Barnes and Noble "Diverse Editions"

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Here are some actions you can take to minimize your chances of becoming a victim.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

If you are the victim of a crime, you are not to blame. There are things you can to to lessen your chances of being a victim.

Same diff. You obviously can't hear yourselves. There is nothing to say after "you were a victim." NOTHING. Nothing that won't be unnecessary, condescending and insulting.

To insinuate that people need to be told not to put their head in a lions mouth is insulting. And to insinuate that people can lessen their chances of being assaulted, victimized, or bullied by avoiding your own definition of "risky situations" is ridiculous, and flies in the face of evidence to the contrary. Nine time out of ten, people aren't being victimized because they took what "you" deem to be unnecessary risks. They're being victimized because they got up in the morning and went about their day. So being told by anyone that they might have been able to lessen their chances of being victimized had they only had the wisdom to check in with "you" first about how their lives need to be adjusted to avoid jackwads in dark alleys is like pouring salt in their wounds. Especially when they were assaulted in broad daylight, in an upscale neighborhood, by someone they knew.

Do you guys really believe that bad things are primarily happening to good people because they didn't have the good sense not to wander off into the shadows with strangers?

[meeera]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I'm sorry you were harmed, but it's not always about your personal situation. If you are having trouble dealing with your personal situation, then I would suggest you seek appropriate help.

That is a crappy evasion, and you know it. The problem I have in this conversation is you.

My key point was this, which I will repeat since you have ignored it:

"Every single word you have said here has downplayed and minimised the violence I am talking about. You ooze minimisation, dismissal, and victim blaming. "

I am talking about violence. You are persistently dodging, weaving, and minimising/erasing violent attacks as "bad relationships" and "being accosted" and "family situations". That is the behaviour I'm criticising. You can't address violence if you are pretending it doesn't exist.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by meeera

That is a crappy evasion, and you know it. The problem I have in this conversation is you.

My key point was this, which I will repeat since you have ignored it:

"Every single word you have said here has downplayed and minimised the violence I am talking about. You ooze minimisation, dismissal, and victim blaming. "

I am talking about violence. You are persistently dodging, weaving, and minimising/erasing violent attacks as "bad relationships" and "being accosted" and "family situations". That is the behaviour I'm criticising. You can't address violence if you are pretending it doesn't exist.

No, I am trying to be polite. You obviously had a traumatic event happen to you when you are young. You are trying to force my statements on self defense into your personal experience. You obviously want to have your personal feelings validated. Nothing I have said minimizes, downplays or blames the victim. That is purely your personal projection.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Same diff. You obviously can't hear yourselves. There is nothing to say after "you were a victim." NOTHING. Nothing that won't be unnecessary, condescending and insulting.

To insinuate that people need to be told not to put their head in a lions mouth is insulting. And to insinuate that people can lessen their chances of being assaulted, victimized, or bullied by avoiding your own definition of "risky situations" is ridiculous, and flies in the face of evidence to the contrary. Nine time out of ten, people aren't being victimized because they took what "you" deem to be unnecessary risks. They're being victimized because they got up in the morning and went about their day. So being told by anyone that they might have been able to lessen their chances of being victimized had they only had the wisdom to check in with "you" first about how their lives need to be adjusted to avoid jackwads in dark alleys is like pouring salt in their wounds. Especially when they were assaulted in broad daylight, in an upscale neighborhood, by someone they knew.

Do you guys really believe that bad things are primarily happening to good people because they didn't have the good sense not to wander off into the shadows with strangers?

I know that you always like to be right and get in the last word, but if you can't accept the idea that there are things that people can do to minimized their chances of being attacked, then I would suggest you actually do some research on the matter.


https://www.nbcnews.com/better/healt...get-ncna789226

This particular story is focused on women, but the basic rules of thumb - pay attention, project confidence, show that you are alert works for anyone.

There is a lot of research on the subject, especially by the police or criminologists. If you go to a police self defense seminar, that's pretty much what they are going to teach you with some specific pointers depending on the audience. Maybe you just don't want to believe it or think it's blaming the victim. If so, fine. That's your choice.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Same diff. You obviously can't hear yourselves. There is nothing to say after "you were a victim." NOTHING. Nothing that won't be unnecessary, condescending and insulting.

What you seem to be missing about this conversation, and I think the reason both us can't understand why the other doesn't agree, is that this isn't what we are talking about.
The discussion is about prevention, not discussion afterwards.
Here are things you can do to avoid becoming a victim.

Or do you genuinely think that crime prevention suggestions like the Met Police ones I linked to are insulting victims, and shouldn't exist?
If so, then I don't think this discussion is ever going to get any further.

Clearly they aren't going to stop all attacks, or help everybody, but they will help some people, and that is worth doing.

And to insinuate that people can lessen their chances of being assaulted, victimized, or bullied by avoiding your own definition of "risky situations" is ridiculous, and flies in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Lessen, in some situations, for some risks, yes. Eliminate, or lessen in all situations, obviously no.
What evidence? I can link to as many police departments, colleges, schools, etc... as you like that all give basically the same advice. Are they all wrong?

Nine time out of ten, people aren't being victimized because they took what "you" deem to be unnecessary risks. They're being victimized because they got up in the morning and went about their day.

