|
She was raped. She killed her rapist. May I victim blame?
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 07:12 |
|
|
It's like, no matter what, this discussion always seem to never go the way you want and it sink into dangerous depths. Like America's bridges!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
Wasn't ISIS' stated objective with the Paris attacks to increase the hostility towards Muslims in the West in order to recruit/radicalize more Western Muslims, because they are getting their rear end beat in Syria? Call me crazy, but maybe doing exactly what your enemy wants you to is a bad idea in any sort of conflict. I'm not sure if it counts as 'our fault' if we do so, but is is both very stupid and a bad strategy to do so. If you can't grasp that, I hope I will someday compete against you in some way, because I will win, and not because I'm any sort of hot poo poo. In fact, I'm not, and could use more easy victories in my life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Wasn't ISIS' stated objective with the Paris attacks to increase the hostility towards Muslims in the West in order to recruit/radicalize more Western Muslims, because they are getting their rear end beat in Syria? yes but you seem to think the main objective is stopping isis and not perpetuating global conflicts that coincide with "strengths" of certain political affiliations and capital interests.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Oh wow, a branch of perpetually morphing and diffuse militant Sunni groups have branded themselves Stamp them out!! This is a strategic objective.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
toanoradian posted:Yes! Infrastructure! You do it in sections and halves, and mostly at night. It's not too difficult. Also most of the bridges and roads in need of desperate repair are not in traffic prone areas. The were built in the sticks 40+ years ago and promptly ignored, that's why they're crumbling. Most major roadways have had some sort of maintenance in the meantime. FCKGW fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Dec 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Why is it important to focus on external factors to their motive (Islamophobia) in this way as opposed to their internal thought processes (radicalization)? This is actually an easy question to answer: because "internal thought processes" rarely exist in a vacuum. If you're talking about "radicalization" then you're already dismissing out of hand the idea that there weren't any external factors involved here. This was a middle class couple with a 6 month old baby and what seemed to be a comfortable life. Why would two people like that "radicalize?" There's no answer to that question that's going to be limited entirely to the thought processes of Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, so it's silly to get angry at people for talking about why it might have happened. quote:Does a push to condemn Islamophobia in the wake of this tragedy that is explicitly motivated by a desire to reduce the incidence of these events in the future implicitly deny agency to the shooter? Why or why not? Why would it? Are you implying that it's possible to explain the motives of any other crime in a complete vacuum, without ever considering the past experiences or relationships of the criminal? quote:If so, doesn't this denial of agency implicitly put the onus of action on the victim? How is that any different from victim blaming? Because you can suggest there's some small causal relationship at play without making a moral judgment about whether the victim did anything wrong. If some guy really wants to kill someone today and I happen to be on the same street corner, then you can pretty comfortably say that I wouldn't have been murdered if I hadn't been standing on that street corner at that time. It's still not my fault and it still doesn't justify anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
We need to goonize more Middle Eastern Muslims so that their relentless Photoshop Phriday assaults will render ISIS a laughingstock. Where, the people of Syria ask, are Mayor Lowtax and his Goons? I say we prepare drops of cheetos and let's play threads over Syria- while there is still time 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:We need to goonize more Middle Eastern Muslims so that their relentless Photoshop Phriday assaults will render ISIS a laughingstock. Sure it starts out as giving them let's plays and Cheetos. What happens when they take over tviv, SAL, or even D&D?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Wasn't ISIS' stated objective with the Paris attacks to increase the hostility towards Muslims in the West in order to recruit/radicalize more Western Muslims, because they are getting their rear end beat in Syria? It's actually kind of sad knowing that every anti-Muslim/anti-Islam comment that comes out of American and European politics is helping ISIL's cause. Pohl posted:Edit: And seriously twitter? Who the hell cares about twitter? Twitter is a source of amusement, not a defining body of journalistic integrity, nor is it the overriding opinion of the populous. Why care about twitter?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
"sure it's sad she was raped but she maybe shouldn't have been such a bitch?" literally the argument y'all are making. even if you accurately describe the motivation for the crime, by phrasing your language in such a way you're implicitly justifying the crime committed. or explicitly, in the case of sedanchair
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 19:00
|
|
Cat Army 
|
The Iron Rose posted:"sure it's sad she was raped but she maybe shouldn't have been such a bitch?" Except no one is phrasing anything even remotely like that? I mean, you understand that there's a very real difference between "maybe she shouldn't have cheated on him if she didn't want him to kill her" and "he killed her because she was having an affair," right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Except no one is phrasing anything even remotely like that? This has been explained to the same 2 or 3 chucklefucks about a dozen times over a dozen pages. With the exception of SedanChair, who is generally considered to be the worst poster in D&D, they are arguing with no one to score internet points.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:"sure it's sad she was raped but she maybe shouldn't have been such a bitch?" How could you possibly construe what I said as blaming the victims? Disabled people and social services workers didn't persecute Muslims. Backlash tends to affect the innocent. That doesn't mean the shooters have sole responsibility for what happened. But the victims had no responsibility whatsoever. Am I speaking English? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Well yeah, in addition to "I'm great" it sounds like he has fleshed that one out to include "kill and oppress the innocent."
