Society lets you go from an asshole to "truther" with one word

[Aielyn]

pokoko said:
Without commenting on which one is right or wrong (or neither) there is one example that always makes me chuckle.

"He was at that seedy bar downtown and got stabbed. He really needs to stop hanging out with those people." -- Common sense.

"She was at that seedy bar downtown and got raped. She really needs to stop hanging out with those people." -- Victim blaming.

But you see, that isn't about the gender, it's about the act involved.

"She was at that seedy bar downtown and got stabbed. She really needs to stop hanging out with those people." -- Common sense.

"He was at that seedy bar downtown and got raped. He really needs to stop hanging out with those people." -- Victim blaming.

Of course, that's following YOUR assertion. I would describe both cases as victim blaming, but with rape being a worse case of victim blaming. Why? Because stabbing isn't an act of subjugation, it's an act of violence. Rape is an act of subjugation (which isn't to say that rape can't be violent - just that the intent with rape isn't generally violence).

 

On the topic in general, I would say that it's being misrepresented in the same way - confusing "not quite as bad" with "acceptable". Saying that all white people are criminals is wrong, just as saying all black people are criminals is wrong. But saying it about black people is worse, not because it's any more false, but because it perpetuates existing stereotypes and reinforces attitudes that harm the disadvantaged.

Besides which, most uses of the "reverse" cases are intended either as a way to demonstrate the hypocrisy of those who would use the "typical" cases, or as humour playing off the "typical" case being reversed. And the exceptions are usually said by the kinds of people who believe in "an eye for an eye" - it's being said as a kind of retribution.

On the other hand, most of the "typical" cases are being stated by people who are simply prejudiced/racist/etc. There are exceptions for that, too. And sometimes, it's considered acceptable to make those statements.

And incidentally, "I don't prefer skinny people" would be considered just as unacceptable as "I don't enjoy fat people" because they're both body-shaming. Saying that you personally find thinner or fatter people more attractive is fine, but saying that they are inherently less or more attractive would be unacceptable.

Also note that the last example, of "conservatives are stupid", would be considered unacceptable by the same people who say "liberals are stupid" (and usually throw around phrases like "libtard" - which really just demonstrates the stupidity of the person using the phrase, given that it's not even a clever portmanteau, and unoriginal to boot - note that this is about the specific people using these phrases, not conservatives in general).

 

EDIT:

pokoko said:

binary solo said:

Oh so now you want to put in some context? Why didn't you put that context in in the first place? Is it because it's easier to make simplistic statements to try to justify an invalid point?

Context is everything when shit goes down. There is a big difference between getting stabbed because you are trying to stop someone from being assaulted or raped in a seedy bar, and walking into a seedy bar telling someone their an asshole and get the hell out of my seat or I'll shove the stool up your arse and then getting stabbed. Can you see that in one situation you would receive a whole lot more sympathy and praise for your actions leading up to being stabbed than the other? Or do you think the situations are more or less the same?

How about the situation where you stab someone who is trying to assault another person? Is the stabee a victim of your hateful and malicious crime or are you righteously coming to the defence of another? Would it be OK if you saw someone being assaulted and instead of stabbing them you raped them? The societal norms would say that there are situations where violence that causes severe injury is acceptable and even praiseworthy. But there is never a situation where force sex is acceptable or praiseworthy. That's why the crime of rape does not have degrees of badness but only aggrivating factors, like whether there were other forms of assault involved, or if the victinm was a minor. Whereas assault and homocide have degrees and even exhoneration on the grounds of self defence or defence of others, because society recognises there are mitigating factors, and indeed sometimes the wounded (or dead) person is at fault.

So, a guy goes to a seedy bar and gets stabbed lacks sufficient information to be able to judge the situation as to whether he was a victim of a crime. A woman goes to a seedy bar and gets raped, you don't need any other information to judge the situation, she was raped, she is therefore the victim of a crime.

Also how many instances have you heard of where a seedy bar is known to be the site of a few rapes in the past and is frequented by single women? I'm thinking women who know the history of the bar are not ever going to that bar without tagging along with a big tough guy who they trust who has a knife of them. So in the real world women don't need to be told to avoid rapey bars, they just do. And if someone new comes to town and she says "hey, lets go to this bar." And you say, "no, don't go to that bar because people have been raped there." Are you expecting her to respond with "I'll go to that damned bar and no one better rape me, and I don't care what you say." Or is a more likely response, "Man, thanks for telling me, I'm never going there. You're cool, here's my number, call me some time."

And more seriously, if you warned a woman not to go to a rapey bar, and she went by herself and ended up being raped and you said to some people, "I told her not to go there, why would she go there after I told her it was a rapey bar?" that they would say you are an asshole victim blamer? No people would not say that. People would be surprised that she went there after being warned, but they would still say "doesn't mean she deserved it." At least that's how I would expect the conversation to go with everyone I know IRL, which includes several feminists. And everyone would certainly say she's taking a big and unnecessary risk if she went back to the same bar where she got recently raped.

That fact that there was no differentiating context given is the point.  That is to say, even without that context, you made up your own rationalizations based entirely on your own agenda.  You twisted the information given one way for one quote then twisted the information the other way for the other quote.  You are the exact and real example of what I'm talking about.  You apply your preconceptions right off the bat with no regard for the actual context you pretend to care about.  

Really, the only purpose was to show that being an idiot and a victim are by no means mutually exclusive, regardless of what type of victim, yet you're making up all these convoluted suppositions to support your own narratives.  It's like those cartoons where the scientist builds an elaborate and expensive contraption just a crack and egg.

Oh, and just a bit of reality, teenage girls and boys both are often drawn to dangerous areas and circumstances they've been warned about.

The point Binary Solo is making is that people may use a knife to defend themselves - it is possible that the stabbing was done in self-defense. The stabbing could potentially be an unfortunate end result of someone doing something justifiable - defending themselves.

Can you think of any situation in which rape is justifiable?