Florida manipulates its Covid data, raids home of whistleblower.

[Katchii]

No! Take your victim blaming apologetics somewhere else.

So you're of the opinion that a victim bears absolutely zero responsibility for their situation in all circumstances?

[Endus]

So you're of the opinion that a victim bears absolutely zero responsibility for their situation in all circumstances?

None. Ever. I don't care how many bad parts of town or frat parties a woman goes to; she's never partly responsible for her own rape. That's an example that should make the point excruciatingly obvious.

In the case of the car and pedestrian, it just boils down to whether the car had time to stop or avoid the pedestrian. If they didn't, the pedestrian's at fault, but they aren't a "victim" in the first place, at least not of anything but their own decision to leap in front of a speeding car. If the car did have time to stop, and the driver wasn't paying attention, then yes; 100% the driver's fault. And that's how the law works in such a case, too.

[Katchii]

None. Ever. I don't care how many bad parts of town or frat parties a woman goes to; she's never partly responsible for her own rape.

Again, no where did I ever bring up rape

That's an example that should make the point excruciatingly obvious.

And an example I never brought up, and was never brought up in this conversation until someone decided to completely sensationalize the point.

In the case of the car and pedestrian, it just boils down to whether the car had time to stop or avoid the pedestrian. If they didn't, the pedestrian's at fault, but they aren't a "victim" in the first place, at least not of anything but their own decision to leap in front of a speeding car.

This boils down to how we're defining the word victim, that's all. I'm simply calling a "victim" a person who was negatively impacted by the situation.

Depending on how the story is told, the pedestrian would be labeled a victim of an accident. But depending on the situation, it was an accident of their own making.

If the car did have time to stop, and the driver wasn't paying attention, then yes; 100% the driver's fault. And that's how the law works in such a case, too.

Legally, yes. And I understand and accept that.

But you're seriously going to say the pedestrian holds absolutely zero responsibility for their circumstances? That there's nothing they could have done differently, that the situation was completely out of their hands and that their actions and decisions had zero impact on the outcome?

That's all I'm getting at.

[Endus]

This boils down to how we're defining the word victim, that's all. I'm simply calling a "victim" a person who was negatively impacted by the situation.

Is a spree murderer who gets tackled and arrested a "victim"?

He's about to see negative impacts due to his situation.

Your definition is not a useful one.

Legally, yes. And I understand and accept that.

But you're seriously going to say the pedestrian holds absolutely zero responsibility for their circumstances? That there's nothing they could have done differently, that the situation was completely out of their hands and that their actions and decisions had zero impact on the outcome?

That's all I'm getting at.

Yes, the pedestrian would hold absolutely zero responsibility.

Whether they could have done anything differently is not relevant. Victimhood is not predicated on your having made the retroactively best choices for yourself. It's based on your innocence of wrongdoing and the malfeasance or negligence of others which harms you.

If a woman goes to a frat party and gets super drunk and flirts heavily with a bunch of chads and tells her best friend to fuck off when her friend tries to get her to leave, and she ends up getting gangraped by the chads and dumped outside in the bushes, she's still a victim, even if she made a whole suite of questionable choices. None of those choices reduce her victim status in any respect, or make her attackers in any way justified.

And before you complain that I brought it back to rape again; we're talking about the concept of victimhood and responsibility. If your position falls apart when applied to one set of circumstances, like this, it's because your position is incorrect and indefensible.

[Katchii]

Is a spree murderer who gets tackled and arrested a "victim"?

No he's not. But you can't say that depending on how the situation were to be reported how that person could be portrayed as one. People get painted as victims, or champions, or paragons all the time who absolutely don't fit those definitions. But in THAT story, they do, because that's how it's being told.

As much as you and I both wish we lived in a world where everyone agreed on everything, including the definitions of words, or that new definitions weren't always made up, we don't.

He's about to see negative impacts due to his situation.

Yes, as well he should.

But if he were to be tackled so hard he hit his head and died, it could very easily be written that he was a victim of police brutality.

Facts don't mean everything (or anything in some situations as we've seen with politics in the US). Perception and how things get spun have an impact too.

Your definition is not a useful one.

While fair, it's not MY definition. It's used by people everywhere when they call themselves victims of stuff all the time, when they're not actually victims.

Yes, the pedestrian would hold absolutely zero responsibility.

I agree legally, because that's how the law is written, I'm saying I find it ridiculous that the pedestrian isn't held at all responsible for it when they're the ones who put everyone in that situation in the first place.

Whether they could have done anything differently is not relevant.

In what way? In certain situations, it's entirely relevant. You even brought up the pedestrian situation where depending on whether the driver was able to stop or not changes who is at fault.

Victimhood is not predicated on your having made the retroactively best choices for yourself. It's based on your innocence of wrongdoing and the malfeasance or negligence of others which harms you.

And I'm saying, that it's entirely possible for someone to be guilty AND a victim in some situations.

Start a fight with someone, end up getting punched so hard you get knocked out and fall and hit your head and die, when death was never intended by either party.

Wouldn't both people be victims in this case? And wouldn't the dead guy also be guilty of starting the fight?

If a woman goes to a frat party and gets super drunk and flirts heavily with a bunch of chads and tells her best friend to fuck off when her friend tries to get her to leave, and she ends up getting gangraped by the chads and dumped outside in the bushes, she's still a victim, even if she made a whole suite of questionable choices. None of those choices reduce her victim status in any respect, or make her attackers in any way justified.

