Why don't we admit the fault of victims?

[Father Heathen]

It's completely dishonest not to acknowledge that some things can increase the chance of being victimized. Take hitchhiking or picking up hitchhikers for example. No one would deny that it's a very risky and dangerous thing to do. Now when someone falls victim doing so (raped, robbed, murdered, etc.), of course they don't deserve it, nor is the assailant excused or justified. However you cannot say that the that the victim doesn't bear some responsibility for taking a dangerous risk by hitchhiking or by picking up a hitchhiker.

Let's just be honest about it.

 

[idav]

When I go away on a trip, among other things, I make sure all the doors and windows on my house are locked. I don't do this to cover my *** or avoid blame if my house gets broken into. I do it to reduce the chance that I'll come home to an empty house.

Thats all we can do is minimize risk for anything. I avoid things like posting on FB that I will be gone for 2 weeks to invite robbers. All these things that we can do to avoid being a victim is never a guarantee. We might avoid being victimized but when we we are victimized it is likely not asked for, considering all the stuff we do to avoid it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've a theory about why some will not face discussions of personal responsibility for assault risk reduction.
Consider a hypothetical assault victim:
- Bob was raped by Barb a party after passing out from drinking.
- Bob feels deeply violated & horribly ashamed of it.
- Bob feels guilty that he didn't prevent it.
- Bob finds it painful to even think about.
When Bob hears discussions of advice to reduce risk, he doesn't hear dispassionate analysis of
scenario probabilities, risk avoidance strategies, or self defense techniques, he hears an internal
message that he should've done things differently, but he didn't so it's his fault, ie, he's to blame.
So hears them blaming him, the victim.

My goal is to minimize the number of people who go thru what Bob & Barb did.

 

[Father Heathen]

Do we have advice for people on how not to get murdered?

Would you agree that one is less likely to get murdered if they don't join a gang nor partake in its activities?

 

[brokensymmetry]

This thread is in many respects an extension of this one, only the intent here is to consider perpetrators and targets of crimes more broadly. In that thread, I'm noticing a worrying tendency for some to to completely absolve targets of crimes of any contribution to the event. Although I suspect some of this is due to choice of words and semantics, it is very concerning to me that people are able to ignore causal variables simply because they are centered on the victim of a crime.

Being a target of a crime does not magically erase the fact that aspects of that person's behavior or personality contributed to the situation. Suggesting so is unscientific, unwise, and potentially downright dangerous. It nullifies our ability to conduct an impartial, objective risk analysis of crime and its causes, and in particular it won't allow us to develop ways that we can protect ourselves from becoming targets. After all, if we can't bother to acknowledge how we, as targets, contributed to the situation, we're going to be blind to how we can change our behavior to reduce our risk. We need to take responsibility for ourselves too, not just engage in rubbish finger-pointing exercises.

Thoughts?

I think you can on the one hand provide basic statistics on crimes, but they are inappropriate to bring up after someone has already been a victim of a crime. The presentation of such statistics is going to be difficult insofar as it may stigmatize victims of, say, rape so that they are less likely to come forward and also give perpetrators additional rationalization for their crimes.

Even as I'm sitting here thinking about this and analogies I might want to use I quickly realize this is going to be difficult. Suppose I leave my new mercedes (I don't actually have one) unlocked in a dangerous part of town at night. I come back to find it has been stolen. To a certain extent I'd have to say, though I don't deserve to have my stuff stolen that was an incredibly dumb thing to do. I left my wallet on the bus and now it's gone! But, can I compare that adequately to me wandering around at night, getting held up at knife point and as I'm fumbling to get my wallet out, getting stabbed and killed? It seems grotesque to compare my loss of property to my loss of life. Likewise, when we are talking about issues that involve bodily injuries, violation of dignity and so forth, issues like rape, I don't think it is responsible to talk about victim's responsibility to 'cover up' or some other nonsense. No, I think it is most useful to stigmatize the crap out of the crime to increase the chances that no matter what people wear around or if they (gasp!) happen to get inebriated at a party everyone else is getting inebriated at, they don't have to worry about some scumbucket following them into a dark room and overpowering them. It's ********.

 

[Revoltingest]

I didn't think it was rhetorical. I was expecting an answer.

And so I did.

And if none of these opportunities are available?

Then I am naught but a little steel ball in a pinball machine.
In such a case, my only responsibility is how I'll think about my plight.

No. I'm disproving the notion that all victims are in some way responsible for contributing to their own victimhood.

Why disprove a claim I don't make?
In your posts to me, are you having a conversation with someone else?

Sometimes, bad people do bad things to innocent people, and insisting that all victims are in a position where they could have done more serves to lessen the responsibility of the criminal in cases where it shouldn't.

This is a straw man, since you argue against a claim I do not make.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Thats all we can do is minimize risk for anything. I avoid things like posting on FB that I will be gone for 2 weeks to invite robbers. All these things that we can do to avoid being a victim is never a guarantee. We might avoid being victimized but when we we are victimized it is likely not asked for, considering all the stuff we do to avoid it.

