Honestly depending on the crime I'd be up for cops offering a hug. I know when I had my house broken into even though it was just stuff it devastated me. If the barney fife who showed up had offered a bro hug I would have so taken it.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
condemning immoral acts, empathizing with victims and encouraging risk mitigation are in no way mutually exclusive enterprises.
Yes, but depending on the manner in which it is phrased, a message could be very good at one of them and simultaneously neutral or extremely horrible at the others.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
So it sounds like the point we are reaching here is:
-Prevention can be an important factor in reducing crime.
-Prevention can be an insensitive thing to bring up when recent victims are looking for support.
So the question becomes, how do you have a frank discussion about reducing crime that won't make victims feel attacked, given that many of the people who will want to participate in that discussion are victims?
It's a delicate line really. Mostly its just that we tend to bring up what victims can do to prevent crimes immediately after they just became a victim. Its like when your friend says "Watch out" after you have brained yourself. The warning comes after the fact and feels dumb as hell to receive.
Its not victim blaming to hold seminars on what you can do to make yourself safer, and include in those seminars victims that tell their stories. But by the same account, it is victim blaming to say that certain crimes are entirely preventable and if those crimes happen to you, its your fault.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Yeah, it's really hard to talk about any crime after the fact and talk about risk mitigation without it seeming like an implied "well if you hadn't..."
And hey, often it's true. If you hadn't X, you could have avoided Y.
Right up until your car with no visible bags of valuables still gets ransacked, or you get raped by a person you thought you knew, or you get stabbed to death by a crazy hobo just for walking home from a soccer game like 20,000 other people did that night.
Which is why focus on risk mitigation often falls flat. Because not only does it often implicitly normalize the actions of the perpetrator, but half the time the actual benefit to the past or future victims is minimal.
I left my backpack in the open bed of my truck (which often had the windows rolled down, and sometimes had the keys in it) for months on end before anybody bothered to steal it. And yet on another occasion somebody randomly jimmied my door and found the only item of value (a disc man under the seat), despite no "easy" target. And that's aside from the smashed windows of my other car, in Seattle, where all they found was an iPod in the glove box. Which is to say that in two of three cases, I did everything "right" to prevent the break-in.*
So pardon me if I'm unmoved by risk mitigation advice, and place it only a few rungs above common superstition.
* - Aside from "owning things of value," of course.
There's also the question for any piece of "advice" as to just how much the risk is reduced, and what the base rate is.
If hiding my backpack only reduces my car burglary risk from 2% to 1%, for instance, maybe we don't bother putting that stress on decent folks and instead focus more on the shit birds victimizing people.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that Mcdermott, yes random unpreventable crime happens but its existence shouldn't negate the fact that taking personal steps to mitigate risk to yourself is in general sound advice.
There's also the question for any piece of "advice" as to just how much the risk is reduced, and what the base rate is.
If hiding my backpack only reduces my car burglary risk from 2% to 1%, for instance, maybe we don't bother putting that stress on decent folks and instead focus more on the shit birds victimizing people.
Does that sort of information and stats even exist to draw those conclusions from?
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that Mcdermott, yes random unpreventable crime happens but its existence shouldn't negate the fact that taking personal steps to mitigate risk to yourself is in general sound advice.
Again, absent some more specific idea of the rate of reduction and base rate, it may not be.
The stress of trying to take all the necessary steps to avoid one's victimization (and potential reduction in freedom of action) may well outweigh whatever marginal impact it has on actual rate of victim hood...particularly if the base rate is low.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that Mcdermott, yes random unpreventable crime happens but its existence shouldn't negate the fact that taking personal steps to mitigate risk to yourself is in general sound advice.
Again, absent some more specific idea of the rate of reduction and base rate, it may not be.
The stress of trying to take all the necessary steps to avoid one's victimization (and potential reduction in freedom of action) may well outweigh whatever marginal impact it has on actual rate of victim hood...particularly if the base rate is low.
Yea you totally raise a valid point but can we quantify that accurately. (I really don't know)
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that Mcdermott, yes random unpreventable crime happens but its existence shouldn't negate the fact that taking personal steps to mitigate risk to yourself is in general sound advice.
There's also the question for any piece of "advice" as to just how much the risk is reduced, and what the base rate is.
If hiding my backpack only reduces my car burglary risk from 2% to 1%, for instance, maybe we don't bother putting that stress on decent folks and instead focus more on the shit birds victimizing people.
Does that sort of information and stats even exist to draw those conclusions from?
A very good question.
Because in order to elevate a piece of advice (such as backpacks/cars) above mere superstition, you'd need to show that data. Because "common sense" is, in many cases, just another word for superstition.
I'd wager insurance companies have data relating to this.
But I'd consider it telling off the bat that moments ago you were calling "sound advice" something which you have no data supporting? Not an attack, just something to think about.
I don't even know why I'm posting in this thread anymore Mcdermott is basically tapped directly into my mind stream.
I know we have *ahem* "disagreed" at times, but I'd like to think we're still more bro than not.
We're bro its bro.
Anyway, I'm with you on that we seem to have a lot of "common" sense solutions for crime prevention that I don't know specifically actually do anything to prevent crime.
