saving these photos to the cloud - the cloud is a good way to save space. "They can save space with an SD card!" Not with iPhones, there is no SD card slot for these. And someone could easily just steal an SD card if the owner of the phone has an Android phone. "There are other ways to save space!" Who cares? People can put files where they want to. We shouldn't have to worry about our photos being stolen. They should never take nude photos cause they could be leaked? What a pile of crap that statement is.

Shame on the hackers.

 

[A Link In Time]

Most of the time, victim blaming seems to be a way to derail the main issue of debate, especially if it's a larger societal problem that cannot be fixed easily or quickly.

Recently speaking, this happened with not only the celebrity nude pics in question, but also the shootings in Ferguson and St. Louis proper. There was a lot of talk across various news channels about the "race card" being pulled in examining the violence. Even if the headlines had neglected race completely and reported, "Police officer shoots unarmed teen" it would have been an issue regarding police brutality and militarization regardless.

Personal privacy is an equally important area, particularly when sensitive information is hacked without the permission of the user or company hosting the information (in the case of the government obtaining permission to access the data). People should definitely be careful with uploading their personal information and pictures when billion dollar companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Sony are frequently targeted. The general rule of thumb should be to upload content sparingly as it remains on the Internet even if deleted. It's hard to foresee hackers though so it makes no sense to divert the topic from locating and dealing with the responsible hackers and aiming to create stronger infrastructures to avert similar situations in the future.

 

[Jeffers]

I've developed a distaste for the phrase as well. I guess I'll try to illustrate my feelings on it using the example of rape since that's without a doubt the context I see this phrase thrown around in the most.

I think that as long as I recognize that the rapist is the villain in the situation, hypothetical or otherwise, there's nothing wrong with me speaking words of caution to someone who I think might be in danger of being raped.

Here's an analogy that I think is helpful: Suppose you decide to take a stroll down a dark alley by yourself with C-notes hanging out of your pockets, and you get mugged. Now obviously the person who mugged you is still committing a crime, and they're the one who should face consequences, not you. I don't think anyone would argue with that. But what you did was still a terrible idea, and I don't see anything wrong with pointing that out.

I've noticed that a lot of people in my generation would propose that because I advise someone against putting their self in a dangerous situation, I must be defending the entity that makes that situation dangerous. This does seem to be common in feminist circles but plenty of others are guilty of it as well.

People often say that they should be able to do whatever they want/wear whatever they want and never have harm come to them because of it. And obviously that as a statement is true. The problem is that we live in a world where there are bad people who will take advantage of these things, and ignoring that is dangerous.

 

[Dan]

Well I don't understand why we have to be so PC about everything. If someone's house is broken into and I say "they should have locked their door" do I have to back it up with "I'm not saying it's their fault, but..."?

Captain hindsight!

 

[RegalBryant]

"I'm not blaming the victim for what happened, I'm just implying that if they hadn't done what they did, they wouldn't be a victim!" Yeah okay sure

 

[Jamie]

"I'm not blaming the victim for what happened, I'm just implying that if they hadn't done what they did, they wouldn't be a victim!" Yeah okay sure

If you're talking about my posts, there was no implication; I straight up said it. That doesn't mean it's their fault, but it's a fact. They wouldn't have been a victim. Ideally we'd live in a world where people don't need to lock their doors or don't need to be careful of certain parts of town, but we don't live in that world. Cautioning someone to lock their door or be careful going somewhere isn't blaming them.

But also, you simply should lock your door. You should. It's stupid not to, and I have a right to, in private, say that it's stupid not to if someone gets their house broken into. Obviously I'd never say that to someone's face because I think they realize their mistake, but most people would agree it's stupid not to lock their door. Does that mean it's their fault if they are broken into? No, but it still means they are supid for not taking the proper precautions.


I also find this laughable coming from someone who thinks it's okay to take $50 as long as someone was careless enough to drop it lol

 

[RegalBryant]

I also find this laughable coming from someone who thinks it's okay to take $50 as long as someone was careless enough to drop it lol

Wrong thread, buddy. Let's try to keep this on topic, mmkay?

If you're talking about my posts, there was no implication; I straight up said it. That doesn't mean it's their fault, but it's a fact. They wouldn't have been a victim. Ideally we'd live in a world where people don't need to lock their doors or don't need to be careful of certain parts of town, but we don't live in that world. Cautioning someone to lock their door or be careful going somewhere isn't blaming them.

But also, you simply should lock your door. You should. It's stupid not to, and I have a right to, in private, say that it's stupid not to if someone gets their house broken into. Obviously I'd never say that to someone's face because I think they realize their mistake, but most people would agree it's stupid not to lock their door. Does that mean it's their fault if they are broken into? No, but it still means they are supid for not taking the proper precautions.

Okay, newsflash: Saying "It's not their fault" before you make a statement placing the fault on them doesn't make actually make your statement NOT blame them.

they are supid for not taking the proper precautions.

sure looks like you're blaming them to me

 

[Fraxinus]

take it to tumblr, folks

 

[Dio]

That's a good point, but saying "They should have locked their door." is different from "They were so stupid to not lock their door." It's pretty easily to tell which way sounds more blaming, right? A lot of the things I'm seeing said are more along the lines of the latter of those two examples. That's what I feel is too harsh. Hindsight, like what you gave an example of, isn't necessarily a bad thing. Heck, that's similar to stuff I'd said in my earlier posts in this thread, about them having to be careful with their pictures.

