Aielyn said:
Wow, you really excel at ignoring the actual points people make, forming strawmen, arguing against those, and then being a dick about it all. And ironically, you complain about other people "avoiding a point". Subjugation is something that people do consciously in order to dominate others, whereas violence is generally an impulsive action in which the person is out of control emotionally. And while you never said it was about gender, the fact that you put "he" on the stabbing and "she" on the rape demonstrates that it's what you were thinking. Otherwise, you would have used "he" for both or "she" for both. And given that your overall point is that you believe that the identity of the person changes whether something is acceptable or unacceptable, I find it hard to believe that your point with that example was that people consider stabbing to be something you can blame the victim for. The part where you go "Fuck, you're right, he deserved to be stabbed." demonstrates that either you are intentionally ignoring the point, or lack basic comprehension. The point being made is that being stabbed doesn't necessarily mean you're the victim, whereas being raped always makes you the victim. Note that if you said "you were raped there, you should stop going there" isn't victim blaming. It's only the accusation that they were at fault for the rape because they were there that is completely unacceptable. And ultimately, as I said, it would generally be considered unacceptable in the case of stabbing, too - it's just not seen as being quite as bad as making the statement in the case of rape. Because the world isn't about black and white absolutes, it's not "this is acceptable, that is unacceptable", it's "this is worse than that, but both are wrong". But clearly, you aren't capable of understanding nuance. |
I wasn't going to reply to this thread any longer but now I feel kind of obligated because much of your replay was awful. You're making stuff up left and right out of nothing. I don't know why but it's really, really lame. The entire point of what I posted was not about my opinion on each event but rather about the automatic judgement society makes about what perception you are allowed to have and how people have come to "fall into line" to the point they make up rationalizations to support that. You're the epitome of that. Look at what you're applying to a made-up situation you know nothing about, where you're trying to down-play violence.
"And given that your overall point is that you believe that the identity of the person changes whether something is acceptable or unacceptable." That's bullshit. I never said anything like that in the slightest. You have no clue what you're talking about.
I mean, you're telling me that if you hear someone say, "he was at that seedy bar downtown and got stabbed. He really needs to stop hanging out with those people," your impression is, "well, they might have deserved it?" Do I really need to add in that the person stabbed didn't deserve it to make a simple example? Can you really not see that the two examples are supposed to mirror one another? Do you really have to add your own suppositions on top of that? Can't you simply not take the example at face value? Is all your sophistry really necessary?
