4 ms·

Why do you need to victim blame? You wouldn't victim blame in worse situations like murder or rape (he was murdered because he didn't teach himself self defense

Why do you need to victim blame? You wouldn't victim blame in worse situations like murder or rape (he was murdered because he didn't teach himself self defense, or she was raped because she wore provocative clothing) so why victim blame here? Reserving some critique for the perpetrator is generalizable to more benign crimes too, and it's only fair.

anon291 4y ago
Except murder is always illegal and immoral. Taking someone's money is only illegal and unethical if they did not consent. Huge difference
- xracy 4y ago
  I am a Nigerian Prince, and I'm about to come into some wealth, but in order to access these millions of dollars, I need you to give me a small amount. ($10k) If you do, in exchange for your kindness and help unlocking my assets, I will immediately pay back your investment at 10x ($100k). People consent to giving people their money all the time, and it is still illegal and immoral if the person offering deceived them. OR maybe you're a phisher and you think there's nothing wrong with phishing...
  - anon291 4y ago
    If you told me youre a Nigerian who made himself a prince crown and made himself a prince, then yes the situation is comparable Ftx claimed a token they made up had value and it didn't. Everyone knew the token was made up
AvesMerit 4y ago
Victims are not always blameless. In this instance, victims are well informed about the consequences of borrowing & choose to consent. One could even argue that creditors who do not get paid are victims - they're the ones who provided funds to the borrower for them to enjoy their goods Obviously, one should not blame a murder/rape victim
- jahsome 4y ago
  I think the point is, young people are in fact _not_ well informed. It's in the entire credit industry's collective best interest to keep consumers in the dark.
- superkuh 4y ago
  And creditors are well informed about the consequences of lending and chose to consent. Not repaying a loan is not a huge moral failing. In most cases it is not a even crime--because no one believes all loans will be repaid, especially the creditors.
- xracy 4y ago
  "victims are well informed about the consequences of borrowing" - Citation Needed. Have you read the terms and conditions of buy-now-pay-later companies? I think the clearest takeaway from this article is that people aren't well informed.
readthenotes1 4y ago
Do we need to coddle stupidity?
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  In the original Pinnochio, a trickster steals a large sum from him, so he goes before a wide old ape judge. The judge hears his complaint - and then has him imprisoned for stupidity. The thief wasn’t arrested in the book. There are similar parallels with ancient Sparta. Back then, boys were soldiers by mandate, and were taught to steal from local farms. They were whipped for getting caught - not for theft. Theft was encouraged, getting caught was severely punished. Just interesting things to consider that come to my mind. Especially because I think banks may turn out to be Pinnochio in the story and we the thieves in the long run. ;)
nostrademons 4y ago
There is a huge difference in difficulty and reasonableness between the examples you list and going into debt. "He didn't teach himself self-defense", "she wore provocative clothing" vs. "he spent money he didn't have through installment payment plans". Listen to yourself apply those judgments and it should be clear why these are different situations. Note that in cases where people go into debt for much more unavoidable reasons ("her husband got cancer and racked up a million dollars in medical bills before he died", "she was born into poverty and had to start work as a waitress at a young age to keep a roof over her sibling's heads"), people are much less likely to victim-blame, because those cases are much more legitimately victims.
- xracy 4y ago
  You're assuming things about the people using these companies for this. What if this is for some essential item (fridge? Smartphone? nice clothes for interview? etc.) Who is the moral arbiter of what kind of debt is/isn't valid. Everyone on here is pretending like people are perfectly informed about how these companies collect on their debts, but the nature of this article suggests there's more behind the scenes from these companies. If I open up "xracy's murder tools" am I responsible for people who buy things from me to murder people? Surely not, surely it's only on the people who didn't read the terms and conditions in my store that explicitly state you can't use my tool's to murder people. These companies are offering people one-off credit cards without actually stating that. That's shady business at best, and actively misleading at worst. Surely they're to blame for misleading promises. I would bet dollars to donuts also that in the next few years it'll come out they have other shady practices too...
12907835202 4y ago
I think the threshold for victim blaming depends on the event. Your examples of rape and murder have an extremely high threshold for victim blaming, where you should almost never, but perhaps in some cases you still could e.g. responding to a cannibal who advertised for victims on a forum. Things like gambling, pay day loans, credit cards, buy now pay later are all forms of predatory behaviour and are in that way similar to rape/murder but considerably less grievous. The threshold for victim blaming is alot less in these situations but you certainly still could. I don't think you should admonish someone for victim blaming here or make out they're equivalent to rape or murder, they're clearly not. Is the person who built his house upon the sand to blame or is he an innocent victim of the people who sold him the land, the bricks, the plans and the labour?
- xracy 4y ago
  Everyone here is taking a single example from the article and assuming it applies to all people who use these services. I think the comparison, albeit a bit extreme, is fair given that everyone presupposes there's no good reason to use these services and everyone knew what they were getting themselves into off of one anecdote. Mostly because it's at least drawing people to consider there is another side to this.
cocoricamo 4y ago
Main difference is that offering financing tools is not a crime, raping and murdering is. It's an apples to elephants comparison. They're not victims. They knew the risks and decided to venture.