So we shouldn't try to help the one in ten people to avoid being attacked?
You seem to be arguing that because there are some crimes that cannot be avoided, we should never give people advice on how to avoid being the victims of crime.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

So we shouldn't try to help the one in ten people to avoid being attacked?

Seriously. That was the best you could do?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I know that you always like to be right and get in the last word, but if you can't accept the idea that there are things that people can do to minimized their chances of being attacked, then I would suggest you actually do some research on the matter.

And I would suggest you actually consider the possibility that someone other than you might have done so already.

Like you're not trying to be "right" and trying to get in the last word? Please.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Seriously. That was the best you could do?

I genuinely don't understand your position.
What I've said is pretty banal crime prevention suggestions, as would be given by any crime prevention seminar, yet it has clearly offended you beyond measure.
I do not understand why.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

I genuinely don't understand your position.

That's painfully obvious.

Originally Posted by murraypaul

What I've said is pretty banal crime prevention suggestions, as would be given by any crime prevention seminar, yet it has clearly offended you beyond measure.
I do not understand why.

For the record: I was disturbed by the victim blaming on display here before you ever chimed in.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

(Firstly, that isn't what I said, or anything like it, so please don't put fake quotes around it)

Firstly, I didn't say you did say that, thus why it's not in a quote box for you merely in quotes because it'd be thing -said-. So settle down.

No, we should do both.
It is good to try to make neighbourhoods safer.
In the meantime, it is good not to walk through bad neighbourhoods at night.
Both of these things are true, and ignoring that is nonsensical.

It is good to try to raise the standards of all drivers.
In the meantime, I'll practice what I was taught on defensive driving courses to reduce the chances that I have an accident caused by a bad driver. The accident wouldn't be my fault, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't try to avoid it in the first place.

Terrible analogy, the bad drivers aren't out looking to cause harm, they're just bad drivers. But even going along with that, no one says to people in accidents caused by others "Well you should have gotten farther away from that bad driver". Which is the crux of the overall debate here.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

No, I am trying to be polite. You obviously had a traumatic event happen to you when you are young. You are trying to force my statements on self defense into your personal experience. You obviously want to have your personal feelings validated. Nothing I have said minimizes, downplays or blames the victim. That is purely your personal projection.

Except where you have literally said that, as has been shown multiple times over now. I mean if you want to recant that position great, but don't try and claim you've never stated it when it's been pointed out in this very thread that you have.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

What you seem to be missing about this conversation, and I think the reason both us can't understand why the other doesn't agree, is that this isn't what we are talking about.
The discussion is about prevention, not discussion afterwards.
Here are things you can do to avoid becoming a victim.

What you seem to be missing is that it is very much so what we ARE talking about, it's literally what started this whole conversation, the dealing of events AFTER an attack physical or verbal.

Yes, there are preventative steps, however the discussion was in how you treat the victims of these attacks. Not how you treat those who have not been attacked.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I know that you always like to be right and get in the last word, but if you can't accept the idea that there are things that people can do to minimized their chances of being attacked, then I would suggest you actually do some research on the matter.

https://www.nbcnews.com/better/healt...get-ncna789226

I checked this out just to see what it involved... it appears to apply only to bipeds. But cheers for the "helpful" advice This is literally "don't look disabled".

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Yes, there are preventative steps, however the discussion was in how you treat the victims of these attacks. Not how you treat those who have not been attacked.

The problem with treating victims is, that it cannot be done going forward. Any precaution to not become a victim again is literally blaming the victim.

The preventable steps do not work to eliminate victims from being exploited. It only lowers the chances for you personally to become a victim by highly increasing the chances for someone else to be the next victim. But that is okay, because you are safe. It was the other person's fault for being less diligent. Right? No, wrong, as you are again victim blaming.

The dark alley example gets thrown around a lot. Bad things will happen. Don't go there. A self fulfilling prophecy, if you ask me. We as a society enabled the bullies to flock around dark alleys, because the majority of people avoids dark alleys out of fear of a potential bully.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

The problem with treating victims is, that it cannot be done going forward. Any precaution to not become a victim again is literally blaming the victim.

The preventable steps do not work to eliminate victims from being exploited. It only lowers the chances for you personally to become a victim by highly increasing the chances for someone else to be the next victim. But that is okay, because you are safe. It was the other person's fault for being less diligent. Right? No, wrong, as you are again victim blaming.

The dark alley example gets thrown around a lot. Bad things will happen. Don't go there. A self fulfilling prophecy, if you ask me. We as a society enabled the bullies to flock around dark alleys, because the majority of people avoids dark alleys out of fear of a potential bully.

Two very different issues. There is a lot of research by psychologists on preventing crime by keeping people from becoming criminals (which is what you seem to be focused on). It's successful for some people, not so successful for others. With all the knee jerk reactions towards teaching people to minimize their chance at being the victim, I have zero interest in discussing keeping people from become criminals. It's much more controversial.

Part of the problem is what I like to call the "solving world hunger" issue. For some people, if you don't have a 100% solution for every aspect of a problem, then you are absolute garbage and having done anything. They will shout down anything that isn't a 100% solution. It's all "well what about this", "well, what about that". We aren't solving world hunger. We are solving this one small piece of the puzzle. You eat an elephant one bite at a time, not in one humongous gulp.