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:"sure it's sad she was raped but she maybe shouldn't have been such a bitch?" "Suffering from racism, xenophobia and religious persecution can be contributing factors in an individual's radicalization" is not literally the same as "women deserve to be raped because they make men mad or horny." You're a literal retard in the literal sense if you literally believe that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
i am also a child can someone please explain to me the difference between explaining why something happened and justifying it? thank you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:How could you possibly construe what I said as blaming the victims? Disabled people and social services workers didn't persecute Muslims. Backlash tends to affect the innocent. That doesn't mean the shooters have sole responsibility for what happened. But the victims had no responsibility whatsoever. I didn't say you were blaming the victims. I said you were justifying the crimes committed. And you were. Paradoxish posted:Except no one is phrasing anything even remotely like that? Sure there is. One's more obvious than the other. My problem isn't with ascribing motivating to these criminals, I'm sure it's entirely accurate that islamophobia suffered is a contributing factor in radicalization. My problem was in the way people phrased their arguments, and how those arguments and the language used will be perceived. All I'm saying is that some folks here are dogwhistling pretty hard. And the thing with dogwhistling is that so long as you're not outright saying "they deserved it for being _____" you can imply it however loudly you want.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Swan Oat posted:i am also a child can someone please explain to me the difference between explaining why something happened and justifying it? thank you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:I didn't say you were blaming the victims. I said you were justifying the crimes committed. And you were. Noooo, I was explaining what led to the crimes committed. I know there is this popular strain of American faux-thought that likes to think of crime as being "evil" and having no cause but the finger of Satan, but that's a really stupid way to go through life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:I didn't say you were blaming the victims. I said you were justifying the crimes committed. And you were. I'd love to see some of the quotes of the ones that set you off not from Sedanchair.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:All I'm saying is that some folks here are dogwhistling pretty hard. And the thing with dogwhistling is that so long as you're not outright saying "they deserved it for being _____" you can imply it however loudly you want. Dogwhistling requires actual intent. A statement of fact like "he killed her because she was having an affair" isn't a dogwhistle because someone might interpret it as "bitch deserved it." The whole point of dogwhistles is that they're understood by both the speaker and the intended audience. What you're suggesting is that it's literally impossible to describe anyone's actions in context because someone somewhere might interpret it in a dumb way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
I think y'all need to head to bed because you all seem to be misreading each other's posts and drawing the most uncharitable conclusions possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Dogwhistling requires actual intent. A statement of fact like "he killed her because she was having an affair" isn't a dogwhistle because someone might interpret it as "bitch deserved it." The whole point of dogwhistles is that they're understood by both the speaker and the intended audience. What you're suggesting is that it's literally impossible to describe anyone's actions in context because someone somewhere might interpret it in a dumb way. which is exactly what I'm saying? There was intent? That is now (understandably) being denied. socialsecurity posted:I'd love to see some of the quotes of the ones that set you off not from Sedanchair. extreme insertion did it for me EXTREME INSERTION posted:And literally a bunch of quotes on the same page that I'm not going to go back and spoon feed you
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:I think y'all need to head to bed because you all seem to be misreading each other's posts and drawing the most uncharitable conclusions possible. Sure, you'd like us all in bed, asleep, when ISIS/The Government comes for us. Who radicalized you, SSNeoman? TELL US.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Extreme insertion was also freaking out about statements that were never made. I can't understand this jumping to conclusions. The shooters killed innocent people, in part BECAUSE they were radicalized by OUR (America's) treatment of Muslims.