I’d like to discuss this with you further. I may create a thread for it.
For the Somalia case, surely we can distinguish between aid workers who take all reasonable precautions like hiring local security, and a guy who walks in there like he is going to Disneyland.
Remember the missionary kid who decided to bring Jesus to the inhabitants of this island who did not want any contact and who were protected by the government? He got himself killed. He had no one to blame but himself.
It’s also a lot about both the likely effectiveness of the advice, and the likely effect on the life of the advised if they take the advice. Even limiting ourselves to warnings given in advance:
“Don’t go to that particular bar if you don’t want to get into a fight, they have fights there all the time” is useful, and non-victim-blaming, advice.
“Watch out for that guy, my sister had to fight him off” is also useful, and non-victim blaming, advice. Even if you add that he hangs out at a specific bar.
“Don’t go to bars in general alone because you might get raped” is non-useful advice with a strong tinge of victim blaming. It’s non-useful because it doesn’t significantly change the likelihood of getting raped – you might get raped by the person you got to take you to the bar because you didn’t want to go alone; or by somebody in the office or in your house. And it’s seriously life-limiting because it amounts to “stay home unless you can get an escort.”
I’m going to agree with that; but with the caveat that if a victim fights back in well-founded fear of their life and with no reasonable chance of retreat, and in the process kills the person attacking them: that’s the fault of the attacker.
Also of course some people need to be locked up, for the safety of others.
This is very true.
We want to think ‘if I just don’t do this then it’ll never happen to me!’ This is unfortunately no guarantee.
Yeah. And he might have killed them, by infecting them with something he didn’t know he was carrying.
So though there is no amount of lax security or carelessness that makes it the victims fault. No matter how dumb you were you are the victim, and it’s not your fault (as it happens my very Christian mum would disagree with this and say that if you are actively putting temptation in the way of someone who would not otherwise commit a crime thats a sin)
Though with truth social and other Trump related rip offs and scams (of which there A LOT he has managed to rip off every single person he has ever had any kind of relationship with) thats different. If you were knowingly getting into a nefarious business with the understanding it would be other people (specifically the entirety of non-MAGA American society) who would be scammed or otherwise screwed over, only to discover it’s actually you who are the target of the scam. That’s on you, you aren’t a victim. Please excuse me while I point and laugh.
Yes, tempting the frailties of others is called being “an occasion of sin.” It was how vivacious Irish girls found themselves condemned to the Magdalen laundries.
I wrote it stream-of-consciousness, it sounded poetic / profound, and I thought it would make a nice pithy wrap-up sentence.
Then as I was admiring my handiwork I realized I had no idea what it actually meant either. I sorta know the message it was intended to convey, but I’m not at all sure it does that.
So I left it there to fuck with people.
Whether that means you’re the only person with a sharp eye, or the only person fussy enough to ask, or the only person who doesn’t have long-winded me on [ignore] is a different question I can’t answer.
Thanks for playing. 
If it makes you feel any better I took it as a variation of nothing ventured, nothing gained. i.e. You can be so overly cautious that you miss out on something good.
“Blaming the victim” IMHO is a dishonest tactic often used by people driven by some ideological or sociological motivations. The classic being “it’s her fault for being sexually assaulted because of the way she dressed/acted/how much she drank.”
The reason people like that “blame the victim” is because they find her lifestyle offensive or they they believe women hold an inferior position in society or maybe they just want to ingratiate themselves to those who they feel are in power.
Some people are also inherently timid people. So when something bad happens to someone else, their attitude is almost like “See! I was right! They went into the world and something bad happened so that’s what they get for leaving the house!”
For the laptop question, I would need a bit more context. Is the campus in a particularly dangerous part of town or where they in a relatively isolated location on the periphery of campus at a time when few people were around? Because IMHO using a laptop outside in the middle of a well travelled campus quad should not be particularly dangerous. And, in fact the college has an obligation to provide some measure of security for their students.
OTOH, it’s not “blaming the victim” if you point out someone failing to take reasonable precautions and proper common sense.
Should point out my mum was talking about a rich tech bro leaving his 3000 dollar laptop on the coffee shop table when he takes a pee, not anything like that (which my mum as a proud protestant would have denounced as an example of the misguidedness of the Roman Catholic church)
I like the way you framed it. Practical responsibility and moral responsibility are distinct, with zero overlap on a Venn diagram. Being practically irresponsible can have a moral aspect—e.g., you carry around the soup kitchen’s donations in a bad part of town, flashing a thick roll of bills—but that specific moral harm is to the soup kitchen. I’m responsible for that. As someone already said, imprudence is a vice and has a moral element.
But the guy who robs me and takes the roll of bills is completely morally responsible for that act. There is no act on my part that entitles someone to rob, rape, murder, whatever. Nothing.