The wording doesn't really matter, if someone gets their house robbed because they didn't lock their door it is true they should have locked their door and it is also true they were foolish or stupid not to lock their door.

Robbers exist and everyone knows it. Not taking basic precautions is stupid. And whilst the robber is the criminal in this scenario the victim is not blameless because they did not take reasonable precaution against an event they knew could happen.

 

[RegalBryant]

see, G-King here, stepping up, not coating the sugar, straight up. "victim is not blameless". None of this "I'm not blaming the victim" shenanigans. I respect that.

 

[Beauts]

The problem is that we live in a world where there are bad people who will take advantage of these things, and ignoring that is dangerous.

You can be wearing a burkha and somebody might rape you. You can have no visible cash on you and you might still get mugged. Advising people to be careful is one thing, but attributing the problem to things like what someone is wearing or how visible their possessions are is not helpful in the slightest. Of course people should take caution- but more importantly, they should not have to live their life in fear of being blamed for something that is not their fault just because they didn't take your advice. That's just passing the problem off even more- 'it's because they're feminists' or whatever. No it isn't. It's because they are free to make their own choices and I don't care if you're the most obvious, phone lit up in a dark alleyway, drunk and half naked person in the world, there is absolutely no excuse for somebody to hurt you. If someone can decide to not be careful, somebody can decide not to rape you. It should not be such an issue for you to understand that or a reason for you to get irate because people call it 'victim blaming' and take away your nice 'it's someone elses problem and not mine' attitude towards it.

Maybe for something like burglary you shouldn't advertise your goods but that still doesn't mean you were inviting the burglars in. I am all for not being an idiot but I am not one for trying to blame the victim for it.

 

[DARK MASTER]

"I'm not blaming the victim for what happened, I'm just implying that if they hadn't done what they did, they wouldn't be a victim!" Yeah okay sure

blame: "to say or think that a person or thing is responsible for something bad that has happened"
"
responsible: "having the job or duty of dealing with or taking care of something or someone
: able to be trusted to do what is right or to do the things that are expected or required
: involving important duties, decisions, etc., that you are trusted to do"

fault: " : a bad quality or part of someone's character : a weakness in character
: a problem or bad part that prevents something from being perfect : a flaw or defect
: responsibility for a problem, mistake, bad situation, etc."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/
Here is the dictionary my American government uses. If you live in Britain you might use the Oxford.

If you believe, "he was assaulted by her partly because he dressed in a provocative way," (assuming his clothing actually caused a mental reaction within her to compel an assault) then logically it seems you must concede what he was wearing partly caused that event. The question becomes: is he to blame? That is contingent on our definition of responsible. Is the person whose outfit partly caused this event somewhat or entirely responsible? I believe nether, because ideally most want an ethical society where humans of any kind will not be assaulted, despite what they look like. Therefore we do not place trust in them to not wear provocative cloths, therefore they are not responsible, therefore they're not at fault, therefore they are not to blame, therefore not blaming the victim.

Edit note: just wanted to add so there is no confusion, people who believe because "x person" wore a certain type of outfit, which partly created that horrible event, therefore "x person" is entirely or even partly responsible seem to be unintelligent terrible people. Sucks that exists so much in our society, right?

 

[Jamie]

Wrong thread, buddy. Let's try to keep this on topic, mmkay?

Okay, newsflash: Saying "It's not their fault" before you make a statement placing the fault on them doesn't make actually make your statement NOT blame them.

sure looks like you're blaming them to me

Telling someone they are stupid for not taking proper precautions is not /blaming/ them. There is no excuse, and I mean no excuse, for a violation on someone's rights. If someone violates your rights, it is never, ever, ever your fault. But here's the reality, we live in a world where people's rights are violated, and we are given proper advice to combat these people. Locking your doors is one of them. Is it their fault if someone breaks in and they don't lock their door? NO IT'S NOT. They did not tell the person to break in, they did not give anyone permission. The person still violated their rights, so it is not their fault. You are not to blame, ever, if someone violates your rights. But it is stupid to not take proper precautions to prevent things. People /should/ be entitled to do stupid things without having their rights violated.

Honestly, I think this is a rather simple concept. You can't be held responsible, or blamed, for other people's actions, but it is stupid to not do all you can to prevent them. Since when is calling someone stupid blaming them for something? I act stupidly all of the time, but that doesn't mean I deserve to have my rights violated.

 

[RegalBryant]

You can't be held responsible, or blamed, for other people's actions, but it is stupid to not do all you can to prevent them.

do you read what you post

like honestly what the ****

What even is the point of pointing this out if not to place partial fault on the victim. What point could you possibly have for making this statement

 

[Jamie]

do you read what you post

like honestly what the ****

What even is the point of pointing this out if not to place partial fault on the victim. What point could you possibly have for making this statement

Right I'm not going to entertain this conversation any further if you're going to be an asshole towards me. Whatever floats your boat.