For context this is an Andrew tate meatrider on twitter
this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
228 points (92.5% liked)
Facepalm
2629 readers
55 users here now
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think the problem here is making rape sound like an opportunist crime: like you left a wallet stuffed full of cash at a bar and someone took it while the owner was getting a drink.
"Well, you were dressed showing too much skin, and you didn't take your knight-in-shining-armour, so what do you expect?
If a person don't see the problem with this view, then there a significant lack of insight. But then that is probably Tates' target audience.
If you wander past the danger signs, and into the crocodile pen, and get bitten by crocodiles, then its your fault.
Thankfully, human males aren't purpose-built carnivorous reptiles with a hunger for mammals, no capacity for understanding right and wrong, and a lowercase brain that hasn't evolved in 250 mn years.
Well, there's also a lot of "extreme" examples. It's always the super slutty, naive woman or the super innocent, risk-free woman. Nothing in between.
There are definitely scenarios, where a reasonable person would have to say "this action is very risk prone". And I personally think it's hypocritical to completely separate rape from any other crime. You can't argue, that in any other crime there's a certain responsibility put on the victim (your insurance won't pay, if you leave the car keys in), but rape, and only rape, dissolves the victim from any sort of responsibility for bringing themselves in a situation where this was very likely.
I think, this is rather a case of "progressives" (in the broadest sense) are afraid that giving any argumentative ground to the "enemy" will immediately lead to a win for the other side, in that the rapist would be somehow less guilty. I know, where this is coming from, but it's still hypocritical and doesn't really help in the long run.
The kinds of scenario you are hinting at is very rare.
What you're saying, in effect, is that women should not go out and get drunk. Which is ridiculous. I've probably been out and got drunk over 5,000 times. My lifetime risk of getting raped is around 1 in 4. And you're telling me that the only way I can reasonably expect not to get blamed for my own rape is spend those many thousands of nights at home alone instead?
Or are youu saying that I should be getting walked home thousands and thousands of times by a man who is 10x more likely to rape me than the stranger you're imagining /able to distance yourself from.
Or are you saying that unless we're all teetotal virgins, you're going to sit on the fucking fence.
You know who is loving your work? The rapists who are hearing you tell them they're normal. Because the only people who think that all men are rapists are rapists.
STFU
See, I never specified the situation. You just assumed that. I deliberately stayed vague, but you jumped to the conclusion that I meant your specific circumstances.
That's very much a you problem. Staying vague means we're going to assume you're talking about the 10yo girl who was raped by her dad. And that you think she should take some responsibility. If that's not what you mean I'd highly suggest you stop talking. Maybe delete your account. And just really take an unending break on telling victims what to do.
The insurance company thing is a bad example, because it’s an example of a for profit company maximizing their profits at the expense of the consumer rather than any kind of moral or ethical statement.
I, for one, do not think leaving your keys in the car excuses car theft.
Just because your back is turned does not mandate me to shoot you, and turning your back on me does not mean that you are complicit in being shot. The exploiting party always, always, needs to have the entirety of blame placed on them.
Risk mitigation is wise and situational awareness is good, but a lack of either of these does not excuse exploitation.
Where exactly did I even suggest that this would excuse rape?
You're doing what I wrote: assuming that anything but the extreme position is a justification of rape.
So, your mates know that any time you're passed out drunk, they're free to stick their dicks up your arse because it's your own damn fault for putting yourself at risk?
You have not even begun to think this through. Read more, spout less nonsense.
How about reading my comment? I stated something like 20 times already that I don't justify the crime.
Maybe getting drunk 5000 times like you stated in the other comment wasn't the best idea in terms of reading comprehension.
Worm.
Very good argument.
it's an accurate description
Nobody cares about winning an argument with a rape apologist.
Where did I apologize or justify anything?
You're exactly the problem. You don't even try to engage with the argument, you don't even read it. You just react to some buzzwords and decide on some gut feeling.
Because there is no situation where a rape victim is to be blamed. Full stop. Just like there's no situation where a murder victim would be blamed. Or a theft victim (again, insurance payouts aren't criminal charges).
Blame and responsibility are something different.
Insurance payouts are actually a good example, because it's exactly not about criminal charges. It's about the acknowledgement that you might not take proper precautions in a very obviously dangerous situation. That doesn't mean it's my theft. And this point seems to absolutely go over your head. The crime itself is not affected by the responsibility or care or whatever you want to call it, by the victim.
Oh okay I totally get it now. You just like blaming victims and want to make sure they're aware they put themselves in a position to be raped. Thanks for clearing that up!
I mean… your whole post is a justification for a line of thinking indicating that assessing a risk scenario is the responsibility of a would be victim; the logical extension of this argument is that victims are at least partially complicit in their victimhood.
