Current Events > "It's kinda your fault too because you put yourself in that situation"

(+) Yeah! (+)

Comments? Thoughts? Opinions on this logic? Is it victim blaming? Is it a reasonable assessment to tell someone this?
---

Depends on the situation really, if you go to a party where you know everyone is going to be drinking, and then you drink and crash your car into a tree? Yeah, you did that to yourself.
---

depends on the situation.

if you climb a tree and demand a helicopter ride down but no one comes and you just fall and break your neck, it's kinda your fault too because you put yourself in that situation
---

For the most part, no matter the context or situation, is it bad or good? No need to overanalyze.
---

And no need to use an extreme comparison to justify it being agreeable or not LMAO.
---

If you didnt take steps to prevents risks, you shouldn't be surprised if people dont feel sorry for you
---

Is this about the Darwin Awards?
---

rahasperj posted...

Depends on the situation really, if you go to a party where you know everyone is going to be drinking, and then you drink and crash your car into a tree? Yeah, you did that to yourself.

Yup.

Generally speaking if it was largely your personal actions...yeah.

Big difference between

well dont have such nice tits in such a nice dress and you wouldnt get groped

Vs

dont get wasted out of your mind and you wont have to be Professor X every Halloween
---

Play stupid games, get stupid rewards.
---

SpiralDrift posted...

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Fixed.
---

rahasperj posted...

SpiralDrift posted...

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Fixed.

I thought it sounded wrong as I typed it. I should sleep more often.
---

If you're talking about sexual assault, it's victim blaming.

If you're talking about people being mean to you, personally, you're pretty much always asking for it.

Does the situation involve the conscious actions of another person?

If I go to a bar at 1AM and someone decides to kick my ass, then that person is still 100% at fault. There is nothing preventing me from drinking at a bar at 1AM. If I did not antagonize this person, then there's no reason for them to kick my ass. It's entirely their fault.

Was there a risk going to that bar where other humans are? Yes, but there's a risk to leaving your house or getting in your car and driving on the road. You accept these risks because you trust that other people will not consciously attempt to harm you.

That's the difference between "knowing the risks" and "sharing the blame". Conflation of these two should not be taken to the level that they sometimes are.

If the "situation" you're describing involves, for example, a wild animal, then the onus is on the sapient human (me) involved, not the animal, to protect myself.

But the minute you introduce another conscious human into the equation, then you need to stop and take a breath, because when you suggest the idea that another human is not responsible for their own conscious actions (ie. the guy who beat me up in the bar), then you've officially entered victim blaming.
---

CyricZ posted...

Does the situation involve the conscious actions of another person?

If I go to a bar at 1AM and someone decides to kick my ass, then that person is still 100% at fault. There is nothing preventing me from drinking at a bar at 1AM. If I did not antagonize this person, then there's no reason for them to kick my ass. It's entirely their fault.

Maybe not the best example, but if you are taking 0% responsibility for your own actions, why should the other person have to take responsibility for their actions? You cant control other people, but you can control yourself.

looked posted...

CyricZ posted...

Does the situation involve the conscious actions of another person?

If I go to a bar at 1AM and someone decides to kick my ass, then that person is still 100% at fault. There is nothing preventing me from drinking at a bar at 1AM. If I did not antagonize this person, then there's no reason for them to kick my ass. It's entirely their fault.

Maybe not the best example, but if you are taking 0% responsibility for your own actions, why should the other person have to take responsibility for their actions? You cant control other people, but you can control yourself.

When one's action is "went to a bar", it's not reasonable to blame them if they are attacked unprovoked.
---

looked posted...

Maybe not the best example, but if you are taking 0% responsibility for your own actions, why should the other person have to take responsibility for their actions? You cant control other people, but you can control yourself.

I'm not taking 0% responsibility for my own actions. I'm taking 0% responsibility for their actions. The person who beat me up. This is why I keep going back to the other conscious human.
---

Veggeta_EDGE posted...

Is it victim blaming?

Yes it is.

I remember hearing a story about a woman who drank way too much on the beach and passed out, was sexually assaulted and then (some) people said it was her fault for drinking so much and passing out. It's victim blaming.

Punctus_Pilot posted...

If you're talking about sexual assault, it's victim blaming.

---

One of the reasons I stick to the "beat up at a bar" scenario is because it's not sexual assault. That's easy mode. I'm willing to branch out the conversation to other potential scenarios if it means we can get this established.
---

CE seems to decide this based on political beliefs

Leftists and neutrals are victims
Right wingers deserve to be punished
---

GATTJT posted...

looked posted...

CyricZ posted...

Does the situation involve the conscious actions of another person?

If I go to a bar at 1AM and someone decides to kick my ass, then that person is still 100% at fault. There is nothing preventing me from drinking at a bar at 1AM. If I did not antagonize this person, then there's no reason for them to kick my ass. It's entirely their fault.

