3 ms·
No. That was not thoughtful of you given the threat model. But the fault is always, _always_ on the one who commits the crime. Claiming the contrary is exactly
by Juliate 6y ago
No. That was not thoughtful of you given the threat model. But the fault is always, _always_ on the one who commits the crime.
Claiming the contrary is exactly victim blaming.
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoThe moral fault is always on the perpetrator. Always. But in a world that contains muggers, and that you know contains muggers, walking around the bad part of town with cash visibly hanging out of your pocket is not very wise. It's not a moral failure, but it is a failure of common sense and reasonable prudence.
- Juliate 6y agoWe're saying exactly the same thing, but well...
- orf 6y ago_always_ finding fault with the one who commits the crime is as pointless as finding fault with a hurricane for destroying your property, or the sea for drowning you without an oxygen tank. In the case of murder, sure. But I'm with you. But bad actors (in the form of petty theft, exploitation, confidence tricks, etc) are a fact of life. Failing to account for them, just as failing to account for hurricanes if you live in hurricane alley, is completely on you. You can reduce that down to a blanket "but you're just victim shaming!" if you'd like, but it doesn't make it any less true.