Like we tell women to not walk around late at night by themselves to avoid being raped, but aren't most rapes committed by people they know? So using that criteria aren't we making them more of a target for the acquaintance rape by having them be accompanied instead of by themselves?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that Mcdermott, yes random unpreventable crime happens but its existence shouldn't negate the fact that taking personal steps to mitigate risk to yourself is in general sound advice.
There's also the question for any piece of "advice" as to just how much the risk is reduced, and what the base rate is.
If hiding my backpack only reduces my car burglary risk from 2% to 1%, for instance, maybe we don't bother putting that stress on decent folks and instead focus more on the shit birds victimizing people.
Does that sort of information and stats even exist to draw those conclusions from?
A very good question.
Because in order to elevate a piece of advice (such as backpacks/cars) above mere superstition, you'd need to show that data. Because "common sense" is, in many cases, just another word for superstition.
I'd wager insurance companies have data relating to this.
But I'd consider it telling off the bat that moments ago you were calling "sound advice" something which you have no data supporting? Not an attack, just something to think about.
I'm not going to lie, it certainly got the gears rolling in my head, the thought process for me after getting what you are saying is what if a good chunk of what we do for safety is just ceremony and superstition and actual has very little effect on whether or not we will be the victims of crime.
To me that gives me a sense of helplessness which I think most can agree we as humans don't like.
Yeah ultimately we do a lot of things to feel safe. Its kind of like the in flight safety video, something to assuage your fear you're about to get on an airplane and if shit goes down your boned most likely.
Its not to say that everything we do is a wasted action and you should leave your shit unlocked, but maybe its time we have an honest conversation about how much "crime prevention" is tiger rock bullshit.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I'm thinking in terms of fourth downs in football. Statistical analysis seems to suggest that, in many cases, going for a play on fourth down is likely to produce the better outcome. But because of the pressure of being judged on the decision, punting is often favored in those cases. Because nobody will blame you for punting.
I don't think for a moment that leaving a pack in your backseat will reduce your rate of car burglary, to be clear. But, if the base rate of burglary is sufficiently small and/or the reduction sufficiently minor, then the additional freedom of action may make ignoring the "sound advice" better in many situations.
For instance, maybe I'm going two places today. One I want a backpack for. The other doesn't allow them. And maybe my car has no trunk. Now I either have to find a way to get that pack home, or accept the risk, or not have the pack for the morning, or avoid the evening event.
Assuming for the moment that the absolute reduction in burglary rate is small, I could instead just....live my life. But that becomes difficult when faced with the potential tut-tutting of police, or insurance agents, or even friends and family for not taking "sound advice.". That they may not even know the mathematical significance of. So like the coach afraid of the Monday press, we do what we're supposed to, lest we be judged.
Even if those actions were largely irrelevant.
I mean, unless somebody actually has those numbers. I'm legitimately interested.
Victim blaming to me always seemed to be defined by two things:
1) Don't give the advice after the fact. No matter what the situation is you're probably victim blaming if your response post incident is to list off ways the victim could've avoided whatever happened.
2) Make sure the advice is reasonable. This one's a bit fuzzier but it essentially comes down to not giving advice where someone has to make a significant change to avoid the trouble. It's fair enough to say 'hey, put your backpacks under your seat when you leave the car'. It's less fair to say 'don't wear X if you don't want guys to be problematic for you'. No one bases their identity in putting their backpack in plain view of potential criminals but how people dress, behave and even the pictures they take absolutely are things that are more personal. I feel it's probably victim blaming if the advice crosses that sort of line because ultimately it's saying 'well you can't act how you want because bad people do bad things'.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that Mcdermott, yes random unpreventable crime happens but its existence shouldn't negate the fact that taking personal steps to mitigate risk to yourself is in general sound advice.
There's also the question for any piece of "advice" as to just how much the risk is reduced, and what the base rate is.
If hiding my backpack only reduces my car burglary risk from 2% to 1%, for instance, maybe we don't bother putting that stress on decent folks and instead focus more on the shit birds victimizing people.
Does that sort of information and stats even exist to draw those conclusions from?
A very good question.
Because in order to elevate a piece of advice (such as backpacks/cars) above mere superstition, you'd need to show that data. Because "common sense" is, in many cases, just another word for superstition.
I'd wager insurance companies have data relating to this.
But I'd consider it telling off the bat that moments ago you were calling "sound advice" something which you have no data supporting? Not an attack, just something to think about.
I'm not going to lie, it certainly got the gears rolling in my head, the thought process for me after getting what you are saying is what if a good chunk of what we do for safety is just ceremony and superstition and actual has very little effect on whether or not we will be the victims of crime.
To me that gives me a sense of helplessness which I think most can agree we as humans don't like.
That feeling is also a major factor in why we engage in victim blaming. "What, you didn't lock your car door? Well no wonder it got broken into." Meanwhile, we lock our car doors because we are smart and take control of the safety of our possessions. Nevermind that locked cars get broken into all the fucking time. That makes us feel helpless. Making you feel foolish for not avoiding the crime perpetrated against you makes us feel smart and secure.
Victim blaming to me always seemed to be defined by two things:
1) Don't give the advice after the fact. No matter what the situation is you're probably victim blaming if your response post incident is to list off ways the victim could've avoided whatever happened.