The logical outcome of this is that once a crime has been committed, any practical responsibility the victim could have exercised is a complete non-issue, water under the bridge. If it’s a lesson for the future, fine, but it has no bearing whatsoever on the responsibility for the crime committed.
Two important but completely different questions. I like it.
At one edge of the continuum, Darwin Awards are an arguably reasonable application of victim blaming, both practically and ethically.
Yes, you can cheat an honest man, in fact most cons are vs honest people. Most cons are against the elderly, who are honest. For example the “Grandson in jail scam”- responding to that may be foolish but it is honest and caring. The "Canadian lottery " scam, etc- nothing wrong with hoping you have won a prize.
Yes, they were. High returns do happen, and Madoff had a good name in the business.
There are legal cases when the victim can be at blame. I believe someone posted here that if you leave your car unlocked, running, with the keys in it, that would be illegal in some jurisdictions. So, if you commit an illegal act, you are partially to blame when a greater illegal act is perpetrated.
Some times, but not always. Just going for a hike, is not cause for a bear to attack you. Not securing your food, teasing the bear, etc- those can lead to a bear attack witch is your fault.
Interesting question. Maybe. if you are an Aid worker and it is your job- no. If you just want to tourist- maybe.
Yes.
Yes, if the risks are fully disclosed. To take it to an extreme, if you bet your life saving on a single number at the roulette wheel. losing it would be your fault… unless the wheel is rigged.
Sure, that would be foolish. But if he was mugged due to that, the mugging is not his fault. That is classic victim blaming.
Right.
I don’t really know if I would call the grandson in jail con “cheating” and that saying is specifically about cons where “cheating” is involved. There are a million cons that don’t involve either cheating or greed on the part of the victim but there are plenty that do. For example, in 1980
or so , my grandfather ( who was over 70 at the time , so elderly doesn’t equal honest) bought a VCR that “fell off a truck” for $50 , got home and found that the box had a brick and some newspaper in it. His own fault - if he hadn’t been willing to buy what he believed was stolen property , he wouldn’t have been taken.
Someone I knew fell for another one - someone came up to him on the street , said they found a large sum of money , another person came over , one of them went to talk to her boss who said they could split the money if no one claimed it within 30 days - but everybody had to put up money to show they didn’t need the money that was found. My friend went to the bank, got the cash and they all put it in a bag which my friend was to hold for safekeeping. We all know how this ends, right? With my friend holding a bag with pieces of newspaper. He fell for it because his greed overwhelmed his common sense - he wanted a share of someone else’s money badly enough that he didn’t question why strangers would want to split it with him or why he would have to put up cash to show he didn’t need the money that was found. He should have questioned why he was holding the cash - but they had already taken his money by that point.
Those two were victims of the people who took their money - but thy were victims of themselves as well.
Classic con.
There’s an old one in Vegas where the con approaches the mark carrying a large amount of casino chips and offers them a barbain. The con got kicked out of the casino and isn’t allowed to go bakc and cash their chips. The con asks the the mark to take the chips and get the cash, but they require a deposit to make sure the mark is good for it.
I’m not sure where the line is though. If someone leaves their car door unlocked and the keys in the ignition, it’s not their fault if their car gets stolen, but it’s also an awful failure to enact the most elementary safety precautions, and nobody should be surprised that it was stolen.
Hence why I started this thread. I’m not always sure where to draw the line.
As others mentioned, it all comes down to a mix-up of moral wrong vs. practical foolishness. You get two sides that technically agree, yet are talking past each other.
Nobody would dispute that the aggressor is wrong. Nobody would dispute that the victim’s actions made the crime likelier or easier.
But then the whole fuss of the quarrel is that one side mishears things as “The attacker wasn’t wrong!” and the other mishears it as, “The victim’s actions didn’t make any difference!”
Of course, in the justice system, victim blaming should be totally off-limits. A sexual assault victim should not be interrogated about their clothing, inebriation, past sexual history, or whatever during the course of the trial. Is the defendant the perpetrator of the crime or not? That’s all that needs to be determined.
Victim blaming in the course of casual conversation, while not the classiest thing to do, is mostly acceptable. Just read the room. Will your audience consider you a bigoted boor? Or will they agree that the victim was a dumbass? Doesn’t matter, it’s all chatter.
It obviously matters if it’s said to or within the hearing of the victim.
It may be less obvious, but it matters in other ways:
If it’s said around people who may encounter the victim, it may affect how they treat that person.
If it’s said around people who will find themselves in the victim’s situation – and there’s no way to tell who those people are/will be, no matter how well you read the room – it may dissuade them from reporting a crime, because they don’t want the same things said about them.
If it’s said around people who might want to engage in the crime (and it’s not always obvious who those people are, either) – it encourages them to tell themselves ‘it was their own fault, if they didn’t want me to steal their things they should have locked their car!’