Talk:Blaming the victim

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

First Example Doesn't Fit[edit]

I'm not seeing how the RCC criticizing the NYT for covering the pedophile scandal is "denial of the victim". It's a shameful dodge of the issue, but it's not an attack on the victims. MDB (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It is, in a way, in that it makes out the RCC, and Benedict in particular, to be victims when they are widely seen to be the perpetrators. yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 14:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that part of the Vatican defence is that the current allegations are part of an "orchestrated attack by New York Jews". From MoDo's editorial
This solidarity with Jews is also notable given that Italy’s La Repubblica reported that “certain Catholic circles” suspected that “a New York Jewish lobby” was responsible for the outcry against the pope.
Apart from that it's all the fault of the devil and 70's permissiveness.
However, your right, they haven't blamed the choirboys yet.Jack Hughes (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it's more a case of "Shoot the messenger".--BobSpring is sprung! 14:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This might fill the bill Hat tip. Bernando Álvarez said that there are 13 year olds who are wanting to be abused, and 'if you are careless they will provoke you' Spot on:yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 14:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Now, that's an example of "denial of the victim". MDB (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


Whilst I don't for one second doubt the allegation a few specific instances, with references, would be nice. Any ideas anyone? Jack Hughes (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little unhappy with the term "child rapist" for the link to info about Gabe Williams' continual abuse of Jennifer Stewart. According to the page to which the link leads (which also uses the term, unfortunately) the victim was 16 and 17 when the incidents of rape took place. Use of the term "child" there, while perhaps legally accurate (depending on the age of majority in the location the incidents took place) evokes ideas of a much younger victim than was actually the case.

This situation was indisputably heinous, but my concern is that the misleading language may be perceived as an attempt to exaggerate the seriousness of the situation. The Church of Scientology is a monstrous organization, their wrongdoing needs no direct nor indirect exaggeration. The way Scientology boosters seem to love to abuse language and confuse people, however, I expect any that come along looking for quotes to mine would seize on such things to present as "proof" that their enemies are blowing their crimes way out of proportion due to personal vendetta, casting doubt on other reports of Scientologist wrongdoing. -- (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, however, that is what the link's title says so it could be equally disingenuous to remove "child". ADK...I'll murder your lowbrow! 12:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Republican blames Democrats for being attacked[edit]

... former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, told a press conference in Atlanta two weeks ago, "I think the Democratic leadership has to take some moral responsibility for having behaved with such arrogance, in such a hostile way, that the American people are deeply upset," in responding to questions about the reported attack on Democratic lawmakers, after health care reform passed. From here Original story yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 23:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Goes here? Or under Rape? Or FSTDT?[edit]

This. Also, I notice a lack of connection between this article and the Rape article. Open to comments. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I would say it's more "blaming the victim" than Denial of the victim (which admittedly, I don't understand). Pink mowse.pngGodotDear god, fucking grow up 22:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
So now that that's been sorted out, what to do with this link? -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
It should go here as an example. along with anything we have on the police comments that initiated slutwallk. Sorry to cause such confusions. Pink mowse.pngGodotDear god, fucking grow up 22:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Blaming the victim or re-write[edit]

I'm very confused how this is not "blaming the victim". If this is distinct, perhaps someone who understands it better than I do, could rewrite it. Otherwise, I think it's worth just redirecting to BTV.Pink mowse.pngGodotDear god, fucking grow up 22:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Click your link to "Blaming the Victim". -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I rode the short bus to school. can you tell.  :-) But "blaming the victim" needs to be the primairy article, as it's what the concept is most often called. Pink mowse.pngGodotDear god, fucking grow up 22:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

So I'd like to add some stuff[edit]

Mainly how victim-blaming is related to Historian's fallacy (or hindsight bias?) and these two studies:
-Janoff-Bulman, R., Timko, C., Carli, L. (1985). Cognitive Biases in Blaming the Victim. Journal of experimental social psychology, 21(2), 161-177.
-Cognitive Reconstruction, Hindsight, and Reactions to Victims and Perpetrators
Also I've found a book (Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology) , and it goes into a good detail about victim-blaming. Who can I discuss this with? — Unsigned, by: Shadow Nirvana / talk / contribs

Best way is to add your stuff and see what/who chips in. Scream!! (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Looks like good content and high quality sources, I say go for it --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
If the vast bulk of Criticism (apparently using only Janoff-Bulman as a source) is your addition, please respond to the section below this one. Cross-posting to your page as well, as soon as I finish writing this sentence. (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section?[edit]

I don't understand the first few sentences of the criticism section. It appears to be defending blaming the victim? English isn't my native Language so sorry if this is my fault. (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not just you, and it's not a language barrier. Practically the whole section (all but the last two sentences) appears designed to mock victims who think that the perpetrator is solely at fault, and encourage victims to blame themselves. One of the more grotesque examples is the claim that if victims blame themselves by thinking their behavior caused it, that's healthy. If anyone has a rational defense (not "I'm just repeating what a source says", an actual defense) of why this section belongs to "Blaming the victim" as opposed to "In defense of blaming the victim", it needs to be brought forward immediately. (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Clarification: Can anyone offer a rational defense of why an argument that it's good and proper for victims to blame themselves is longer than the main entry? (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Condensed "Criticism" sharply so that the article goes back to being primarily about victim-blaming rather than why it's a good thing. Also renamed to "Apologia" to reflect that these arguments are defenses of victim-blaming, not criticism of it. (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
This was taken out. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)