2) Make sure the advice is reasonable. This one's a bit fuzzier but it essentially comes down to not giving advice where someone has to make a significant change to avoid the trouble. It's fair enough to say 'hey, put your backpacks under your seat when you leave the car'. It's less fair to say 'don't wear X if you don't want guys to be problematic for you'. No one bases their identity in putting their backpack in plain view of potential criminals but how people dress, behave and even the pictures they take absolutely are things that are more personal. I feel it's probably victim blaming if the advice crosses that sort of line because ultimately it's saying 'well you can't act how you want because bad people do bad things'.
ehhhhhhhhhhhhh
I grew up in a really bad city and I appreciate the advice I got to not get my ass mugged or killed
I mean no I shouldn't have to avoid Mcdonalds because some assholes from Chicago are dealing there, but on the other hand I'm glad I listened because the Mcdonalds got shot up in a drive by
however, if I hadn't listened to the advice and say, was eating there when that shit went down and got shot? It wouldn't have been my fault
There's nothing wrong with preventative measures to deal with the world we live in. Telling them to someone immediately after they're a victim is not doing that though, it's excusing the actions of whoever wronged them, which is bullshit
The statistically most common motorcycle accident, by far, is a two-vehicle collision with a car where the motorcyclist is riding straight through an intersection and the car driver in the oncoming lane takes a left turn across the motorcyclist's right of way.
This particular accident is absurdly common. It makes up about 50% of two-vehicle motorcycle accidents (and for motorcyclists, two-vehicle accidents are more frequent than single-vehicle accidents). Motorcyclists have a special slang term for it specifically.
When I'm approaching an intersection, especially one where a car in the oncoming lane is stopped and seems to be preparing to take a left, I'll slow down, cover my brakes, keep an eye on the oncoming lane, and prepare myself to make a panic stop if the car turns left across my right of way. I "shouldn't have to" do this, of course; that's what "my right of way" means.
I do it every time.
This particular piece of advice also appears in most books on motorcycling (or, at least, the ones focused on street riding rather than track riding). I'll give it out myself when discussing motorcycling. Am I victim blaming? Am i victim blaming only if the person I'm talking to has been in this type of accident? If I'm talking to someone and I don't know whether or not they've been involved in this type of accident, am I in a quantum superposition of simultaneous victim-blaming and not-victim-blaming until they tell me?
Another common form of risk mitigation while motorcycling is wearing a full set of protective gear. While some set of foreseeable accidents will be fatal regardless of one's protective equipment, for many others protective gear can prevent or mitigate a range of potential injuries.
Now, consider that the majority of serious motorcycle accidents are two-vehicle accidents where the car driver is at fault. Is it victim blaming to advise motorcyclists to wear "all the gear, all the time", as the saying goes?
If this is victim blaming, should motorcycle safety classes stop giving this advice?
(All motorcycle statistics taken from the Hurt Report, and may be out of date).
When I inevitably get killed in a motorcycle accident someday and some jackass says that I should have been driving a car, is that victim blaming? (Yes). Where is the line drawn, here?
I think nude selfies are an interesting litmus test.
On the one hand, simply not taking them or allowing them to be taken can reduce your risk to near-zero (hidden/nonconsenting pics aside).
On the other, much like "don't go back to somebody's apartment you don't intend to fuck," I don't consider it reasonable advice. It's an excessive restraint society is placing on personal freedom rather than dealing with the real issue.
I've received naked pics of girlfriends.
I've never shared them. I encrypted them, and ultimately deleted them. I'd go so far as to say that, absent evidence to the contrary, many or most such pics never get leaked or forwarded. Just as plenty of women go to a guys place for a nightcap and don't get raped (and also don't fuck).
It's reasonable for society to allow these behaviors, and not chastise victims that wind up being unlucky because they did things humans should get to do.
That, shit, most humans WANT them to do. "You really should reconsider the security of your personal info and data" said no guy ever upon receiving a pic of his girlfriend's tits.
Victim blaming to me always seemed to be defined by two things:
1) Don't give the advice after the fact. No matter what the situation is you're probably victim blaming if your response post incident is to list off ways the victim could've avoided whatever happened.
2) Make sure the advice is reasonable. This one's a bit fuzzier but it essentially comes down to not giving advice where someone has to make a significant change to avoid the trouble. It's fair enough to say 'hey, put your backpacks under your seat when you leave the car'. It's less fair to say 'don't wear X if you don't want guys to be problematic for you'. No one bases their identity in putting their backpack in plain view of potential criminals but how people dress, behave and even the pictures they take absolutely are things that are more personal. I feel it's probably victim blaming if the advice crosses that sort of line because ultimately it's saying 'well you can't act how you want because bad people do bad things'.
ehhhhhhhhhhhhh
I grew up in a really bad city and I appreciate the advice I got to not get my ass mugged or killed
I mean no I shouldn't have to avoid Mcdonalds because some assholes from Chicago are dealing there, but on the other hand I'm glad I listened because the Mcdonalds got shot up in a drive by
however, if I hadn't listened to the advice and say, was eating there when that shit went down and got shot? It wouldn't have been my fault
There's nothing wrong with preventative measures to deal with the world we live in. Telling them to someone immediately after they're a victim is not doing that though, it's excusing the actions of whoever wronged them, which is bullshit
In that specific case there was an actual risk that you were aware of, the drug dealers. To me thats a big Danger sign and you were right to avoid a place where they congregate. Obvious danger, and you took the appropriate action, but in cases where there may or may not be a potential threat... that unknown, personally I keep my eyes peeled, my ears open and listen to my gut.