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Extreme insertion was also freaking out about statements that were never made. I can't understand this jumping to conclusions. The shooters killed innocent people, in part BECAUSE they were radicalized by OUR (America's) treatment of Muslims. Very true! That doesn't change the fact that the entirety of the fault, in this case, lies upon the shooters, regardless of what treatment they may or may not have been subject to. Islamophobia and islamophobes are lovely, sure, but it's not their fault by any stretch of the imagination. They're terrible people, but not to blame for this tragedy. Murder is not a rational or acceptable response to discrimination. The discrimination these individuals may have been subject to may well be the cause of their violent attack, but that attack is not the fault of those who discriminated unjustly against them on any level. The Iron Rose fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Dec 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Slate with a hot take on the media circus yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Literally saying "it will be our fault" is not the same as simply trying to explain why something might happen. Although to be fair I didn't see a single person do the former until Sedanchair started posting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Very true! That doesn't change the fact that the entirety of the fault, in this case, lies upon the shooters, regardless of what treatment they may or may not have been subject to. They absolutely are to blame. Men, women and children face verbal and physical abuse for their appearance and faith every day. Who are you to absolve the perpetrators of these crimes? The Iron Rose posted:Murder is not a rational or acceptable response to discrimination. The discrimination these individuals may have been subject to may well be the cause of their violent attack, but that attack is not the fault of those who discriminated unjustly against them on any level. This is just you declaring things, apparently. Absolving Trump.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:They absolutely are to blame. Men, women and children face verbal and physical abuse for their appearance and faith every day. Who are you to absolve the perpetrators of these crimes? quote:This is just you declaring things, apparently. Absolving Trump. Yes? Donald Trump is terrible, but this attack isn't his (direct) fault. He didn't hold a gun to their daughter's head and command those two to kill innocent people. He may have contributed to an environment where people can feel comfortable espousing racist, harmful views, but that's not the same thing. Perhaps fault is the wrong word. Donald Trump isn't to blame for this attack, nor is the zionist coworker. Just like Sarah Palin isn't to blame for the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/12/04/theyre-coming-here-kill-us-pirro-geraldo-spar-guns-radical-islam Fox News: The reason we're losing to ISIS is because we're too politically correct and we must "speak out" against Muslims, regardless of political correctness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:I don't absolve them for those actions. I absolve them of responsibility for when people decide an acceptable response to petty bigotry to murder innocent people. I don't think anyone is suggesting bigots be tried as murderers. Fault (or blame) can be distributed, and it can be distributed unequally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Erick Son of Erick is a responsible gun owner who used his second amendment rights to express his displeasure with the first.  https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/673203319528116224 God bless twitter
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
ColdPie posted:First, I stop reading your posts whenever you accuse someone of "justifying mass murder." Stop saying incredibly stupid things and perhaps you'll get responses to whatever real point you're trying to make. quote:Second, when an unexplainable act occurs, it makes sense to break down why it happened to try to understand it, which can help in making changes to prevent it from happening again. First you find the explanations for why the action occurred, then you figure out what you can change, within our legal and social framework, to prevent it happening again. So let's break this down. What would convince a family with a young child that going on a killing spree is the best way to spend the rest of their now-short lives? Again, I feel the example of Elliot Rodger is legitimately instructive here because applying any of the questions you're asking about the treatment of these killers to him, or asking how his victims or we as a society could have accommodated his needs better to prevent him from going on a killing spree will immediately strike you as insensitive and unreasonable. He was a man who killed for entirely trivial reasons, and everyone seems to agree that socially we can't be asking people to behave differently in order to head off an entitled decision to kill other people because of dissatisfaction. Well what's different here, and why do people keep finding the comparison so beyond consideration? Is the rationale we've constructed for these killers out of the most circumstantial evidence actually reasonable, even if we assume (and we are definitely assuming) that they faced legitimate workplace harassment? If we're not interested in justifying the killers