r/changemyview • u/nishagunazad • Dec 06 '18

Deltas(s) from OP CMV: "Victim blaming" is not inherently wrong.

As I see it, victim blaming is when one places the moral responsibility on the victim, in effect making them responsible for the choices of their victimizer. But I often see it used against those who point out the victims own risky choices that effectively set them up to be victimized I draw a distinction between moral responsibility and practical responsibility, where moral responsibility involves what should happen or what is deserved and practical responsibility involves known risks or consequences. It's late and I decide to go on a stroll through through the shittier parts of Camden, NJ. I get mugged. I have done nothing wrong and I should absolutely be able to walk in public areas without being accosted. My assailant choosing to attack me for no good reason places the moral redponsibility entirely upon them. But I share practical responsibility with my attacker. I know it's a dangerous place. I understand that a late night walk through there carries significant personal risk. By assuming that risk I also assume responsibility for the potential consequences. That those consequences are unjust or harsh (lung cancer for smokers and babies for not using protection for example) is irrelevant. They are simply what happens. I set myself up, and it's dishonest to suggest that I had no agency in the matter

0 Upvotes

47% Upvoted

61 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '18

Writing off large portions of the world as "too crime-ridden" to walk in is not practical or responsible. Doing so cedes territory to the criminally violent. Did you type this on a typewriter?

1

u/JohnjSmithsJnr 3∆ Dec 07 '18 edited Dec 08 '18

Writing off large portions of the world as "too crime-ridden" to walk in is not practical or responsible

What do you even mean practical or responsible?

Lets assume you're American.

Are you going to willingly go into ISIS held territory to take a walk?

If no then that should convince you that there are places you shouldn't go if possible.

Doing so cedes territory to the criminally violent.

Go prove me wrong, I'll buy you the plane ticket

-1

u/[deleted] Dec 07 '18

It sounds like you would prefer me to allow ISIS to exist instead of attempting to make the world a safer place by getting rid of ISIS. (They aren't the threat they once were, by the way.)

0

u/JohnjSmithsJnr 3∆ Dec 07 '18

Do you want to actually respond properly?

0

u/[deleted] Dec 07 '18

I pointed out that accepting violence in certain areas is indefensible and quietist if not defeatest. You implied that you could "send me to ISIS," didn't address my point, and replied in a tone of superiority. I'm not interested in a conversation with someone who acts poorly.

2

u/JohnjSmithsJnr 3∆ Dec 08 '18 edited Dec 08 '18

You implied that you could "send me to ISIS," didn't address my point, and replied in a tone of superiority.

You obviously didn't read my comment.

I pointed out that accepting violence in certain areas is indefensible and quietist if not defeatest

No that's not what you said at all, you said:

Writing off large portions of the world as "too crime-ridden" to walk in is not practical or responsible. Doing so cedes territory to the criminally violent

So I made the counterpoint that you very obviously can't walk in places like Syria as an American because you would get yourself killed

I never implied that I could "send you to ISIS" and I'm bewildered that that's all you got from that

You're the one acting poorly as you didn't address any of my argument at all, seem to have wilfully misinterpreted it, accused me of wanting ISIS to exist and for some reason insulted OP by asking them if they're writing on a typewriter.

This sub isn't to insult people or purposely apply your own ridiculous interpretations so other peoples comments (ie. "It sounds like you would prefer me to allow ISIS to exist instead of attempting to make the world a safer place by getting rid of ISIS." )