Car accidents and the prevention there in I don't think falls into victim blaming outside of the absurdly stupid thing you put at the end there. I'd say its rare for a car accident to be 100% one persons fault though, and so any "blaming" is the usual sort of "You could have avoided this accident if you followed the law and not been a dumb ass." Which is not something you can always tell a victim of a mugging, or burglary, but might be able to tell someone who was involved in an assault.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
The statistically most common motorcycle accident, by far, is a two-vehicle collision with a car where the motorcyclist is riding straight through an intersection and the car driver in the oncoming lane takes a left turn across the motorcyclist's right of way.
This particular accident is absurdly common. It makes up about 50% of two-vehicle motorcycle accidents (and for motorcyclists, two-vehicle accidents are more frequent than single-vehicle accidents). Motorcyclists have a special slang term for it specifically.
When I'm approaching an intersection, especially one where a car in the oncoming lane is stopped and seems to be preparing to take a left, I'll slow down, cover my brakes, keep an eye on the oncoming lane, and prepare myself to make a panic stop if the car turns left across my right of way. I "shouldn't have to" do this, of course; that's what "my right of way" means.
I do it every time.
This particular piece of advice also appears in most books on motorcycling (or, at least, the ones focused on street riding rather than track riding). I'll give it out myself when discussing motorcycling. Am I victim blaming? Am i victim blaming only if the person I'm talking to has been in this type of accident? If I'm talking to someone and I don't know whether or not they've been involved in this type of accident, am I in a quantum superposition of simultaneous victim-blaming and not-victim-blaming until they tell me?
Another common form of risk mitigation while motorcycling is wearing a full set of protective gear. While some set of foreseeable accidents will be fatal regardless of one's protective equipment, for many others protective gear can prevent or mitigate a range of potential injuries.
Now, consider that the majority of serious motorcycle accidents are two-vehicle accidents where the car driver is at fault. Is it victim blaming to advise motorcyclists to wear "all the gear, all the time", as the saying goes?
If this is victim blaming, should motorcycle safety classes stop giving this advice?
(All motorcycle statistics taken from the Hurt Report, and may be out of date).
When I inevitably get killed in a motorcycle accident someday and some jackass says that I should have been driving a car, is that victim blaming? (Yes). Where is the line drawn, here?
I think nude selfies are an interesting litmus test.
On the one hand, simply not taking them or allowing them to be taken can reduce your risk to near-zero (hidden/nonconsenting pics aside).
On the other, much like "don't go back to somebody's apartment you don't intend to fuck," I don't consider it reasonable advice. It's an excessive restraint society is placing on personal freedom rather than dealing with the real issue.
I've received naked pics of girlfriends.
I've never shared them. I encrypted them, and ultimately deleted them. I'd go so far as to say that, absent evidence to the contrary, many or most such pics never get leaked or forwarded. Just as plenty of women go to a guys place for a nightcap and don't get raped (and also don't fuck).
It's reasonable for society to allow these behaviors, and not chastise victims that wind up being unlucky because they did things humans should get to do.
That, shit, most humans WANT them to do. "You really should reconsider the security of your personal info and data" said no guy ever upon receiving a pic of his girlfriend's tits.
To me the nude pic thing is a breaking of our implicit sexy times sharing contract! Again the world is a dark horrible shitty place. Lets not make it worse by having people be more prudish! Think of all the amateur porn you are in theory destroying before it ever could be created!
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
When I'm approaching an intersection, especially one where a car in the oncoming lane is stopped and seems to be preparing to take a left, I'll slow down, cover my brakes, keep an eye on the oncoming lane, and prepare myself to make a panic stop if the car turns left across my right of way. I "shouldn't have to" do this, of course; that's what "my right of way" means.
I do it every time.
I do that all the time when I'm driving too.
Sure, the traffic rules says I'm right. But I'd rather be wrong and not have an accident than be the non-culpable party to a road accident.
Sometimes though I notice that this kind of behavior makes drivers behind me act batshit crazy.
"Yes. I'm driving 70kmh on a 90kmh road and I'm keeping extra distance to the cars ahead of me. That's because it's raining, it's late autumn and both leaves and freezing rain means that I don't think I want to drive 90kmh on this road. No, that's not an invitation for you to overtake me going 110kmh on a curving road."
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
The statistically most common motorcycle accident, by far, is a two-vehicle collision with a car where the motorcyclist is riding straight through an intersection and the car driver in the oncoming lane takes a left turn across the motorcyclist's right of way.
This particular accident is absurdly common. It makes up about 50% of two-vehicle motorcycle accidents (and for motorcyclists, two-vehicle accidents are more frequent than single-vehicle accidents). Motorcyclists have a special slang term for it specifically.
When I'm approaching an intersection, especially one where a car in the oncoming lane is stopped and seems to be preparing to take a left, I'll slow down, cover my brakes, keep an eye on the oncoming lane, and prepare myself to make a panic stop if the car turns left across my right of way. I "shouldn't have to" do this, of course; that's what "my right of way" means.
I do it every time.
