Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2015 17:36:45 GMT -5
Well, personally I'd say she were still in the wrong and would blame her for it. Insulting someone may be intended to provoke a reaction, but that reaction isn't to be hit so how would hitting them be seen as an ok thing to do? Because she didn't like what her child said to her? That's hardly an acceptable reason to strike someone to me. The situation you described still sounds pretty cut and dry to me. The part I bolded, it's funny you say that. I think we can all agree that insults, by their nature, are supposed to facilitate physical or verbal confrontation. Obviously no one wakes up one day and says "Hey, I want someone to punch me!" unless they have a fetish, but if you use a tool crafted for a certain purpose and the purpose is fulfilled...well... You don't think an otherwise reasonable parent who pops her flippant adult child is less culpable than other cases, huh? I guess we can't see eye to eye at all, then. Eye to black eye, as it were? haha! I mean, hey agree to disagree on the insult part. I always saw insults as a very poor, inarticulate way to say you need to resolve something. Like you said, no one wakes up hoping to be physically assaulted. Nor do they hope/expect to be assaulted when they communicate (albiet in the dumbest way possible) how they feel about someone. No more than does someone putting on a particular piece of clothing expect to be groped.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jan 15, 2015 19:31:34 GMT -5
It really boils down to victim blaming being the equivalent of justifying a crime. "That guy committed rape, BUT...", "The dude got mugged, BUT...", etc. etc. etc. Nothing justifies raping, mugging, assaulting, or killing another person, yet if we add "yeah, but" to some of these crimes, it sounds like we're creating space where it's understandable if it happens. Obviously, I don't believe every person who engages in victim blaming is intentionally looking to justify a crime being committed, but that's the effect it creates.
As for the Paris shootings, it really bugs me that some people can't seem to articulate well that one can fully support free speech and simultaneously find somebody's free expression to be repulsive or offensive. Anybody saying "yeah, but" concerning the shootings is definitely engaging in victim blaming; go ahead and critique the cartoons in question, but good Lord, it was a mass shooting, there's nothing that should make that something to be comprehended.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Jan 15, 2015 20:16:19 GMT -5
There is a world of difference between the examples like the "insulted someone, so they assaulted you" thing is because, as said- usually, victim blaming, by definition, has to be a case where the victim really couldn't have done anything wrong. If someone gets sexually assaulted, they're the victim- they didn't do anything to force it to happen. Same with the robbery- but that sometimes happens to people (even beyond those- when I had my dorm room broken into, a response I actually got from people was, "Well, it's your own fault for owning those possessions- if you didn't own them, you wouldn't have been robbed"), but at the same time- there's really nothing you could do wrong to cause the robbery.
By contrast, for assault- especially in the example given where you insulted someone until they attack you, the victim wouldn't be blameless, so by definition, it's not "really" victim blaming.
To me, assault-based victim blaming would be closer to, "Wait, this guy that you never met before walked past you in the street and punched you in the face? ...do you know if you look like somebody he has a problem with? Do you have a job in the media where your opinions might have pissed him off?"
|
|
Johnny Flamingo
Hank Scorpio
Killing the business one post at a time
Posts: 6,484
|
Post by Johnny Flamingo on Jan 15, 2015 20:32:09 GMT -5
Actually, I've found the opposite, especially with interrogation processes. If people leave their stuff in a car, and it gets stolen, generally the cops won't blame you for it or people won't ask questions, where as with sexual harassment/assault/rape victims will usually be hammered on what they were wearing, what they were drinking, leading someone on, you were looking for attention, and wouldn't you know who won the pony, lots of rapes don't get reported. That being said, victim blaming, all victim blaming, gives me the sour belches. I was coming in here to basically say the sexual assault thing. On one side I believe you should definitely act and dress in a safe manner in regards to your surroundings. On the flip side no one, no matter what the circumstance are, deserves to be sexually assaulted or raped. It is very disturbing that people constantly make excuses to justify what is a horrible crime. It is that attitude that has some victims justify that they deserved to be raped. I agree that victim blaming needs to stop and is a major problem. To be clear if you start a fight with someone and end up in a hospital because of your actions I don't consider you a victim.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2015 20:34:11 GMT -5