Let me make it clear, up front, that you're correct. It is obviously not her fault that those people decided to do those things. And she bares no responsibility for them doing it.

However, we don't live in a world where crime and rape and violence don't exist. People should not act like we do live in such a world and should take precautions and make better decisions to prevent them from ever getting into horrible situations.

Had she made different decisions, she would not have been in a position for that situation to occur.

As you said, that's irrelevant to her being a victim in this crime, but it's reality. And again, let me reiterate, I am in no way saying this reduces the "chad's" responsibility for perpetrating the crime or puts her at fault. I'm just saying, she could have prevented it from happening in the first place.

That's why people lock their houses, lock their car doors, don't walk around with their cash hanging out of their back pocket and other situations where they take precautions to prevent themselves from becoming a victim.

And before you complain that I brought it back to rape again; we're talking about the concept of victimhood and responsibility. If your position falls apart when applied to one set of circumstances, like this, it's because your position is incorrect and indefensible.

It's not JUST about responsibility. It's about being accountable to how the decisions you make can lead to certain things happening. It's never the victims responsibility for BEING the victim, as you said, though.

[Glorious Leader]

However, we don't live in a world where crime and rape and violence don't exist. People should not act like we do live in such a world and should take precautions and make better decisions to prevent them from ever getting into horrible situations.

Had she made different decisions, she would not have been in a position for that situation to occur.

As you said, that's irrelevant to her being a victim in this crime, but it's reality. And again, let me reiterate, I am in no way saying this reduces the "chad's" responsibility for perpetrating the crime or puts her at fault. I'm just saying, she could have prevented it from happening in the first place.

That's why people lock their houses, lock their car doors, don't walk around with their cash hanging out of their back pocket and other situations where they take precautions to prevent themselves from becoming a victim.



It's not JUST about responsibility. It's about being accountable to how the decisions you make can lead to certain things happening. It's never the victims responsibility for BEING the victim, as you said, though.

This is fascinating. Near as I can tell, in this example you're taking pains not to blame the victim but some how still push for some gross notion of personal accountability on the part of the victims. As if, again using this example, she doesn't have autonomy to behave and act full well within the law of her state and not expect to have some violent act perpetrated upon her. Instead of a party, let's say she went to the store and was raped... well evidently she shouldn't have went to the store?

[Katchii]

This is fascinating. Near as I can tell, in this example you're taking pains not to blame the victim but some how still push for some gross notion of personal accountability on the part of the victims. As if, again using this example, she doesn't have autonomy to behave and act full well within the law of her state and not expect to have some violent act perpetrated upon her. Instead of a party, let's say she went to the store and was raped... well evidently she shouldn't have went to the store?

Point being, the decisions people make, the things they choose to do and the situations they choose to put themselves in do affect their likelihood of becoming a victim. That's not some crazy, wild idea.

Or are you trying to imply that people should pretend we live in a world where crime doesn't exist and take zero precautions against it in their daily lives?

People shouldn't lock their homes when they leave, shouldn't close and lock their car doors, shouldn't wear protective gear in areas that warrant it, etc...? It's the same concept.

[Glorious Leader]

Point being, the decisions people make, the things they choose to do and the situations they choose to put themselves in do affect their likelihood of becoming a victim. That's not some crazy, wild idea.

Or are you trying to imply that people should pretend we live in a world where crime doesn't exist and take zero precautions against it in their daily lives?

People shouldn't lock their homes when they leave, shouldn't close and lock their car doors, shouldn't wear protective gear in areas that warrant it, etc...? It's the same concept.

So in the hypothetical where the woman is assaulted on her way to the store what decisions should she have made differently?

[Katchii]

So in the hypothetical where the woman is assaulted on her way to the store what decisions should she have made differently?

Precautions reduce the chance, they never completely eliminate them. I never meant to imply that you could completely eliminate the chances of becoming a victim by making "the right" choices. Sometimes you're just in the wrong place at the wrong time and there's not really anything you can do about it. Each case would have to be looked at individually to assess that, though. And as I've said before, it doesn't change who is at fault for perpetrating the crime.

To your point, I have no idea. There are a lot of factors that could be involved. What store was it and what part of town was it in? What time of day? What was going on in the area, in the news (ie was there information suggesting the area was unsafe), what was she doing at the time (there are interviews with rapists that highlight what they look for in a potential victim, and one of the things they look for is whether the victim is paying attention), so was she on her phone looking down and seemingly oblivious to what's going on around her, etc...

I think we can all agree that going to shady pawn shop, in a shitty part of town known for a high crime rate, when it's dark outside with no one with you or around, and being completely absorbed in your phone with no idea of what's going on around you is not a good idea. That's a high risk situation that you put yourself in.

While legally, if some dumbass were to stand in the middle of an intersection and get hit by a car, the driver who hit them would likely be at fault. You can't argue that the decision of the person to stand in the middle of the intersection had nothing to do with their fate.

[Breccia]

She's suing.

The lawsuit names the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), FDLE Secretary Rick Swearingen and several agents. It argues the Dec. 7 house raid violated Jones’s rights under the First, Fourth and 14th Amendments.

"We are trying to achieve some kind of redress," said lead attorney Rick Johnson, according to the Tallahassee Democrat. "This is still America. This is the kind of thing that happens in tinhorn dictatorships in third world countries."

[postman1782]

She's suing.

Hopefully she wins, because at the moment, she has the advantage, considering she was using publicly known passwords to public servers apparently.