Exactly. And it's up to each of us to decide whether spending some time employing measures to protect our homes before we go on a trip is worth it to us or not. It's not a matter of fault or blame. It's a matter of reducing risk by taking reasonable measures to protect your home.

It's nobody else's responsibility to lock my doors before I leave - it's mine. I choose to exercise this responsibility to help avoid getting robbed. If other people want to go away on long trips and leave their doors and window open, that's certainly their prerogative, but it would be naive of them to think that locking them wouldn't help reduce their chance of being burglarized.

(Obviously, this is highly dependent on where one lives, so let's all avoid engaging in rhetorical niggling about how you don't need to lock your doors. It's an analogy which serves as an illustrative example.)

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I've a theory about why some will not face discussions of personal responsibility for assault risk reduction.
Consider a hypothetical assault victim:
- Bob was raped by Barb a party after passing out from drinking.
- Bob feels deeply violated & horribly ashamed of it.
- Bob feels guilty that he didn't prevent it.
- Bob finds it painful to even think about.
When Bob hears discussions of advice to reduce risk, he doesn't hear dispassionate analysis of
scenario probabilities, risk avoidance strategies, or self defense techniques, he hears an internal
message that he should've done things differently, but he didn't so it's his fault, ie, he's to blame.
So hears them blaming him, the victim.

My goal is to minimize the number of people who go thru what Bob & Barb did.

A plausible analysis, and a goal I share.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's completely dishonest not to ackmowledge that some things can increase the chance of being victimzed. Take hitch hiking or picking up hitch hikers for example. No one would deny that it's a very risky and dangerious thing to do. Now when someone falls victim doing so (raped, robbed, murdered, etc.), of course they don't deserve it, nor is the assailant excused or justified. However you cannot say that the that the victim doesn't bear some responsibility for taking a dangerous risk by hitch hiking or by picking up a hitch hicker.

Let's just be honest about it.

I'm reluctant to challenge anyone's honesty on this subject. There are compelling reasons to see things in ways which you & I find dysfunctional, so I believe they're sincere. (I wager that you do to.) But "dishonesty" is an offensive accusation for a concept which would be better served by more neutral words. I'm not big on empathy, but I can see that many feel pain over this issue, so we must be careful about our language.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Yes.
I know some in such circumstances. Some I knew (the risk bit'm).

Yes....in a sense.
What you phrase as "bear some responsibility", I would see as "take responsibility".

Please provide examples of where you'd suggest to people who were murdered how they should have taken some responsibility.

I'm not so blind as to miss that your examples are designed to defeat my thesis.
I'll change your example to advising people how to minimize risk when dealing with cops.
Manipulate the cop's perception of one, minimize their sense of seeing one as a threat, etc.
I do this to control their behavior. So I know it can be done by normal people too.
Is it perfect...without flaw? Sure. But that's no excuse to eschew or poo poo the opportunity presented.

I provided the example because police brutality is a perspective that you and I both share. I didn't give to claim victory, for the record.

That 14 year old kid was unarmed, held down by two other police officers (therefore rendered helpless), and a third approaches the situation, says "We don't have time for this" and shoots the kid and kills him.

Are people suggesting this kid should reasonably take some responsibility for his death?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Would you agree that one is less likely to get murdered if they don't join a gang nor partake in its activities?

Yes. And nobody is arguing that. I'm talking about how not getting murdered because...oh I don't know, they wore a shirt somebody didn't like or had shoes that somebody wanted.

I provided my own suggestion for people not to get raped by staying the hell away from rape apologists.

Apparently that's not enough for some people. They'd like to get into how not to dress, how not to drink to excess, how not to provoke in some way when it comes to the thread about responsibility on the victim for getting raped in the first place.

You know, that 13% chance they might get raped according to the myth.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Also, I find it interesting that when somebody disagrees, it's the result of being too emotional. And those that do agree with a side, it's merely being dispassionate and rational.

Hmmm....

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yes. And nobody is arguing that. I'm talking about how not getting murdered because...oh I don't know, they wore a shirt somebody didn't like or had shoes that somebody wanted.

I provided my own suggestion for people not to get raped by staying the hell away from rape apologists.

Apparently that's not enough for some people. They'd like to get into how not to dress, how not to drink to excess, how not to provoke in some way when it comes to the thread about responsibility on the victim for getting raped in the first place.

You know, that 13% chance they might get raped according to the myth.

I think I'd rather leave it up to people to decide what precautions they feel are necessary, than to coerce them into ignoring certain factors based on absolutist conclusions which are further based on incomplete and less-than-comprehensive information.

For example, a girl in college gets dragged to a frat party where there is lots of drinking and sexually aggressive behavior. She tells her friend they should leave, or not get drunk because it doesn't feel safe. Her friend says "well, Mystic told me that these aren't relevant risk factors for getting raped, so we don't need to worry about that - drink up!"