By contrast, for assault- especially in the example given where you insulted someone until they attack you, the victim wouldn't be blameless, so by definition, it's not "really" victim blaming. OK, but by stating that you seem to be saying that an appropriate/acceptable response to being insulted is to physcally attack someone? Because from where I'm standing, just insulting someone verbally is not grounds for assault. If it was, then ok, the person dishing out the insult isn't blameless, but that's not really the case. The idea that "you insult someone until they attack you" is strange to me. As if there's some correlation between being called names long enough and punching someone? Like if you call someone a "jerk loser dumb f***" enough times it somehow gives them the right to punch you? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the situation.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Jan 15, 2015 20:53:38 GMT -5
Actually, I've found the opposite, especially with interrogation processes. If people leave their stuff in a car, and it gets stolen, generally the cops won't blame you for it or people won't ask questions, where as with sexual harassment/assault/rape victims will usually be hammered on what they were wearing, what they were drinking, leading someone on, you were looking for attention, and wouldn't you know who won the pony, lots of rapes don't get reported. That being said, victim blaming, all victim blaming, gives me the sour belches. I was coming in here to basically say the sexual assault thing. On one side I believe you should definitely act and dress in a safe manner in regards to your surroundings. On the flip side no one, no matter what the circumstance are, deserves to be sexually assaulted or raped. It is very disturbing that people constantly make excuses to justify what is a horrible crime. It is that attitude that has some victims justify that they deserved to be raped. I agree that victim blaming needs to stop and is a major problem. To be clear if you start a fight with someone and end up in a hospital because of your actions I don't consider you a victim. Nope. The victim could be walking naked in the streets and it wouldn't matter. She could legit be a hooker, and no, she shouldn't have to act and dress safe. The burden of not raping is on the rapists.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Jan 15, 2015 20:55:00 GMT -5
By contrast, for assault- especially in the example given where you insulted someone until they attack you, the victim wouldn't be blameless, so by definition, it's not "really" victim blaming. OK, but by stating that you seem to be saying that an appropriate/acceptable response to being insulted is to physcally attack someone? Because from where I'm standing, just insulting someone verbally is not grounds for assault. If it was, then ok, the person dishing out the insult isn't blameless, but that's not really the case. The idea that "you insult someone until they attack you" is strange to me. As if there's some correlation between being called names long enough and punching someone? Like if you call someone a "jerk loser dumb f***" enough times it somehow gives them the right to punch you? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the situation. I'm not saying that physically attacking someone is an appropriate or acceptable response to being insulted, but the fact is that it is a likely response to it. The fact is- if you choose to insult someone, especially if you don't know them (as opposed to someone you do know and know how they'd react to your insults), THEN YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY PICKING A FIGHT WITH THAT PERSON, and you have to be prepared that they might choose to attack you because of it- and if it is the case, then no, you are not completely blameless.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Schlapowitz on Jan 15, 2015 21:17:28 GMT -5
Victim blaming is STUPID!
If I see someone wearing a football jersey does that mean I can tackle him because "the way he was dressed, he was asking for it"?
|
|
Toxik916
Hank Scorpio
Sacramento Proud
Posts: 6,207
|
Post by Toxik916 on Jan 15, 2015 21:28:39 GMT -5
Victim blaming is terrible, but at the same time people can use common sense in order to avoid being victims.