This particular piece of advice also appears in most books on motorcycling (or, at least, the ones focused on street riding rather than track riding). I'll give it out myself when discussing motorcycling. Am I victim blaming? Am i victim blaming only if the person I'm talking to has been in this type of accident? If I'm talking to someone and I don't know whether or not they've been involved in this type of accident, am I in a quantum superposition of simultaneous victim-blaming and not-victim-blaming until they tell me?
Another common form of risk mitigation while motorcycling is wearing a full set of protective gear. While some set of foreseeable accidents will be fatal regardless of one's protective equipment, for many others protective gear can prevent or mitigate a range of potential injuries.
Now, consider that the majority of serious motorcycle accidents are two-vehicle accidents where the car driver is at fault. Is it victim blaming to advise motorcyclists to wear "all the gear, all the time", as the saying goes?
If this is victim blaming, should motorcycle safety classes stop giving this advice?
(All motorcycle statistics taken from the Hurt Report, and may be out of date).
When I inevitably get killed in a motorcycle accident someday and some jackass says that I should have been driving a car, is that victim blaming? (Yes). Where is the line drawn, here?
WHY DID YOU NOT TELL US THE SLANG TERM?!
Seriously? Way to term tease. You know when you eventually get verbally accosted I'll say you earned it.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Offering advice or instruction for risk mitigation strategies to a person who has not been the victim of an accident or crime: not victim blaming.
Telling the victim of an accident or crime that it could've been avoided if only they'd done XYZ: victim blaming.
Telling a third party, "Don't do X if you don't want Y to happen" right after Y happened to somebody: victim blaming.
Granted there are extenuating circumstances and levels of fault, so telling a guy who just sawed off his own hand because he was using power tools in a dangerously unsafe manner "You really should have been using safety equipment" is different from telling a mugging victim "You shouldn't carry so much cash." (Because in the first case the victim is also the 100% responsible party, whereas in the latter case the mugger is 100% responsible.) In both cases it's a shitty thing to do and displays a serious lack of empathy and human decency. But the latter example is worse because it removes ever-so-much blame from the perpetrator and shifts it to the victim.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
Victim blaming to me always seemed to be defined by two things:
1) Don't give the advice after the fact. No matter what the situation is you're probably victim blaming if your response post incident is to list off ways the victim could've avoided whatever happened.
2) Make sure the advice is reasonable. This one's a bit fuzzier but it essentially comes down to not giving advice where someone has to make a significant change to avoid the trouble. It's fair enough to say 'hey, put your backpacks under your seat when you leave the car'. It's less fair to say 'don't wear X if you don't want guys to be problematic for you'. No one bases their identity in putting their backpack in plain view of potential criminals but how people dress, behave and even the pictures they take absolutely are things that are more personal. I feel it's probably victim blaming if the advice crosses that sort of line because ultimately it's saying 'well you can't act how you want because bad people do bad things'.
ehhhhhhhhhhhhh
I grew up in a really bad city and I appreciate the advice I got to not get my ass mugged or killed
I mean no I shouldn't have to avoid Mcdonalds because some assholes from Chicago are dealing there, but on the other hand I'm glad I listened because the Mcdonalds got shot up in a drive by
however, if I hadn't listened to the advice and say, was eating there when that shit went down and got shot? It wouldn't have been my fault
There's nothing wrong with preventative measures to deal with the world we live in. Telling them to someone immediately after they're a victim is not doing that though, it's excusing the actions of whoever wronged them, which is bullshit
This is kinda why I think it's a fuzzy thing. Because not doing stuff that we identify as dangerous/too risky is something people do all the time.
It's just victim blaming is a super wide net and odds are most advice is in some way victim blaming. So it's probably more worth while to talk about where the line is crossed IMO.
As someone who has never ridden a motorcycle myself...I think the term is "a T-bone", since the motorcycle ends up planted into the car like the | on a T.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
I think the test of victim blaming is pretty simple one.
If the advice is given after the fact its victim blaming and useless.
If the advice is given before the incident could occur, then it is just advice and should be judged on the soundness of the advice.
People don't want to be victims and generally take steps to make themselves less of a target. Sure you could not look both ways before crossing a street at a crosswalk, because it will be 100% the cars fault if you get hit, BUT do you really want to take the risk of getting hit and possibly dying when you could easily prevent that by looking both ways and making sure traffic is stopping for you?
Now if someone got hit while crossing at a crosswalk, there is no point in asking if he looked both ways.
I think the test of victim blaming is pretty simple one.
If the advice is given after the fact its victim blaming and useless.
If the advice is given before the incident could occur, then it is just advice and should be judged on the soundness of the advice.
People don't want to be victims and generally take steps to make themselves less of a target. Sure you could not look both ways before crossing a street at a crosswalk, because it will be 100% the cars fault if you get hit, BUT do you really want to take the risk of getting hit and possibly dying when you could easily prevent that by looking both ways and making sure traffic is stopping for you?
Now if someone got hit while crossing at a crosswalk, there is no point in asking if he looked both ways.
The issue some of us take with the advice portion is that it tends to shift the focus on the victim instead of perpetrator and creates the false sense of security that people who are victims are that way because they "deserved" it.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I think the test of victim blaming is pretty simple one.
If the advice is given after the fact its victim blaming and useless.
