5 ms·

> From your perspective it may reflexively seem that women carry zero responsibility for other people's actions in the example you give Trying to put the focus

by RajT88 1mo ago

> From your perspective it may reflexively seem that women carry zero responsibility for other people's actions in the example you give Trying to put the focus on the victim's actions and not the criminal's actions is called, "blaming the victim" and it's not an appropriate attitude for people in law enforcement especially to have. And yet - these sorts of stories where reports are dismissed for various reasons (including how someone was dressed) are still pretty pervasive, and the conviction rate still quite low for SA.

nstents 1mo ago
I'm not sure I see the rationale behind your response. Could you please let me know where I victim blamed, rather than endorsed personal responsibility for one's own wellbeing? Is there no case to be made against the well dressed, well adorned man, leaking money from his pockets going into a violent slum? Has he zero responsibility for not metaphorically fastening his seat belt against the bad drivers? The context for my reasoned perspective is certainly there in my post. It's beyond the pale to suggest from it that I'm endorsing or otherwise promoting or supporting a rationale for police inaction and a low conviction rate for SA. Look, there are reasons companies go through stringent interview processes and background checks for their new hires. There are reasons parents follow up on references for a baby sitter. There are reasons everywhere for people to make responsible efforts to limit potential hurts and damages from other people's purposeful bad actions. The guy should do the same by not traipsing into a slum. It's a matter of personal responsibility because he personally suffers from the reasonable eventuality of doing so.
- RajT88 1mo ago
  I can help explain. When I said this: > Trying to put the focus on the victim's actions and not the criminal's actions is called, "blaming the victim" That's exactly what you're doing here - shifting the focus of debate to be about the victim's actions and not that of the perpetrator: > From your perspective it may reflexively seem that women carry zero responsibility for other people's actions in the example you give. Yet at the same time a woman most certainly has a responsibility to herself, her future self who would have to live with the trauma...the many types of trauma...for knowingly going to an environment expected to harbor severe threats from other people. I think you'd probably agree that regardless of the actions of the victim, the perpetrator of the crime owns most or all of the blame. Right? To be clear, there's no scenario where you think the victim deserves most of the blame and not the attacker, right? If all that is true, why die on this hill? Why are you making this conversation about how women choose to dress? Unless it's not true. You tell me.

by RajT88 1mo ago

nstents 1mo ago

I'm not sure I see the rationale behind your response. Could you please let me know where I victim blamed, rather than endorsed personal responsibility for one's own wellbeing? Is there no case to be made against the well dressed, well adorned man, leaking money from his pockets going into a violent slum? Has he zero responsibility for not metaphorically fastening his seat belt against the bad drivers? The context for my reasoned perspective is certainly there in my post. It's beyond the pale to suggest from it that I'm endorsing or otherwise promoting or supporting a rationale for police inaction and a low conviction rate for SA. Look, there are reasons companies go through stringent interview processes and background checks for their new hires. There are reasons parents follow up on references for a baby sitter. There are reasons everywhere for people to make responsible efforts to limit potential hurts and damages from other people's purposeful bad actions. The guy should do the same by not traipsing into a slum. It's a matter of personal responsibility because he personally suffers from the reasonable eventuality of doing so.

RajT88 1mo ago
I can help explain. When I said this: > Trying to put the focus on the victim's actions and not the criminal's actions is called, "blaming the victim" That's exactly what you're doing here - shifting the focus of debate to be about the victim's actions and not that of the perpetrator: > From your perspective it may reflexively seem that women carry zero responsibility for other people's actions in the example you give. Yet at the same time a woman most certainly has a responsibility to herself, her future self who would have to live with the trauma...the many types of trauma...for knowingly going to an environment expected to harbor severe threats from other people. I think you'd probably agree that regardless of the actions of the victim, the perpetrator of the crime owns most or all of the blame. Right? To be clear, there's no scenario where you think the victim deserves most of the blame and not the attacker, right? If all that is true, why die on this hill? Why are you making this conversation about how women choose to dress? Unless it's not true. You tell me.