This and That
Chimpkin said:
Through my dad's actions I found that loving people gave them the power to destroy me.
That is, you know, a Pentagon definition of trust:
Something is "trusted" if it can hurt you.
In the sense of a computer on a network, this makes sense. In human relationships, though, while there is an abstract accuracy about the notion, it doesn't translate well to function.
• • •
Wynn said:
There is indeed a stream of pop-psychology that makes claims such as
"Whatever happens to you, is your fault, you are responsible for eveything that happens to you."
"Whoever you meet, whatever they do to you: it is because you wanted them to do that to you."
"You are what you attract."
and the like.
But nobody here, nor the law, have ever advocated this.
So what
are you advocating?
Let us consider your documented use of the word "complicit". Was this a mistake on your part?
Very well. By the logic of mitigation that seems so close to the controversy in this thread, the new asshole you're being chewed is what you actually wanted.
I mean, why would you leave yourself open to that criticism? You know, make yourself a target?
Or maybe we could go with something a little more reasonable. Oh, right:
Wynn said:
I would think the best way to keep oneself safe is to think and act as harmless as possible.
So much for reasonability, eh?
You do realize, of course, that the appearance of harmlessness is also a targeting criterion for many criminal offenders?
People can feel provoked by anything. Often, we cannot do much about that.
The issue is whether a person's intention was to provoke. It is from this that feelings of guilt arise later on.
That's a very convenient way of looking at it for, say, a rapist.
A rape survivor, however, often feels guilt for being so stupid as to have trusted people in the world. Maybe she should have gone to the Halloween party as a "harmless" Muslim woman in an abaya instead of making herself a target by having fun dressing up as Barbara Eden from
I Dream of Genie.
Most people think crime won't happen to them. People were amazed in 1994 when my 1979 Toyota Celica was stolen. I wasn't. The thing is very easy to break into. People were amazed when my 1990 Toyota Camry was stolen in 2006. Why? It was an old car that is very easy to break into.
But that's a car. Protecting it against theft requires about seven seconds worth of effort. No, really. Okay, ten to fourteen. Setting the steering lock takes five to seven seconds. Removing it takes five to seven seconds.
But living in a neighborhood? Knowing the people one knows? Yeah, sure, it seems easy enough to say one should "think and act as harmless as possible". But what, practically, does that mean? What are the practical limits of this form of crime prevention? How far must a person go to not be "complicit" in willful sexual violence committed against them?
This is the challenge you're facing, and the reason why some refuse to let up on you. You're promoting an abstract assertion of wisdom without any properly defined dimensions. It sounds nice to say, but the reality is that there are so many rapes justified by so many signs, hints, or acts of "complicity", that there is no reasonable way to to protect against them all. Even locking oneself in the house and never going out doesn't work.
However, the practical effect of potential rape targets taking your mitigation advice so as not to be "complicit" in what might happen to them is such that you are trying to chase women out of social interaction, erase them from the presence of males.
And maybe you don't intend to be so accidentally
complicit in that sort of ludicrous misogyny, but it is the practical outcome of the argument you're very poorly advocating.
One of the first things you need to do if you intend to be an armchair psychologist—
But there may be some aspects of victimhood that may seem or be appealing.
The person desiring those aspects is probably not aware they are doing so.
For example, a person may have a strong desire to surrender to another person. By surrender is meant here 'seeking love, guidance, intimacy.' Most people have this desire.
But a person might not be aware of this and might go about this very unwisely.
If a person has a poor sense of personal boundaries, they may end up with all kinds of people.
A strong desire for surrender (for love, guidance, intimacy) coupled with poor boundaries can have unintended but disastrous consequences.
—is to develop
at least a rudimentary understanding of psychology, which includes what so many would-be shrinkers overlook—
the implications of psychology on historical interpretation.
The second thing you need to do is understand the dimensions of your armchair.
As you flit from notion to notion, the common connection is mitigation of perpetrators' guilt. Look at that latest from
#148. You have moved all the way from "to find out what people can do to prevent becoming victims of crime in the future" to what a potential crime victim "might not be aware of". Psychologically speaking, there is a functionally relevant difference between those two considerations. In the vulgar, there is a disconnect in your evolving outlook.
The only common theme, in the end, is mitigation of guilt.
And that is why you're meeting such a ferocious response.