Maybe not the best example, but if you are taking 0% responsibility for your own actions, why should the other person have to take responsibility for their actions? You cant control other people, but you can control yourself.

When one's action is "went to a bar", it's not reasonable to blame them if they are attacked unprovoked.

You think its a good idea to go to a bar that Is known to be rowdy by yourself? Would you keep going back? The problem with not talking responsibility is that you never have to learn anything. The guy that first posted this would probably avoid this bar, or go with friends, but you would get your ass kicked over and over.

looked posted...

You think its a good idea to go to a bar that Is known to be rowdy by yourself?

did he say it was known to be 'rowdy'?
---

it's complicated
using the rowdy bar example, I don't think you're at fault if someone decides to kick your ass for no reason just because you chose to go to a violent bar. you could have avoided it, and I think that's what the conversation should be about, but no one deserves to get their ass kicked because they wanted to go somewhere different
---

Blame the one who broke the law
---

Balrog0 posted...

looked posted...

You think its a good idea to go to a bar that Is known to be rowdy by yourself?

did he say it was known to be 'rowdy'?

fenderbender321 posted...

If I choose to go to a bar at 1:00 AM by myself....one that's known to get rowdy, and some guy winds up kicking my ass....I'd definitely put some of the blame on me, even if I did nothing to antagonize the guy.

Because going to that bar alone was definitely a risk I took on my part. My odds of getting my ass kicked that night went up 10000x for going to that bar instead of staying home and watching TV.

If you go to a bar and randomly get beaten up, then it would be victim blaming. If you went to the bar, told some dude to fuck off and then got punched in the face, then It would not be victim blaming.
---

It's the difference between thinking ideally that any conscious perpetrator shouldn't be doing others any harm, and knowing realistically that bad people do exist and sometimes will cause harm.

Obvs the perpetrator is 100% at fault, but until we have a solution for rubbish people, caution is the second best plan anyone can seem to think of.

fenderbender321 posted...

I am going to put blame on myself

Well no one's going to stop you from that, but... you don't have to.

People put blame on themselves for a lot of things.

A battered wife for why her husband beats her, for example.
---

Again, no one can stop you from blaming yourself.

It just chafes peoples' hinders when other people start blaming victims.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

But what if I wanted to tell somebody it was partially their fault because I wanted them to have the same perspective as me? If I've had a positive outcome using that perspective about myself, then naturally I'd want to pass that on to another person, would I not?

Not your call.

Quite frankly, you in particular say a lot of things on these boards assuming people want to have the same perspective as you. How do you find that goes, generally?
---

pikachupwnage posted...

rahasperj posted...

Depends on the situation really, if you go to a party where you know everyone is going to be drinking, and then you drink and crash your car into a tree? Yeah, you did that to yourself.

Yup.

Generally speaking if it was largely your personal actions...yeah.

Big difference between

well dont have such nice tits in such a nice dress and you wouldnt get groped

Vs

dont get wasted out of your mind and you wont have to be Professor X every Halloween

yep
---

fenderbender321 posted...

CyricZ posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

But what if I wanted to tell somebody it was partially their fault because I wanted them to have the same perspective as me? If I've had a positive outcome using that perspective about myself, then naturally I'd want to pass that on to another person, would I not?

Not your call.

Quite frankly, you in particular say a lot of things on these boards assuming people want to have the same perspective as you. How do you find that goes, generally?

Not my call? But it is my call. I can absolutely say it if I want.

Well, someone can really only see something from your perspective if they want to see it from your perspective.
---

Of their actions, yes. Not someone else's actions.

And furthermore, you're speaking precaution and risk. The topic is about assigning fault after the fact.
---

Thats always my argument against people that complain in Call of Duty.

fenderbender321 posted...

So even if we could call it "victim blaming", does that make it bad or unconstructive? If so, why?

Its more unconstructive to say you did nothing wrong, and to just keep doing what lead you into that situation.

If you to figure what role you played, and what you couldve done to improve, or avoid the situation, then, learning can take place.

If it's directed at a girl, it's victim blaming.

If it's directed at a guy it's not. Men cannot be victims and women don't have agency apparently. They do not act on their own accord, they are only acted upon by a man. Making their own conscious decisions (such as attempting to minimize the number of risks in a potentially risky situation) is simply not possible for them.

I am not intentionally being sexist, this is a somewhat satirical posting on the double standards I regularly see applied to women. Equal to a man but somehow weaker, incapable and need to be coddled and carried through every situation at all times. Like you would protect a child for example.
---

It's not victim blaming. It's called 'trying to prevent this from happening' and 'learning from the experience'.

If someone does something shitty to you, they're always at fault. But if you made it easy for them...like don't do that. Don't pass out around strangers. It's how you get robbed and sexually assaulted. Don't walk in bad neighborhoods at night, that's how you get robbed and assaulted. etc.
---