I am flatly refuting that. Victims are victims, full stop. It flat out does not matter that someone has put themselves into a risky situation, because the choice to exploit that situation is entirely the responsibility of one party.
Would you apply that logic to any other crime?
You can't tell me, that you never thought "well, that's kind of what you can expect to happen".
Yes, I would apply that logic to any other crime.
Scamming people out of their life savings can only be done because the victim fell for a ruse; it’s easy to say afterwards “well that never would have happened if you were just more careful” and dismiss it as their own fault.
That is, however, bullshit; because one person making a mistake never, ever excuses another person from exploiting it.
Even in scenarios where I myself could easily say “well sure that was bound to happen” it still doesn’t make the victim complicit in their victimhood because at no point did they actively consent to being victimized.
That’s the whole sticking point for me here: the logic of “well they put themselves into that position” is effectively tantamount to arguing that they asked to be exploited, which is utter nonsense.
There is something to be said for minimizing the risk of a crime being committed against you, but at absolutely no point should you blame the victim of a crime. I may have left my keys in the car, but the guy who stole it is the guy who stole it. Sure, if I'd remembered my keys, he probably wouldn't have stolen it, but only one of us is to blame for a crime taking place, and it isn't the one that didn't commit a crime.
And those two things don't contradict each other.
A criminal can be a criminal and a victim can be at partial responsibility for creating that situation. This is pretty much uncontroversial for every crime, unless you somehow involve rape. Seriously, replace rape with any other crime, do you think all those people would scream around like they currently do? I doubt it. And that's hypocrisy.
No. It went over your head again. The victim is not at fault, even partially. The guy who left his keys in the car is not even partially at fault, as stated in their comment, the only one responsible is the person who stole the car. Full stop. Are there things you can do to lower the risk of being a victim? Sure. Are you partially responsible if you don't? NO.
Of course people are more upset about rape than many other crimes because not all crimes are of equal harm to society and others. Murder and speeding are both crimes, are you gonna complain about people focusing on murder over speeding? Is it wrong for the news to cover a murder but not a speeding ticket? Is it that hard to imagine why rape might be seen as a more serious offense?
Is it "hypocrisy" to call out victim-blaming for rape? It's wrong in all cases, but especially heinous in the context of rape, not just because the majority of the victims are women, but because you are acting like rape is a force of nature that can't be stopped, controlled, or lessened. Rape doesn't happen because of the way she dressed or the lack of a man with her, it happened because someone decided to treat her as a sex object and use violence to carry that out.
You're lying to yourself.
If victims put themselves in situations where the crime is very likely, most people will at least put a partial responsibility on the victim. If you'd be honest to yourself, you would know that even you do that.
"What was he thinking? He walked past a cop while being Black, of course he got shot in the back."
Your strawman is showing.
Wut
"well I know your husband was murdered but he's the one who decided to be a bank teller during an armed robbery"
You realize how much of an idiot you are, right? Don't rape people. It isn't hard and it isn't the victim's fault. At all. A woman should be able to walk down the street naked at 2 am and not have to worry about your disgusting ass touching her.
The sad thing is I do hear people say that about convenience store workers that get shot on the job. Makes me so goddamned mad.
Again, (seriously, why is that so hard?) you're taking an extreme example and act like that's the norm and act like I'm pro rape.
I described a problematic argumentation, and you used this exact structure to "refute" me.
I took an extreme example? Your example was fucking insurance claims. We're having a conversation about victim based crimes and you use an insurance claim as an evidence that victims get blamed for crimes all the time when that's simply not the case. Murder is a crime, leaving your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition isn't. Do better and people won't accuse you of defending rape.
Where did I defend it? Where did I say that leaving the keys is a crime?
You're putting words in my mouth.
Since your scroll wheel is broken. I'm not saying you said leaving your keys in the car is a crime. Use context clues when you read it'll help a lot. I'm saying leaving your keys in the car doesn't stop the police from treating the theft as a crime. They'll still nab the perp the same as if your keys were in your pocket and doors locked. Especially since car theft stings are literally leaving an unlocked car somewhere with the keys in it waiting for a thief.
repeatedly justifying it kinda makes me think you are.
Where did I justify it even once? I explicitly stated the opposite. Multiple times.
The vast majority of sexual assault victims know their attacker. What you are saying is that knowing a man is, for a women, inherently high risk and any time we are alone with a man we are putting ourselves in danger and therefore at fault. Are you saying that all men are rapists and we need segregation?
Again, you're taking the extreme stance. Exactly what I said in the very first sentence.
I didn't say "every and in all cases", but "there are some". You chose to ignore that.