If the advice is given before the incident could occur, then it is just advice and should be judged on the soundness of the advice.
People don't want to be victims and generally take steps to make themselves less of a target. Sure you could not look both ways before crossing a street at a crosswalk, because it will be 100% the cars fault if you get hit, BUT do you really want to take the risk of getting hit and possibly dying when you could easily prevent that by looking both ways and making sure traffic is stopping for you?
Now if someone got hit while crossing at a crosswalk, there is no point in asking if he looked both ways.
So the advice "don't go back to someone's apartment unless you want to get in bed with them" is fine to you? As an example of advice that comes across as victim blaming even before the act happens.
Also the reactions to nude pics tend to be specifically informed by gender norms.
If a dude keeps dick pics, it's usually considered funny or sad. But a woman who takes nudes is automatically a slut. After that it's a short leap to "She shouldn't have taken nudes if she didn't want them to get out."
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
So the advice "don't go back to someone's apartment unless you want to get in bed with them" is fine to you? As an example of advice that comes across as victim blaming even before the act happens.
Which I think says more about the american attitude about dating and meeting other people. Because I've ended up at someones elses apartment a lot. What I usually get is tea and we end up listening to music, talking about philosophy or some other intellectual subject. Maybe I don't get sufficiently drunk to get sex instead of tea? :P
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
I think the test of victim blaming is pretty simple one.
If the advice is given after the fact its victim blaming and useless.
If the advice is given before the incident could occur, then it is just advice and should be judged on the soundness of the advice.
People don't want to be victims and generally take steps to make themselves less of a target. Sure you could not look both ways before crossing a street at a crosswalk, because it will be 100% the cars fault if you get hit, BUT do you really want to take the risk of getting hit and possibly dying when you could easily prevent that by looking both ways and making sure traffic is stopping for you?
Now if someone got hit while crossing at a crosswalk, there is no point in asking if he looked both ways.
One difficulty I see with this is that being a victim of a crime once doesn't mean you won't be a victim again. If I use weak passwords and get hacked, changing to a strong password won't change the fact that I was hacked, but it may prevent me from being hacked in the future.
And understandably, one of the big questions victims of crimes often want to answer is "How can I prevent this from happening again?" The answer "Wait for bad actors to stop acting badly" is not particularly satisfying on that front.
I think the biggest thing is that most crimes are not preventable or foreseeable. At least not to the extent that you can actually prevent or forsee shit before it happens. Its always the monday morning qbing shit that people look at that makes things look so crystal clear as to what you could have done.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Posts
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yes, but depending on the manner in which it is phrased, a message could be very good at one of them and simultaneously neutral or extremely horrible at the others.
-Prevention can be an important factor in reducing crime.
-Prevention can be an insensitive thing to bring up when recent victims are looking for support.
So the question becomes, how do you have a frank discussion about reducing crime that won't make victims feel attacked, given that many of the people who will want to participate in that discussion are victims?
Not in aggregate, no.
I would suggest that they very much can be within the same statement or conversation.
Its not victim blaming to hold seminars on what you can do to make yourself safer, and include in those seminars victims that tell their stories. But by the same account, it is victim blaming to say that certain crimes are entirely preventable and if those crimes happen to you, its your fault.
pleasepaypreacher.net
And hey, often it's true. If you hadn't X, you could have avoided Y.
Right up until your car with no visible bags of valuables still gets ransacked, or you get raped by a person you thought you knew, or you get stabbed to death by a crazy hobo just for walking home from a soccer game like 20,000 other people did that night.
Which is why focus on risk mitigation often falls flat. Because not only does it often implicitly normalize the actions of the perpetrator, but half the time the actual benefit to the past or future victims is minimal.
I left my backpack in the open bed of my truck (which often had the windows rolled down, and sometimes had the keys in it) for months on end before anybody bothered to steal it. And yet on another occasion somebody randomly jimmied my door and found the only item of value (a disc man under the seat), despite no "easy" target. And that's aside from the smashed windows of my other car, in Seattle, where all they found was an iPod in the glove box. Which is to say that in two of three cases, I did everything "right" to prevent the break-in.*
So pardon me if I'm unmoved by risk mitigation advice, and place it only a few rungs above common superstition.
* - Aside from "owning things of value," of course.
If hiding my backpack only reduces my car burglary risk from 2% to 1%, for instance, maybe we don't bother putting that stress on decent folks and instead focus more on the shit birds victimizing people.
Does that sort of information and stats even exist to draw those conclusions from?
Again, absent some more specific idea of the rate of reduction and base rate, it may not be.
The stress of trying to take all the necessary steps to avoid one's victimization (and potential reduction in freedom of action) may well outweigh whatever marginal impact it has on actual rate of victim hood...particularly if the base rate is low.
Yea you totally raise a valid point but can we quantify that accurately. (I really don't know)
pleasepaypreacher.net
A very good question.
Because in order to elevate a piece of advice (such as backpacks/cars) above mere superstition, you'd need to show that data. Because "common sense" is, in many cases, just another word for superstition.
I'd wager insurance companies have data relating to this.
But I'd consider it telling off the bat that moments ago you were calling "sound advice" something which you have no data supporting? Not an attack, just something to think about.
I know we have *ahem* "disagreed" at times, but I'd like to think we're still more bro than not.
