2 ms·

>I mean, if you go for a stroll through the roughest neighborhood in town, unarmed, by yourself, at night, and you get mugged, is it wrong to point out that goi

by beeboop 11y ago

>I mean, if you go for a stroll through the roughest neighborhood in town, unarmed, by yourself, at night, and you get mugged, is it wrong to point out that going for that walk was stupid? Yes, this is the textbook example of victim blaming. Placing any amount of blame on the person who is the victim in this situation is saying that they don't have the right to walk down a street and not be mugged. I am admittedly not the best at describing this because up until recently I had the same thought process as you. I would encourage you to find better explanations than what I can offer and be willing to have your beliefs challenged.

mindcrime 11y ago
Yes, this is the textbook example of victim blaming. Then "victim blaming" is a meaningless concept and we should quit using it. Because if I choose to do something stupid, I do bear some responsibility for the outcome, even if somebody else violates my rights. That doesn't absolve the other party of course, which is my point. That is, you can blame the perpetrator of a crime while also pointing out that the victim could (possibly should) have done things differently. Placing any amount of blame on the person who is the victim in this situation is saying that they don't have the right to walk down a street and not be mugged. It isn't "blame" for the actions of the other person. Why wouldn't you point out the stupidity of knowingly putting yourself in a dangerous situation?
1stop 11y ago
Victim blaming is used to vindicate a perpetrator of a wrong doing. That isn't being done here, nor in the mugging example. You can say a victim is stupid without giving any vindication to the person in the wrong. Namecheap are saying "be responsible for your backups, but yeah we screwed up on our security policy" - They are seperate things, that the victim here has conflated, but are seperate problems (in regards to namecheaps offering).

by beeboop 11y ago

mindcrime 11y ago

Yes, this is the textbook example of victim blaming. Then "victim blaming" is a meaningless concept and we should quit using it. Because if I choose to do something stupid, I do bear some responsibility for the outcome, even if somebody else violates my rights. That doesn't absolve the other party of course, which is my point. That is, you can blame the perpetrator of a crime while also pointing out that the victim could (possibly should) have done things differently. Placing any amount of blame on the person who is the victim in this situation is saying that they don't have the right to walk down a street and not be mugged. It isn't "blame" for the actions of the other person. Why wouldn't you point out the stupidity of knowingly putting yourself in a dangerous situation?

1stop 11y ago

Victim blaming is used to vindicate a perpetrator of a wrong doing. That isn't being done here, nor in the mugging example. You can say a victim is stupid without giving any vindication to the person in the wrong. Namecheap are saying "be responsible for your backups, but yeah we screwed up on our security policy" - They are seperate things, that the victim here has conflated, but are seperate problems (in regards to namecheaps offering).