actions, or blaming the victims, why do we see a consistent focus on the proximate or ongoing behavior of the victims that may have set the killer off? The only difference is that we feel the behavior that we're assuming set the killer off here was Bad and objectionable, while we don't feel that the Rodgers' victims did anything objectionable. Which might matter if this was a case of simple assault and we had an interest in edit: NippleFloss posted:"Suffering from racism, xenophobia and religious persecution can be contributing factors in an individual's radicalization" is not literally the same as "women deserve to be raped because they make men mad or horny." The counterpart to the first argument isn't "women deserve to be raped because they make men mad or horny," it's "social isolation, lack of connection with other humans, and sexual rejection can be contributing factors in an individual's extreme misogyny." That's an explanation, not a justification. Both are fine. The problem I have with either is when it starts turning from an explanation of why the killers did what they did to an implicit justification of it. You'd rightly be extremely skeptical of anyone who used the statement relating to misogyny to launch an exploration of the ways in which society and individual victims of the killer failed to adequately ameliorate the behavior that the killer found so objectionable that it caused them to lash out in an entitled rage and take life indiscriminately. Why are you not similarly skeptical of "explanations" that do that in cases like this? LGD fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Dec 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Actually, I'm willing to blame white culture for Rodgers. White people as a whole in America share a little bit of the blame for creating a culture where his ideology wasn't immediately recognized and treated as mental illness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
LGD posted:Consider the possibility that getting people to stop justifying mass murder No one is doing this, so, good job! You won! LGD posted:Well I would have changed the though processes that made them decide it was ok to go on a rampage. How? That's the question I was trying to answer. Something lead the couple to conclude that mass murder was their best option. How would you have stopped them from concluding that? What would you have changed about their lives and/or their surroundings? LGD posted:Again, people keep insisting this isn't victim blaming and that they're not justifying the killer and then immediately turning around and assuming/asserting that it was the toxic behavior of his co-workers (or society at large) that caused him to snap, and the best way to prevent future shootings is to eliminate anything the killer might have found objectionable or had a hard time with. Anti-bigotry initiatives are good to do in and of themselves so it's ideologically easy to prescribe them as a solution, but you're "finding an explanation" of why they went on a killing spree that is based on the behavior of other people, and jumping to a solution that requires other people (and society at large) to be nicer to the minority the killer belongs to because if we don't there will be similar acts in the future. The difference is the change being requested of the environment. I think asking toxic work environments to be made less toxic is a reasonable request. I don't think asking women to stop existing, or to appease every man that desires them, is a reasonable request. Again, it's a breakdown of what the causes were, and what can be done about those causes. If the cause of those murders was someone failing to get laid, then maybe we should consider changing how our culture portrays the importance of sex, or something (I'm making this up, I don't know the particulars of that case). It's not about assigning blame, it's about making changes to ensure it doesn't happen again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Perhaps fault is the wrong word. Donald Trump isn't to blame for this attack, nor is the zionist coworker. Just like Sarah Palin isn't to blame for the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords. She literally signed off on an image with a crosshair superimposed on Giffords' district. If she is free of blame, so are Hutu radio hosts who advocated genocide.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:which is exactly what I'm saying? There was intent? That is now (understandably) being denied. No he didn't those quotes from that post are people saying the same thing to him I'm saying to you to show which actual posts you are actually arguing against, like which people are trying to actually justify what he did instead of just explaining his motives, either you are unable to understand people's posts or are misunderstanding intentionally to argue against some argument that nobody sane is making.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 07:12 |
|
|
Defenestration posted:Erick Son of Erick is a responsible gun owner who used his second amendment rights to express his displeasure with the first. What a lovely group, I hope that was from 25 yards.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 20:17
|
|