We're bro its bro.
Anyway, I'm with you on that we seem to have a lot of "common" sense solutions for crime prevention that I don't know specifically actually do anything to prevent crime.
Like we tell women to not walk around late at night by themselves to avoid being raped, but aren't most rapes committed by people they know? So using that criteria aren't we making them more of a target for the acquaintance rape by having them be accompanied instead of by themselves?
pleasepaypreacher.net
I'm not going to lie, it certainly got the gears rolling in my head, the thought process for me after getting what you are saying is what if a good chunk of what we do for safety is just ceremony and superstition and actual has very little effect on whether or not we will be the victims of crime.
To me that gives me a sense of helplessness which I think most can agree we as humans don't like.
Its not to say that everything we do is a wasted action and you should leave your shit unlocked, but maybe its time we have an honest conversation about how much "crime prevention" is tiger rock bullshit.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I don't think for a moment that leaving a pack in your backseat will reduce your rate of car burglary, to be clear. But, if the base rate of burglary is sufficiently small and/or the reduction sufficiently minor, then the additional freedom of action may make ignoring the "sound advice" better in many situations.
For instance, maybe I'm going two places today. One I want a backpack for. The other doesn't allow them. And maybe my car has no trunk. Now I either have to find a way to get that pack home, or accept the risk, or not have the pack for the morning, or avoid the evening event.
Assuming for the moment that the absolute reduction in burglary rate is small, I could instead just....live my life. But that becomes difficult when faced with the potential tut-tutting of police, or insurance agents, or even friends and family for not taking "sound advice.". That they may not even know the mathematical significance of. So like the coach afraid of the Monday press, we do what we're supposed to, lest we be judged.
Even if those actions were largely irrelevant.
I mean, unless somebody actually has those numbers. I'm legitimately interested.
1) Don't give the advice after the fact. No matter what the situation is you're probably victim blaming if your response post incident is to list off ways the victim could've avoided whatever happened.
2) Make sure the advice is reasonable. This one's a bit fuzzier but it essentially comes down to not giving advice where someone has to make a significant change to avoid the trouble. It's fair enough to say 'hey, put your backpacks under your seat when you leave the car'. It's less fair to say 'don't wear X if you don't want guys to be problematic for you'. No one bases their identity in putting their backpack in plain view of potential criminals but how people dress, behave and even the pictures they take absolutely are things that are more personal. I feel it's probably victim blaming if the advice crosses that sort of line because ultimately it's saying 'well you can't act how you want because bad people do bad things'.
That feeling is also a major factor in why we engage in victim blaming. "What, you didn't lock your car door? Well no wonder it got broken into." Meanwhile, we lock our car doors because we are smart and take control of the safety of our possessions. Nevermind that locked cars get broken into all the fucking time. That makes us feel helpless. Making you feel foolish for not avoiding the crime perpetrated against you makes us feel smart and secure.
ehhhhhhhhhhhhh
I grew up in a really bad city and I appreciate the advice I got to not get my ass mugged or killed
I mean no I shouldn't have to avoid Mcdonalds because some assholes from Chicago are dealing there, but on the other hand I'm glad I listened because the Mcdonalds got shot up in a drive by
however, if I hadn't listened to the advice and say, was eating there when that shit went down and got shot? It wouldn't have been my fault
There's nothing wrong with preventative measures to deal with the world we live in. Telling them to someone immediately after they're a victim is not doing that though, it's excusing the actions of whoever wronged them, which is bullshit
The statistically most common motorcycle accident, by far, is a two-vehicle collision with a car where the motorcyclist is riding straight through an intersection and the car driver in the oncoming lane takes a left turn across the motorcyclist's right of way.
This particular accident is absurdly common. It makes up about 50% of two-vehicle motorcycle accidents (and for motorcyclists, two-vehicle accidents are more frequent than single-vehicle accidents). Motorcyclists have a special slang term for it specifically.
When I'm approaching an intersection, especially one where a car in the oncoming lane is stopped and seems to be preparing to take a left, I'll slow down, cover my brakes, keep an eye on the oncoming lane, and prepare myself to make a panic stop if the car turns left across my right of way. I "shouldn't have to" do this, of course; that's what "my right of way" means.
I do it every time.
This particular piece of advice also appears in most books on motorcycling (or, at least, the ones focused on street riding rather than track riding). I'll give it out myself when discussing motorcycling. Am I victim blaming? Am i victim blaming only if the person I'm talking to has been in this type of accident? If I'm talking to someone and I don't know whether or not they've been involved in this type of accident, am I in a quantum superposition of simultaneous victim-blaming and not-victim-blaming until they tell me?
Another common form of risk mitigation while motorcycling is wearing a full set of protective gear. While some set of foreseeable accidents will be fatal regardless of one's protective equipment, for many others protective gear can prevent or mitigate a range of potential injuries.
Now, consider that the majority of serious motorcycle accidents are two-vehicle accidents where the car driver is at fault. Is it victim blaming to advise motorcyclists to wear "all the gear, all the time", as the saying goes?
If this is victim blaming, should motorcycle safety classes stop giving this advice?
(All motorcycle statistics taken from the Hurt Report, and may be out of date).
When I inevitably get killed in a motorcycle accident someday and some jackass says that I should have been driving a car, is that victim blaming? (Yes). Where is the line drawn, here?
