hwut?
Yes. It’s called the just-world hypothesis - bad things happen to people who, in some way, deserved it. They behaved in some way that placed them in harm’s way, or increased their risk, and therefore while we recognize on some intellectual level that they were a victim, on an emotional level we blame them. We apply it to crime victims, people in poverty, people who’ve been fired from jobs, etc.
It’s our way of attempting to convince ourselves that nothing bad will ever happen to us as long as we don’t do anything that that person did.
Another genius.
Why don’t you take a walk in South Central LA flashing lots of cash or get drunk and run around a busy interstate, or punch a police officer? Nothing bad will happen to you due to your “unjust world hypothesis”. Trust me.
And post video.
I think you’re kinda, sorta completely missing his point by a wide margin. He’s describing the very real tendency for many (if not most) people to think this way in terms of how they make sense of cause and effect in the ontological universe around them. He’s not (so far as I can see) saying this world view is good , bad or indifferent. Simply that this is the way many people react to the world, and he is correct.
To the extent that you can reliably demonstrate and link predicate causes and resulting effects this is a prudential world view. To the extent that bad, random shit just happens and no one can help it, it can become a moral and judgemental whip to unjustly beat victims simply for being victims.
I understand that well-established social psychology concepts might be a bit above your comprehension level. If you work hard enough, you might be able to develop reading skills sufficient to move beyond “Fun with Dick Raping Jane” and read a little about social science research.
I’m a she 
The rest of your post is spot-on, since it’s an eloquent restatement of the concept.
It’s more the delusion that if you eat all organic food and exercise 60 mins each day you’ll never get cancer. Or all you need to do is avoid having your baby get whooping cough is nurse six times a day until they’re off to first grade. Wave your wand, conjure up a patronus and the dementors will leave.
My mom was raped. All she did was show up at a friend’s party not knowing the friend’s husband was a complete asshole. The friend stepped out for twenty minutes to pick up some missing dinner ingredients and the creep took that time to assault her. Like other rape victims she bears no blame for the actions of the asshole who raped her.
No thanks, I just might end up like you.
Absolutely, your mom did nothing to increase the risk but still got raped and its very regrettable.
However if she was drugged up at a rave and rode off with a stranger, one might reasonably suggest that she took a risk. Not that it would excuse the rapist of the crime at all.
People die in car accidents even while using seatbelts, it does not mean we stop using them.
LOL. The “I know you are, but what I am” elementary-school retort. You crack me up, in a pitying sorta way.
I wasn’t saying that to insult you, I was serious.
By that rationale, women should wear beekeeper suits at all times, never interact with people who have not been introduced to them by their husbands/brothers/friends and never ever be alone. Anything less and they’re bringing the rape on themselves.
Fuck. That. Noise.
Exclude the middle much?
I’m not. If he deems a woman who’s drinking with strangers to be “taking risks”, then it follows that a woman who goes outside her room is taking risks as well. Smaller ones, perhaps, but risks still. She’s certainly at a strictly higher probability of getting raped in the bushes by a stranger than if she were in the kitchen, yes ? So if she gets raped, well, wouldn’t have happened to her had she stayed home, innit ? If it is on the woman not to take risks, then she shouldn’t go out. Basically, his argument that “she wuz asking for it” can be applied ad absurdum to any woman. Which makes it meaningless.
Either it’s all on the rapist for deciding to rape whoever, or the woman bears some responsibility for her rape too. If the woman bears some responsibility, then she oughta stay home with a loaded crossbow. It can’t be both ALL on the rapist AND the woman’s at some fault too. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Very well said. Unlike a guy who worries about getting robbed so hides his wallet, a woman can’t leave her vagina at home. Her body is under assault. Her very essence. Her gender. Her sex. To imply that a woman is culpable in her own rape is to imply that women are lesser beings. It is the epitome of misogyny.
Now you guys are just being silly. Yes, there IS some responsibility on the part of women to not get themselves into dangerous situations. I want some power in my life - the power to avoid situations that I know are more likely to end up with me being victimized in some way. There’s a lot of excluded middles going on here, but the middles people are excluding is the reality of living - you can’t live your life in fear that every man is a potential rapist, and that every time you leave the house you’re likely to get raped, but you also have to be aware that getting drunk and passing out at a house party full of strangers isn’t the safest way to act, either.
Of course it’s not, but it doesn’t mean that you bear responsibility for being raped, because there are no circumstances under which it’s reasonable or okay to rape someone.
There’s a world of difference between saying “You should probably avoid these potentially unsafe behaviors” and saying “Should you engage in these potentially unsafe behaviors, it’s your own fault if you get raped.” The blame for rape lies entirely, completely, unequivocally on the rapist, because, I repeat, there are no circumstances under which it’s reasonable or okay to rape someone.
Why? Because she is a woman? Because we are saying “women are in danger if they act like human beings”? No one has ever told me, as a man, that getting drunk at a party and passing out there is dangerous. No one would judge me to be slutty, or stupid, or endangering myself. That’s just what male college students do.
Throw a vagina into the mix and suddenly silly hijinks become a woman putting herself in danger. Fuck that. As long as people think that a woman has to guard her body, whether they are thinking this in a well-meaning way or not, there is a tacit understanding that rape is the fault of the victim. It is not in a woman’s best interests to be “protected” by being labeled a stupid risk taker if she does something a man can do and gets raped.
Being cautious and avoiding certain situations is all well and good, but implying that by being alone with strangers a woman is partially responsible for being raped is ludicrous.
Nobody is implying that a woman is culpable in her own rape. What the rational posters in this thread are saying and what you implied with your getting robbed example is that people can engage in behavior that decreases the likelihood of being a victim of a crime. The perpetrator is of course 100% to blame but it is silly to think that there are things you can’t do to prevent a crime.
For example, Kobal2 pointed out that people can be at greater risk for an unwanted event, not just rape, by just leaving the home. We all take risks all the time even though we don’t think about them as so. Being aware of this does notmake criminal behavior any less criminal.
In other words don’t be so fucking stupid as to ignore reality for political beliefs.
For all the posters who are looking at granny-rape, prison-rape, puppy-rape and chicken-rape as means to understanding the motivation for the overwhelming number of rapes that occur to females aged 10 - 35. Go to hell, you are not doing anybody any favors. I guess it never occurred to any of you dipshits that behavior can be motivated by many beliefs and desired outcomes or that aggression can be a means to an end or the end itself.
I keep reading this pile on, and I don’t see that Redpill is saying that’s okay to rape someone. On the contrary he’s saying that it’s Not okay, that the rapist is to blame, should be 100% accountable.
But also that’s it’s a good idea to take precautions . It’s always a good idea to do the best to keep oneself safe, this is the responsible thing to do - do one’s best to keep out of harms way, is not the same thing as saying that an attacker of any sort is Not 100% responsible for attacking. I can’t understand why there’s such an issue to understand the difference. But have fun ventilating, people. Whatever makes you feel better.
edited to add, agree with what Inbred Mm domesticus said.
You seem to have missed Kobal2’s point about risk entirely.