(Untitled)

[madscience]

I've been arguing with some fucktards about healthy responses to victimization. People seem to be coming out of the woodwork to demonstrate their inability to read or think.

New year's resolution: don't discuss controversial theories in forums populated by morons.

To illustrate my paradigm, I came up with an emotionally neutral example:

Imagine

Comments

[inibo]

That is a very interesting example. At some point it might be fun to throw a few hypothetical based on this into TP and and watch the sparks fly.

I vaguely remember from sociology that the first conclusion to be drawn from any study is that more research is needed, especially if grant money is involved. I actually had a teacher frame it in just that fashion.

[biggingerdave]

2 quick points:

This reminds me of Saudi Arabia, pedestrians jaywalk with gay abandon because "Allah will protect them". The death rate is correspondingly high.

Replace "careless" with "blind" pedestrian and the guilt is perhaps a misleading issue. If Adam is a careless pedestrian and gets knocked down, will that alter his behaviour?

I've had plenty of people jaywalk in front of my car, and there seems an endless supply of careless pedestrians.

[madscience]

Replace "careless" with "blind" pedestrian and the guilt is perhaps a misleading issue.

Right. That would change any feeling of guilt from rational to irrational.

I've been getting into flame wars with people who will not allow any possibility that the guilt felt by victims of emotionally loaded crimes could be even partly rational.

[drbunsen]

I assume you're talking about sex crimes?

I have a feeling your emotionally neutral analogy is flawed, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Something along the lines of the power differential between pedestrians and motorists.

[madscience]

Exactly. See my other comment below.

[tinag]

I'm curious about the emotionally-charged situations!

[madscience]

Here are two emotionally weighty examples, to illustrate what I see as unpatterned thinking about one of them.

In a perfect world, people could trust others to know and be honest about their HIV status. But it's not a perfect world. Identify high-risk behaviors for HIV infection, and you're trying to help prevent the spread of HIV. Encourage victims of HIV infection to forgive themselves for any risky behavior they may have engaged in, and you're helping them along a recognized path to emotional recoveryIn a perfect world, people could trust others not to sexually assault them. But it's not a perfect world. Identify high-risk behaviors for sexual assault, and you're an apologist for the perpetrator. Encourage victims of sexual assault to forgive themselves for any risky behavior they may have engaged in, and you're "blaming the victim" in some unconscionable fashion

[drbunsen]

It's certainly a more interesting comparison than the jaywalking one, and a useful direction to take this discussion

[madscience]

Am I stupid to go out drunk at night wearing that skirt with a drunk guy I don't know back to his frat house etc etc etc etc?

Arguably. (as you have seen)

Can I forgive myself for this?

Yes.

And even though I am lying naked, bombed on qualuudes and gin, on his bed, is it his responsibility then to, you know, *not* rape me?

Yes. Absolutely and inarguably.

What most people seem to disagree with is that these two ideas are not mutually exclusive.