For context this is an Andrew tate meatrider on twitter
this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
248 points (100.0% liked)
Facepalm
3056 readers
1 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The insurance company thing is a bad example, because it’s an example of a for profit company maximizing their profits at the expense of the consumer rather than any kind of moral or ethical statement.
I, for one, do not think leaving your keys in the car excuses car theft.
Just because your back is turned does not mandate me to shoot you, and turning your back on me does not mean that you are complicit in being shot. The exploiting party always, always, needs to have the entirety of blame placed on them.
Risk mitigation is wise and situational awareness is good, but a lack of either of these does not excuse exploitation.
Where exactly did I even suggest that this would excuse rape?
You're doing what I wrote: assuming that anything but the extreme position is a justification of rape.
Because there is no situation where a rape victim is to be blamed. Full stop. Just like there's no situation where a murder victim would be blamed. Or a theft victim (again, insurance payouts aren't criminal charges).
Blame and responsibility are something different.
Insurance payouts are actually a good example, because it's exactly not about criminal charges. It's about the acknowledgement that you might not take proper precautions in a very obviously dangerous situation. That doesn't mean it's my theft. And this point seems to absolutely go over your head. The crime itself is not affected by the responsibility or care or whatever you want to call it, by the victim.
Oh okay I totally get it now. You just like blaming victims and want to make sure they're aware they put themselves in a position to be raped. Thanks for clearing that up!
I mean… your whole post is a justification for a line of thinking indicating that assessing a risk scenario is the responsibility of a would be victim; the logical extension of this argument is that victims are at least partially complicit in their victimhood.
I am flatly refuting that. Victims are victims, full stop. It flat out does not matter that someone has put themselves into a risky situation, because the choice to exploit that situation is entirely the responsibility of one party.
Would you apply that logic to any other crime?
You can't tell me, that you never thought "well, that's kind of what you can expect to happen".
Yes, I would apply that logic to any other crime.
Scamming people out of their life savings can only be done because the victim fell for a ruse; it’s easy to say afterwards “well that never would have happened if you were just more careful” and dismiss it as their own fault.
That is, however, bullshit; because one person making a mistake never, ever excuses another person from exploiting it.
Even in scenarios where I myself could easily say “well sure that was bound to happen” it still doesn’t make the victim complicit in their victimhood because at no point did they actively consent to being victimized.
That’s the whole sticking point for me here: the logic of “well they put themselves into that position” is effectively tantamount to arguing that they asked to be exploited, which is utter nonsense.