On the one hand, simply not taking them or allowing them to be taken can reduce your risk to near-zero (hidden/nonconsenting pics aside).
On the other, much like "don't go back to somebody's apartment you don't intend to fuck," I don't consider it reasonable advice. It's an excessive restraint society is placing on personal freedom rather than dealing with the real issue.
I've received naked pics of girlfriends.
I've never shared them. I encrypted them, and ultimately deleted them. I'd go so far as to say that, absent evidence to the contrary, many or most such pics never get leaked or forwarded. Just as plenty of women go to a guys place for a nightcap and don't get raped (and also don't fuck).
It's reasonable for society to allow these behaviors, and not chastise victims that wind up being unlucky because they did things humans should get to do.
That, shit, most humans WANT them to do. "You really should reconsider the security of your personal info and data" said no guy ever upon receiving a pic of his girlfriend's tits.
In that specific case there was an actual risk that you were aware of, the drug dealers. To me thats a big Danger sign and you were right to avoid a place where they congregate. Obvious danger, and you took the appropriate action, but in cases where there may or may not be a potential threat... that unknown, personally I keep my eyes peeled, my ears open and listen to my gut.
pleasepaypreacher.net
WHY DID YOU NOT TELL US THE SLANG TERM?!
To me the nude pic thing is a breaking of our implicit sexy times sharing contract! Again the world is a dark horrible shitty place. Lets not make it worse by having people be more prudish! Think of all the amateur porn you are in theory destroying before it ever could be created!
pleasepaypreacher.net
I do that all the time when I'm driving too.
Sure, the traffic rules says I'm right. But I'd rather be wrong and not have an accident than be the non-culpable party to a road accident.
Sometimes though I notice that this kind of behavior makes drivers behind me act batshit crazy.
"Yes. I'm driving 70kmh on a 90kmh road and I'm keeping extra distance to the cars ahead of me. That's because it's raining, it's late autumn and both leaves and freezing rain means that I don't think I want to drive 90kmh on this road. No, that's not an invitation for you to overtake me going 110kmh on a curving road."
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Seriously? Way to term tease. You know when you eventually get verbally accosted I'll say you earned it.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The answer is: it depends.
Offering advice or instruction for risk mitigation strategies to a person who has not been the victim of an accident or crime: not victim blaming.
Telling the victim of an accident or crime that it could've been avoided if only they'd done XYZ: victim blaming.
Telling a third party, "Don't do X if you don't want Y to happen" right after Y happened to somebody: victim blaming.
Granted there are extenuating circumstances and levels of fault, so telling a guy who just sawed off his own hand because he was using power tools in a dangerously unsafe manner "You really should have been using safety equipment" is different from telling a mugging victim "You shouldn't carry so much cash." (Because in the first case the victim is also the 100% responsible party, whereas in the latter case the mugger is 100% responsible.) In both cases it's a shitty thing to do and displays a serious lack of empathy and human decency. But the latter example is worse because it removes ever-so-much blame from the perpetrator and shifts it to the victim.
This is kinda why I think it's a fuzzy thing. Because not doing stuff that we identify as dangerous/too risky is something people do all the time.
It's just victim blaming is a super wide net and odds are most advice is in some way victim blaming. So it's probably more worth while to talk about where the line is crossed IMO.
As someone who has never ridden a motorcycle myself...I think the term is "a T-bone", since the motorcycle ends up planted into the car like the | on a T.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
If the advice is given after the fact its victim blaming and useless.
If the advice is given before the incident could occur, then it is just advice and should be judged on the soundness of the advice.
People don't want to be victims and generally take steps to make themselves less of a target. Sure you could not look both ways before crossing a street at a crosswalk, because it will be 100% the cars fault if you get hit, BUT do you really want to take the risk of getting hit and possibly dying when you could easily prevent that by looking both ways and making sure traffic is stopping for you?
Now if someone got hit while crossing at a crosswalk, there is no point in asking if he looked both ways.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The issue some of us take with the advice portion is that it tends to shift the focus on the victim instead of perpetrator and creates the false sense of security that people who are victims are that way because they "deserved" it.
pleasepaypreacher.net
So the advice "don't go back to someone's apartment unless you want to get in bed with them" is fine to you? As an example of advice that comes across as victim blaming even before the act happens.
If a dude keeps dick pics, it's usually considered funny or sad. But a woman who takes nudes is automatically a slut. After that it's a short leap to "She shouldn't have taken nudes if she didn't want them to get out."
Which I think says more about the american attitude about dating and meeting other people. Because I've ended up at someones elses apartment a lot. What I usually get is tea and we end up listening to music, talking about philosophy or some other intellectual subject. Maybe I don't get sufficiently drunk to get sex instead of tea? :P
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
One difficulty I see with this is that being a victim of a crime once doesn't mean you won't be a victim again. If I use weak passwords and get hacked, changing to a strong password won't change the fact that I was hacked, but it may prevent me from being hacked in the future.
And understandably, one of the big questions victims of crimes often want to answer is "How can I prevent this from happening again?" The answer "Wait for bad actors to stop acting badly" is not particularly satisfying on that front.
It's just that not everyone agrees on the degree to which a particular wrongdoing was preventable or foreseeable.
pleasepaypreacher.net