Ok and I’m saying it’s still not someone’s fault if they’re raped when they’re passed out behind a dumpster. Should you be passed out behind a dumpster? No it’s gross and you probably have a drinking problem if that happens. But even public alcoholics didn’t bring on their rape. Sluts don’t deserve to be raped. Even clumsy prisoners don’t deserved to be raped.
You keep dancing around it and even said you deliberately kept it vague, so what situation are you talking about? All anyone else can do is guess at what you mean, and you just keep saying "you're putting words in my mouth."
What you really mean is "I didn't say anything meaningful, so any meaning you attach to it is you putting words in my mouth."
No, not really.
I tried to argue that there is inherent hypocrisy in the structure of the rhetoric. The result were a bunch of very specific scenarios. And then it was argued that I said, that I found the victims in these specific circumstances at fault. Which I never said or implied.
You guys are obviously unwilling to even engage on a more abstract level.
What you are doing is victim-blaming, and the reason nobody is willing to engage with you on the level you want is because it is an old, tired idea that has been used by rapists and rape-apologists to silence rape victims pretty much forever. To concede any amount of what you're saying isn't a defensive measure, though, it's because we've been over this so many times, and it is so clearly wrong.
And before you claim I'm putting words in your mouth concerning victim blaming, your entire argument in your first comment is that rape victims potentially share some responsibility for their rape because of the situation they allowed themselves to get into. Assigning responsibility for a fault or wrong is the literal definition of "blame."
This exactly what I was complaining about in the first place. You're arguing in bad faith. You're using double standards to claim that this specific crime is different from any other crime, purely to keep your argument intact. And then you accuse me of excusing the crime.
You don't engage with the argument, because you can't refute it. Simple as that. You can't accept that two things can be true at the same time, because you're afraid this might be used against your standpoint as a whole. That is understandable, but still deeply wrong.
You're argument boils down to 'women should not be alone with rapists'. Great idea, but how do we manage that in practice? How do women take precautions without avoiding all men, including their family members? It's not as simple as 'don't go into dark alleys at night'. Locking your car is a simple, reasonable precaution. Noone expects your car to have a bodyguard, but women are told by everyone to never go out alone. We are expected to have bodyguards. Why is this necessary?
Such line of thinking has the potential to shift the public opinion and then final judgement in favor of the rapist, believe me it does. I have seen it happen countless times in Turkey. So I would strongly suggest staying as far away as possible from that which can really normalize (even if slightly so) rape in certain kinds of scenarios. And you dont wanna live in that shit hole.
And for the victim who has gone through a traumatic experience, it is like kicking her while she is on the ground. She is probably already going through a lot of regrets and you are there shouting "YEA YOU BETTER FEEL SORRY FOR WHAT YOU DID"
I mean, I think you would also agree that no matter what the location is or how the victim dresses, the amount of punishment should be very heavy so as to be a deterrent. So what is even the point of bringing someone's life choices to a matter of legal debate. Leave it to that person to evaluate it is not your job or ours
What you described is exactly the problem I see. The fear of the entire argument flopping to the other extreme.
But let's be honest here: ignoring the truth because you can't handle the truth (or are afraid of not being able to handle it) is wrong. It's hypocrisy. And I'm actually relatively sure that you alienate a lot of people in the middle of the extremes because they can see the willful ignorance behind the argument. That means, you're losing supporters.
Just look at how vile I'm being attacked here. There's not even a hint of trying to understand my point. Just "not my line, must be the enemy". That's bonkers and not helpful.
Because your point is fucking stupid at best and harmful at worst. Women take self defense classes, go to the restroom in pairs, barely trust their male friends, and are terrified of traveling alone even if it's for something like work. Why? Because they know how easy it is to "put themselves in a position to be vulnerable." And you want to keep rubbing it in? Make them even more responsible than they already feel subconsciously? Fuck you. It's not helpful. Instead of grandstanding for rape victims to take responsibility just shut up. It's free and you won't have so many people calling you a rape apologist.
what is the truth and what is the other extreme?
You're looking at the problem in a "spherical rape victim in a vacuum" sort of way. There is a whole bunch of context that doesn't fit into your hypothetical.
Sexual victimization is not just another crime. Most sexual assaults are carried out by partners, spouses, and relatives. So the victim has a complicated mix of shame and conflict of interest. Not to mention that a raped women is often viewed as "damaged goods", and a raped man as a sissy, so social status is at risk too.
Society re-victimizes sexual assault survivors and attitudes of victim shaming contribute to this. What victim shaming doesn't do is prevent people from being sexually assaulted. We know this because if victim shaming could reduce sexual assault, rape would be rare.
For the love of God please just go back to reddit.
I don't even need to read to know I've met people just like you, and am very much better without them