For context this is an Andrew tate meatrider on twitter
this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
228 points (92.5% liked)
Facepalm
2636 readers
6 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 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.