anon291 4y ago

Except murder is always illegal and immoral. Taking someone's money is only illegal and unethical if they did not consent. Huge difference

xracy 4y ago
I am a Nigerian Prince, and I'm about to come into some wealth, but in order to access these millions of dollars, I need you to give me a small amount. ($10k) If you do, in exchange for your kindness and help unlocking my assets, I will immediately pay back your investment at 10x ($100k). People consent to giving people their money all the time, and it is still illegal and immoral if the person offering deceived them. OR maybe you're a phisher and you think there's nothing wrong with phishing...
- anon291 4y ago
  If you told me youre a Nigerian who made himself a prince crown and made himself a prince, then yes the situation is comparable Ftx claimed a token they made up had value and it didn't. Everyone knew the token was made up

AvesMerit 4y ago

Victims are not always blameless. In this instance, victims are well informed about the consequences of borrowing & choose to consent. One could even argue that creditors who do not get paid are victims - they're the ones who provided funds to the borrower for them to enjoy their goods Obviously, one should not blame a murder/rape victim

jahsome 4y ago
I think the point is, young people are in fact _not_ well informed. It's in the entire credit industry's collective best interest to keep consumers in the dark.
superkuh 4y ago
And creditors are well informed about the consequences of lending and chose to consent. Not repaying a loan is not a huge moral failing. In most cases it is not a even crime--because no one believes all loans will be repaid, especially the creditors.
xracy 4y ago
"victims are well informed about the consequences of borrowing" - Citation Needed. Have you read the terms and conditions of buy-now-pay-later companies? I think the clearest takeaway from this article is that people aren't well informed.

readthenotes1 4y ago

Do we need to coddle stupidity?

gjsman-1000 4y ago
In the original Pinnochio, a trickster steals a large sum from him, so he goes before a wide old ape judge. The judge hears his complaint - and then has him imprisoned for stupidity. The thief wasn’t arrested in the book. There are similar parallels with ancient Sparta. Back then, boys were soldiers by mandate, and were taught to steal from local farms. They were whipped for getting caught - not for theft. Theft was encouraged, getting caught was severely punished. Just interesting things to consider that come to my mind. Especially because I think banks may turn out to be Pinnochio in the story and we the thieves in the long run. ;)

nostrademons 4y ago

There is a huge difference in difficulty and reasonableness between the examples you list and going into debt. "He didn't teach himself self-defense", "she wore provocative clothing" vs. "he spent money he didn't have through installment payment plans". Listen to yourself apply those judgments and it should be clear why these are different situations. Note that in cases where people go into debt for much more unavoidable reasons ("her husband got cancer and racked up a million dollars in medical bills before he died", "she was born into poverty and had to start work as a waitress at a young age to keep a roof over her sibling's heads"), people are much less likely to victim-blame, because those cases are much more legitimately victims.

xracy 4y ago
You're assuming things about the people using these companies for this. What if this is for some essential item (fridge? Smartphone? nice clothes for interview? etc.) Who is the moral arbiter of what kind of debt is/isn't valid. Everyone on here is pretending like people are perfectly informed about how these companies collect on their debts, but the nature of this article suggests there's more behind the scenes from these companies. If I open up "xracy's murder tools" am I responsible for people who buy things from me to murder people? Surely not, surely it's only on the people who didn't read the terms and conditions in my store that explicitly state you can't use my tool's to murder people. These companies are offering people one-off credit cards without actually stating that. That's shady business at best, and actively misleading at worst. Surely they're to blame for misleading promises. I would bet dollars to donuts also that in the next few years it'll come out they have other shady practices too...

12907835202 4y ago

I think the threshold for victim blaming depends on the event. Your examples of rape and murder have an extremely high threshold for victim blaming, where you should almost never, but perhaps in some cases you still could e.g. responding to a cannibal who advertised for victims on a forum. Things like gambling, pay day loans, credit cards, buy now pay later are all forms of predatory behaviour and are in that way similar to rape/murder but considerably less grievous. The threshold for victim blaming is alot less in these situations but you certainly still could. I don't think you should admonish someone for victim blaming here or make out they're equivalent to rape or murder, they're clearly not. Is the person who built his house upon the sand to blame or is he an innocent victim of the people who sold him the land, the bricks, the plans and the labour?

xracy 4y ago
Everyone here is taking a single example from the article and assuming it applies to all people who use these services. I think the comparison, albeit a bit extreme, is fair given that everyone presupposes there's no good reason to use these services and everyone knew what they were getting themselves into off of one anecdote. Mostly because it's at least drawing people to consider there is another side to this.

cocoricamo 4y ago

Main difference is that offering financing tools is not a crime, raping and murdering is. It's an apples to elephants comparison. They're not victims. They knew the risks and decided to venture.