Do you really think that's a responsible message or approach? Do you think that simply defining some factors as irrelevant makes them so, and is it productive to send the message to not take into account risk factors just because some people decided they shouldn't be considered? Do you think that college girls never get raped in such situations by people they didn't know beforehand?

Honestly, I find your blind idealism in defining rape solely according to your perspective as unproductive at best, and highly irresponsible at worst.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I think I'd rather leave it up to people to decide what precautions they feel are necessary, than to coerce them into ignoring certain factors based on absolutist conclusions which are further based on incomplete and less-than-comprehensive information.

For example, a girl in college gets dragged to a frat party where there is lots of drinking and sexually aggressive behavior. She tells her friend they should leave, or not get drunk because it doesn't feel safe. Her friend says "well, Mystic told me that these aren't relevant risk factors for getting raped, so we don't need to worry about that - drink up!"

Do you really think that's a responsible message or approach? Do you think that simply defining some factors as irrelevant makes them so, and is it productive to send the message to not take into account risk factors just because some people decided they shouldn't be considered? Do you think that college girls never get raped in such situations by people they didn't know beforehand?

Honestly, I find your blind idealism in defining rape solely according to your perspective as unproductive at best, and highly irresponsible at worst.

That's okay. I find your perspective on white privilege the same way. Perhaps it's because of your bad experience in D.C. No?

 

[Sha'irullah]

Last I checked, victims don't normally ask to be victims.

The last time I checked you do not need to verbally ask to get something, instead you just do it.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That's okay. I find your perspective on white privilege the same way. Perhaps it's because of your bad experience in D.C. No?

How is my perspective on white privilege irresponsible?

 

[Revoltingest]

Also, I find it interesting that when somebody disagrees, it's the result of being too emotional. And those that do agree with a side, it's merely being dispassionate and rational.
Hmmm....

Sometimes it is so.
But I posit it only as a theory because it's above my pay grade to say which of us better groks reality.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That's okay. I find your perspective on white privilege the same way. Perhaps it's because of your bad experience in D.C. No?

Also, just as in this discussion, my view on white privilege is based on avoiding broad, absolutist claims based on generlizations that are too broad. My experiences weren't used to illustrate that white privilege doesn't exist, but rather to illustrate that making across-the-board claims regarding all white people and their privilege are not accurate in all places and situations. It's the same regarding rape - making specific, across-the-board recommendations based on broad generalizations isn't accurate or applicable in all places and situations. Do you understand the difference between what my view is on white privilege and how you attempted to equivocate it to yours on rape?

 

[Curious George]

Exactly. And it's up to each of us to decide whether spending some time employing measures to protect our homes before we go on a trip is worth it to us or not. It's not a matter of fault or blame. It's a matter of reducing risk by taking reasonable measures to protect your home.

It's nobody else's responsibility to lock my doors before I leave - it's mine. I choose to exercise this responsibility to help avoid getting robbed. If other people want to go away on long trips and leave their doors and window open, that's certainly their prerogative, but it would be naive of them to think that locking them wouldn't help reduce their chance of being burglarized.

(Obviously, this is highly dependent on where one lives, so let's all avoid engaging in rhetorical niggling about how you don't need to lock your doors. It's an analogy which serves as an illustrative example.)

But let's follow this path down the rabbit hole. It is just as naive to leave for vacation at all. It is just as naive to leave for work and not to find a way to work from home, it is just as naive to tell people about your habits, it is just as naive to talk to people. But, when you are sitting alone in your agoraphobic Wonderland and an intruder does come and kill you, it will be said that you were naive for trapping yourself in the house and not making friends who could have helped.

People generally want to avoid harm, being aware and responsible is certainly a way to prevent harm. But once someone has harmed you, to associate lack of awareness or responsibility as a proximate cause of the harm is ignorant. We can always talk about what one could have done differently, but not as blame. We talk about what one could have done differently for future prevention. This is a natural tendency motivated by our desire to control that which we cannot.

 

[Revoltingest]

Please provide examples of where you'd suggest to people who were murdered how they should have taken some responsibility.

I think of a designer, Tony, I worked with at GM Truck & Bus in Pontiac MI. He would relate
stories about how he would posture & banter when he had run ins with the "brothers" in Detroit.
(Should that have been "runs in"?) He was a jovial enuf guy, but provocative. Note the verb tense
I used for Tony. To know when to fight, when to befriend, & when to shut up is a useful skill.

I provided the example because police brutality is a perspective that you and I both share. I didn't give to claim victory, for the record.
That 14 year old kid was unarmed, held down by two other police officers (therefore rendered helpless), and a third approaches the situation, says "We don't have time for this" and shoots the kid and kills him.
Are people suggesting this kid should reasonably take some responsibility for his death?

The world is not a perfect place. There is injustice & really really unforeseeable
bad luck. Nonetheless, we may each take the responsibility to better the odds.