|
|
Johnny Flamingo
Hank Scorpio
Killing the business one post at a time
Posts: 6,484
|
Post by Johnny Flamingo on Jan 15, 2015 21:47:38 GMT -5
I was coming in here to basically say the sexual assault thing. On one side I believe you should definitely act and dress in a safe manner in regards to your surroundings. On the flip side no one, no matter what the circumstance are, deserves to be sexually assaulted or raped. It is very disturbing that people constantly make excuses to justify what is a horrible crime. It is that attitude that has some victims justify that they deserved to be raped. I agree that victim blaming needs to stop and is a major problem. To be clear if you start a fight with someone and end up in a hospital because of your actions I don't consider you a victim. Nope. The victim could be walking naked in the streets and it wouldn't matter. She could legit be a hooker, and no, she shouldn't have to act and dress safe. The burden of not raping is on the rapists. For the record, I totally agree with you, not sure if it came out that way. what I was trying to say is that you should always try to be as safe as possible, be smart and protect yourself at all-times. With that said, the rapists are the ones to blame and no one else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2015 22:39:02 GMT -5
OK, but by stating that you seem to be saying that an appropriate/acceptable response to being insulted is to physcally attack someone? Because from where I'm standing, just insulting someone verbally is not grounds for assault. If it was, then ok, the person dishing out the insult isn't blameless, but that's not really the case. The idea that "you insult someone until they attack you" is strange to me. As if there's some correlation between being called names long enough and punching someone? Like if you call someone a "jerk loser dumb f***" enough times it somehow gives them the right to punch you? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the situation. I'm not saying that physically attacking someone is an appropriate or acceptable response to being insulted, but the fact is that it is a likely response to it. The fact is- if you choose to insult someone, especially if you don't know them (as opposed to someone you do know and know how they'd react to your insults), THEN YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY PICKING A FIGHT WITH THAT PERSON, and you have to be prepared that they might choose to attack you because of it- and if it is the case, then no, you are not completely blameless. I see what you're saying, but still think unless you're putting someone in physical danger, they have ZERO right to put their hands on you, whether or not they feel disrespected. I've said it before, but you should get physical if your LIFE is in danger, not your pride. Trying to say someone isn't completely blameless for getting their ass whooped if they insulted a stranger doesn't sound right to me. You even said its not appropriate or acceptable, yet somehow the other person is to blame? Doesn't sound right to me at all. I'm not advocating insulting people without repercussions, but I don't think they should EVER be physically violent.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Jan 15, 2015 22:46:33 GMT -5
I'm not saying that physically attacking someone is an appropriate or acceptable response to being insulted, but the fact is that it is a likely response to it. The fact is- if you choose to insult someone, especially if you don't know them (as opposed to someone you do know and know how they'd react to your insults), THEN YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY PICKING A FIGHT WITH THAT PERSON, and you have to be prepared that they might choose to attack you because of it- and if it is the case, then no, you are not completely blameless. I see what you're saying, but still think unless you're putting someone in physical danger, they have ZERO right to put their hands on you, whether or not they feel disrespected. I've said it before, but you should get physical if your LIFE is in danger, not your pride. Trying to say someone isn't completely blameless for getting their ass whooped if they insulted a stranger doesn't sound right to me. You even said its not appropriate or acceptable, yet somehow the other person is to blame? Doesn't sound right to me at all. I'm not advocating insulting people without repercussions, but I don't think they should EVER be physically violent. That's the whole point, though. Quite frankly- both of us are right. It is possible the answer is in the middle of this- unless you're putting someone in physical danger, they do have zero right to put their hands on you, whether or not they feel disrespected, and you should only get physical if your LIFE is in danger, not your pride. Key word: SHOULD. Just because someone SHOULD only get physical if their life is in danger does not mean they WILL only get physical if their life is in danger- and, if they feel that just their pride is in danger and they attack the guy doing it (especially since there really is no "satisfying" way to equal out things like insulting people at random without repercussions), then the person who instigated it with their insults is not completely blameless for it, even if they got a bigger punishment than they likely deserved it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2015 23:54:36 GMT -5
I see what you're saying, but still think unless you're putting someone in physical danger, they have ZERO right to put their hands on you, whether or not they feel disrespected. I've said it before, but you should get physical if your LIFE is in danger, not your pride. Trying to say someone isn't completely blameless for getting their ass whooped if they insulted a stranger doesn't sound right to me. You even said its not appropriate or acceptable, yet somehow the other person is to blame? Doesn't sound right to me at all. I'm not advocating insulting people without repercussions, but I don't think they should EVER be physically violent. That's the whole point, though. Quite frankly- both of us are right. It is possible the answer is in the middle of this- unless you're putting someone in physical danger, they do have zero right to put their hands on you, whether or not they feel disrespected, and you should only get physical if your LIFE is in danger, not your pride. Key word: SHOULD. Just because someone SHOULD only get physical if their life is in danger does not mean they WILL only get physical if their life is in danger- and, if they feel that just their pride is in danger and they attack the guy doing it (especially since there really is no "satisfying" way to equal out things like insulting people at random without repercussions), then the person who instigated it with their insults is not completely blameless for it, even if they got a bigger punishment than they likely deserved it. I think the point where we disagree is the idea that an insult is somehow to blame for a fight. For me, its not the person who verbally said something negative who is at fault - at all. Its the person who threw the first punch. If someone can't NOT hit someone else over pride, that's 100% on them. Especially since innocuous comments or just flat-out misunderstandings can be misconstrued as an insult pretty easily, especially by someone with such poor impulse control. It still comes off as victim-blaming to me, but I can also see how someone could see it as not...or less so. I just don't agree with it.
|
|