|
On September 05 2014 20:53 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 17:36 UdderChaos wrote:On September 05 2014 13:31 BlackJack wrote:On September 05 2014 11:57 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 08:42 BlackJack wrote:
If I walked around a bad neighborhood waving a handful of cash and I got mugged nobody would hesitate to call me a dumbass. And nobody would jump to my rescue and say "people need to be taught not to mug" and "stop blaming the victim."
That would be because you are actually asking for it there. When people say you shouldn't blame a rape victim, they're trying to change your perception that she asked for it by drinking too much, or by wearing a type of clothing. That doesn't mean there are no situations at all where people are actually at fault for what they get. I didn't think it was that hard to understand... It's because I actually was asking for it? That's your rebuttal for my argument that this "victim blaming" thing is arbitrarily applied bullshit? Your rebuttal is to arbitrarily decide that I actually was asking for it and the rape victim wasn't? If anything that just proves my point. Yeah you kind of contradicted yourself there Nebuchad, either the victim of a crime can be blamed for not taking precaution or they can't, doesn't matter what the crime was. There's a process that's called distributing blame. Most of you have established that you don't think the celebs are at fault for what happened. Of course, in your particular case, you didn't do that in good faith, you did that to avoid backlash, because you didn't want to be associated with the term "blaming the victim", but whatever. If you determine that no blame falls on the victim, then it's a bad thing to blame her afterwards, that's self-explanatory. That doesn't mean you don't have to make that determination. In the case of a guy waving his cash in the face of potential robbers, I make no such determination. The original perception on the topic of rape was that drinking too much, or wearing certain types of clothing, was actually the same thing as waving your cash in the face of potential robbers. This is the perception that is being fought; it's not some kind of ethereal idea where nobody can ever do anything wrong if they end up harmed by it afterwards. If your argument is, rather, that having pics on your private phone is the same thing as waving your cash around in the face of robbers, then make that case. That's thankfully not what has been going on anywhere.
Kind of what Chef said. I'm worried by your comments to be honest. It seems you only have a concept of singular blame in this, and that the waving the cash in the air person deserved to get robbed, this is not true. They didn't deserve to have something bad happen to him for being careless, you are in fact victim blaming in the true sense there.
The blame of the crime is on the perpetrator solely. The criticism of lack of caution is on the victim solely. They are different things. In the same way if you don't wear your seat belt and your brakes fail because of some freak reason no one is to blame. But you are a fool for not wearing the seat belt. You not wearing the seat belt didn't make the brakes fail, or make you in any any responsible. The two can be mutually exclusive.
|
You're mixing up some things. First, legal blame always falls upon the perpetrator of the crime, that won't change no matter how you think about it. This is about your perception of the blame.
"In both situations it is really hard to argue a person isn't tempting fate"
No, it isn't. It's very easy for me to argue that the expectation of the person who got drunk was to get drunk, not to get raped. It's very easy for me to argue that the expectation of the person who was dressed in a sexy outfit was to look sexy (or even to have sex), not to get raped. You will find studies that tell you wearing sexy outfits doesn't increase your chances of getting raped, in fact it might actually decrease it.
I don't have the same ease explaining what the expectation of the person who waved his cash in front of robbers was. I'm not finding a ton of studies about that.
|
On September 05 2014 20:53 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 17:36 UdderChaos wrote:On September 05 2014 13:31 BlackJack wrote:On September 05 2014 11:57 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 08:42 BlackJack wrote:
If I walked around a bad neighborhood waving a handful of cash and I got mugged nobody would hesitate to call me a dumbass. And nobody would jump to my rescue and say "people need to be taught not to mug" and "stop blaming the victim."
That would be because you are actually asking for it there. When people say you shouldn't blame a rape victim, they're trying to change your perception that she asked for it by drinking too much, or by wearing a type of clothing. That doesn't mean there are no situations at all where people are actually at fault for what they get. I didn't think it was that hard to understand... It's because I actually was asking for it? That's your rebuttal for my argument that this "victim blaming" thing is arbitrarily applied bullshit? Your rebuttal is to arbitrarily decide that I actually was asking for it and the rape victim wasn't? If anything that just proves my point. Yeah you kind of contradicted yourself there Nebuchad, either the victim of a crime can be blamed for not taking precaution or they can't, doesn't matter what the crime was. There's a process that's called distributing blame. Most of you have established that you don't think the celebs are at fault for what happened. Of course, in your particular case, you didn't do that in good faith, you did that to avoid backlash, because you didn't want to be associated with the term "blaming the victim", but whatever. If you determine that no blame falls on the victim, then it's a bad thing to blame her afterwards, that's self-explanatory. That doesn't mean you don't have to make that determination. In the case of a guy waving his cash in the face of potential robbers, I make no such determination. The original perception on the topic of rape was that drinking too much, or wearing certain types of clothing, was actually the same thing as waving your cash in the face of potential robbers. This is the perception that is being fought; it's not some kind of ethereal idea where nobody can ever do anything wrong if they end up harmed by it afterwards. If your argument is, rather, that having pics on your private phone is the same thing as waving your cash around in the face of robbers, then make that case. That's thankfully not what has been going on anywhere.
To say things like "male or female shouldnt drink heavily around people they dont know that well" isnt victim blaming, its simply common sense. You wouldnt "wave cash in someones face" just as you shouldnt throw caution the wind in situations that are shady. Its a unfortunate event when people dont follow common sense, which doesnt detract from the horrible experience or say the perpetrator shouldnt be punished. But rather there are certain things in life that you must do to reduce the chance things like this happen.
The fact remains all of this sucks but there are proper precautions people can take to reduce the chance they get burned for "playing with fire". Id liken it to someone not wearing their seat belt and getting into a car wreck caused by someone else and you sustain an injury. Does the other person deserve to be punished according to the law? Absolutely, regardless you still have to deal with your own decision of not wearing the seat belt originally.
Should people be allowed to take nudes? Sure, should they be allowed to share them with who they want? Sure. But that doesnt mean people cant call others on their lack of precuation.
Honestly between this and the zoe sarkhessian shit going on, im pretty sick of femninists. As someone else said, if a publication published the photos people wouldnt be as big a shit storm now. But because they didnt the magazines need to "condemn" the invasion of privacy. Yet they didnt respect robin williams privacy when he died, TMZ is notorius for invading celebs privacy, but apparently thats okay because they have benefits and a salary. But this 4chan person is the scum of the earth. Lolol
|
LPT: if you are gonna do noodz, edit in/out random moles or tattoos. Also make sure any identifying marks and your face are out. Also make sure your clothes and background aren't identifiable.
Then you get all the publicity and all the deniability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
