I see very little, if any, evidence that this thread is at all suggesting this. I think repeated attempts to paint risk mitigation and pragmatism as victim-blaming is very misguided.
What do you mean? I directly quoted the OP with my post you're responding to, where it was called a "worrying tendency". And the big point of my post was that victim-blaming is a separate thing from risk mitigation, rather than painting risk mitigation as victim-blaming.
From the OP, which my post was mostly in response to:
"Why don't we admit the fault of victims?"
"In that thread, I'm noticing a worrying tendency for some to completely absolve targets of crimes of any contribution to the event."
"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."
But does that worrying tendency even exist? I suggest it does not.
Is there indeed a reason to focus more publicly on what victims were doing when attacked by a criminal, or do we need a lot more focus on the criminal? And should we use words like how a behavior contributed to being assaulted or raped? Like it was a team effort? My post highlighted examples of victim-blaming being used in the courtroom. Victim-blaming as a way to criticize the victim after the event, and victim-blaming as a way to excuse the criminal of some of the consequences, are different than risk mitigation ahead of time. So my point is that no, I don't think we need more focus on the victim or what she or he was doing. We need a safer, less accusatory environment for victims and a harsher environment for the criminals that caused it.
That's very different from taking risk mitigation steps ahead of time, and teaching one's kids and other loved ones how to do that. That's the point of my post, that "victim-blaming" as the term is generally used is a real societal problem, especially around rape more than other crimes, and it's a very distinct thing from actual risk mitigation.
Examples of victim blaming:
-She (14 year old girl that later killed herself) lured him (47 year old man) into sex, so this isn't really statutory rape.
-She was asking for it because she was dressed like that. What did she expect?
-It's like a tiger, if you taunt it a certain way, you're going to get bit.
-She let him pay for so many drinks and then said "no" for sex after she went home with him, so this was as much her fault as his.
-She has had a lot of sex partners, so even though she said "no" and "stop", this isn't really rape.
Examples of practical risk mitigation:
-Teaching older kids to avoid getting excessively drunk, or drinking too much in any place, especially in any environment that isn't totally safe.
-Teaching older kids to look for warning signs of someone that's a problem.
-Teaching younger kids what a bad touch is, or what they should tell their parents about.
-Suggesting to a friend not to go to a certain party that night, or that a guy seems like a creep and she probably shouldn't go home with him.
-Drilling into older kids' heads the importance of consent. That consent should never be ambiguous or expected. That consent can be changed or taken away at any time for any reason. That a person has to always take responsibility for making sure they have consent before initiating. A lot of parents barely have any conversation with their kids about sex, let alone making sure their child never commits an assault of any kind.
Nobody in that rape thread disagreed with doing things like in that bottom list, and instead were against the sort of things in that top list. The type of stuff in that top list is a societal problem.
So really, is there a worrying tendency in that thread to not focus enough on what victims were doing? No, imo.