3 ms·

> That's 'victim blaming' and fairly inflammatory. That's ridiculous. If I play in a busy street everyday, you'd blame me when I eventually got hit by a car e

> That's 'victim blaming' and fairly inflammatory. That's ridiculous. If I play in a busy street everyday, you'd blame me when I eventually got hit by a car even though cars are always supposed to be driven under control. There are actions that victims take that increase or decrease their chances of being victimized. > it's no different then telling women not to wear provocative clothing if they don't want to be raped (And before people suggest it, I'm not equating rape to anything here). What about if it is telling women to go out with their friends and look after each other when they are at bars? To be aware of their surroundings? Is that victim blaming to prepare your daughter for the realities of the world?

jasonlotito 14y ago
Dude, relax. Have a discussion. =) > If I play in a busy street everyday, you'd blame me when I eventually got hit by a car even though cars are always supposed to be driven under control. Context. You are supposed to comment on HN. You are not supposed to play in the street. If you played in a park, I'd expect you not to get hit by a car. If someone does get hit by a car while playing in a park, you don't suggest to that person they should avoid playing in the park. > What about if it is telling women to go out with their friends and look after each other when they are at bars? To be aware of their surroundings? Is that victim blaming to prepare your daughter for the realities of the world? No, that's good advice! And there is a distinct difference. Yes, I know, the reality is that wearing provocative clothes can entice men, and some men will get the wrong idea, and might do bad things. But it's a bad solution to adopt the "change what you wear" approach. It doesn't solve the problem. Basically, it's the same as this type of advice: If you don't want to get into an accident, don't use a car. Of if you dont' want to get into an plane crash, don't fly a plane. If you don't want to drown, stay out of water. Or, if you don't want to get raped, look ugly. But telling you daughter to go with friends, to be aware, to check in? These don't change her behavior. It minimizes risk. Indeed, if you think about it, the advice you give up there is much better than not wearing provocative clothing. Mostly because wearing provocative clothing has little to do with getting raped. Anyways, I hope you understand better what I was trying to say. Again, it's not some new concept that I'm spouting. Spend some time reading up on it. Others do a better job at explaining it then I do.
- darkarmani 14y ago
  I get the point. My point is that reaction to "victim blaming" has swung way too far. Kids don't deserve to get hit even if they play in the street -- even if it is expected to eventually happen. I just think there is a cognitive break in responsibility (don't blame the victim -- they have 0 responsibility for their actions) to taking some responsibility for limiting your risk. I'm not touching the provocative clothes argument, because it's extreme and might not be backed up by the statistics. I'm just saying there are some careless actions by victims (like flashing money around in really really bad areas by yourself) that means the victims while completely undeserving of being victimized realistically need to shoulder some of the responsibility. The poster above suggested, that if an action a poster is doing is causing death threats, it might be prudent to tone it down. I don't see that as blaming the victim.
- georgeorwell 14y ago
  For what it's worth, I didn't tell her to shut up. (I'm assuming it's a woman.) I just said I don't think it's such a good idea to write such inflammatory messages if you're concerned about the death threats you're receiving. This includes things like using curse words (e.g. HN is a shithole), and insulting people in other ways. And I'm sorry, but if you know that a park is dangerous because a bunch of drunken teenagers are driving around doing donuts in it, you absolutely don't send your kid to play in it, no matter how safe it's supposed to be. And in particular, if they are, you tell your kid to stop yelling at the kids in the cars. (I realize this isn't what you suggested, but it makes your analogy less of a straw man.) So, this isn't "don't play in traffic", this is "don't actively provoke known-to-be-crazy drivers while running around in oncoming traffic". It's just a bad idea. Especially if you're complaining about getting hurt. Yes, all of these examples are hyperbole, but then again we have no idea about the seriousness of the threats.
  - jasonlotito 14y ago
    > For what it's worth, I didn't tell her to shut up. I realize you did. And I'm not suggesting you are a bad person or anything. =) > And I'm sorry, but if you know that a park is dangerous because a bunch of drunken teenagers I'm sorry, but hyperbole can be too ridiculous. Tossing in additional conditions to suit your point is silly, and is really not worth my time.

jasonlotito 14y ago

Dude, relax. Have a discussion. =) > If I play in a busy street everyday, you'd blame me when I eventually got hit by a car even though cars are always supposed to be driven under control. Context. You are supposed to comment on HN. You are not supposed to play in the street. If you played in a park, I'd expect you not to get hit by a car. If someone does get hit by a car while playing in a park, you don't suggest to that person they should avoid playing in the park. > What about if it is telling women to go out with their friends and look after each other when they are at bars? To be aware of their surroundings? Is that victim blaming to prepare your daughter for the realities of the world? No, that's good advice! And there is a distinct difference. Yes, I know, the reality is that wearing provocative clothes can entice men, and some men will get the wrong idea, and might do bad things. But it's a bad solution to adopt the "change what you wear" approach. It doesn't solve the problem. Basically, it's the same as this type of advice: If you don't want to get into an accident, don't use a car. Of if you dont' want to get into an plane crash, don't fly a plane. If you don't want to drown, stay out of water. Or, if you don't want to get raped, look ugly. But telling you daughter to go with friends, to be aware, to check in? These don't change her behavior. It minimizes risk. Indeed, if you think about it, the advice you give up there is much better than not wearing provocative clothing. Mostly because wearing provocative clothing has little to do with getting raped. Anyways, I hope you understand better what I was trying to say. Again, it's not some new concept that I'm spouting. Spend some time reading up on it. Others do a better job at explaining it then I do.

darkarmani 14y ago
I get the point. My point is that reaction to "victim blaming" has swung way too far. Kids don't deserve to get hit even if they play in the street -- even if it is expected to eventually happen. I just think there is a cognitive break in responsibility (don't blame the victim -- they have 0 responsibility for their actions) to taking some responsibility for limiting your risk. I'm not touching the provocative clothes argument, because it's extreme and might not be backed up by the statistics. I'm just saying there are some careless actions by victims (like flashing money around in really really bad areas by yourself) that means the victims while completely undeserving of being victimized realistically need to shoulder some of the responsibility. The poster above suggested, that if an action a poster is doing is causing death threats, it might be prudent to tone it down. I don't see that as blaming the victim.
georgeorwell 14y ago
For what it's worth, I didn't tell her to shut up. (I'm assuming it's a woman.) I just said I don't think it's such a good idea to write such inflammatory messages if you're concerned about the death threats you're receiving. This includes things like using curse words (e.g. HN is a shithole), and insulting people in other ways. And I'm sorry, but if you know that a park is dangerous because a bunch of drunken teenagers are driving around doing donuts in it, you absolutely don't send your kid to play in it, no matter how safe it's supposed to be. And in particular, if they are, you tell your kid to stop yelling at the kids in the cars. (I realize this isn't what you suggested, but it makes your analogy less of a straw man.) So, this isn't "don't play in traffic", this is "don't actively provoke known-to-be-crazy drivers while running around in oncoming traffic". It's just a bad idea. Especially if you're complaining about getting hurt. Yes, all of these examples are hyperbole, but then again we have no idea about the seriousness of the threats.
- jasonlotito 14y ago
  > For what it's worth, I didn't tell her to shut up. I realize you did. And I'm not suggesting you are a bad person or anything. =) > And I'm sorry, but if you know that a park is dangerous because a bunch of drunken teenagers I'm sorry, but hyperbole can be too ridiculous. Tossing in additional conditions to suit your point is silly, and is really not worth my time.