"He's either right or wrong about what a victim should do in such a situation. That depends only on whether his strategy would actually be effective, not whether he's 'blaming the victims.'"
The blaming-the-victims concept has grown ridiculously beyond its proper place.
We need to stand up and not be victims of the fear of being accused of blaming the victims. It's one thing to be sympathetic to people who have been victimized and not to confront these individuals with our hindsight-assisted advice about what they could have done to avoid injury. It's quite another to stifle creative thinking about what we can do in emergencies that might arise in the future.
October 7, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
58 comments:
Absolutely right. We've gotten to a point that victimhood is such a coveted and sacred status that we can never question victims, never suppose that they might have done anything differently, or that anyone ever should do anything differently--victimhood is a status given to you by God, or fate, or Gaia or whatever. Someone broke into your car? Let's not even discuss whether the door was locked, you're a victim and no one can question that!
Whether what Carson said was idiotic or not should be judged by its own merits, not on this "how dare you suggest a victim could have done anything different" standard.
As the late great Mike Royko once asked, "what's wrong with blaming the victim?"
The reality is, the victim nearly always plays a key role in his or her victimization. We have no problem recognizing this obvious fact in property crime. But for some reason, when it is a crime of violence, we change our tune completely.
Ironically, this taboo against blaming the victim serves to deny people crucial information they need to keep themselves safe, increasing the chances that they will be victimized.
No-one believes Carson was blaming the victim. The accusation is just a dishonest way of smearing him because he's, you know, uppity.
Could Ben Carson be getting "blaming the victim" latitude/pass because he is (in the eyes of the left and their media) a victim himself?
They apply a different standard to Obama all the time.
Pookie Number 2 said...
No-one believes Carson was blaming the victim. The accusation is just a dishonest way of smearing him because he's, you know, uppity.
10/7/15, 11:25 AM
He's so uppity he's been nominated for "Coon of the year" according to our moral superiors..
Victims should never be questioned, Althouse. Never. Don't you know anything the bad, horrible, no good rape culture in this country?
Carson's notion is an interesting one, although human nature is normally in conflict with what he proposes. Trained soldiers might be able to act in concert like Carson proposes but most people in stressful life-or-death situations try to save themselves. Look at what happened in Mecca.
Only a collectivist would suggest that private citizens should want to sacrifice themselves to a group effort for the greater good.
Basic tenet, charge a gun, flee a knife.
Those three guys on the Brussels train didn't blame the victim. They turned the tables on that asshole.
Too bad the Army vet in Oregon didn't have a gun.
It's very hard to disagree with the JAC quote. I certainly can't.
We all live our lives that way. We teach defensive driving; we women buy our cans of Mace; we avoid areas that are thought to be dangerous; we place outside lighting around our homes.
That doesn't mean we blame people when they are hit on the road, or that we believe women who get assaulted were asking for it, or that we don't sympathize with the mugged pizza delivery person, or that we think the burglar that broke in was justified in doing so because our lights weren't bright enough. Banks have robbery drills and silent alarms and protocols not because they want to get robbed, but in order to mitigate the remaining risk.
How is Carson's response much different from the instructions we got from the Feds after 911? Before it was sit down and shut up and cooperate, but after we realized the attackers weren't necessarily at all motivated to remain alive, the right advice changed. Unfortunately, the latest attack was another of those media suicide things.
Why is JAC's thinking so rare in the media? That's the mystery!
Does anyone actually believe that we can remove all risks from life? It would be nice, but does anyone believe that we can do it?
Carson wants to "plant in people's minds what to do" in a mass shooting situation, and certain people are appalled.
I'll just point out that the natural response to a near ambush is to flee, hide, try to seek cover - and thereby let the ambush do what it was designed to do: Kill you and everyone with you.
It is for that reason that the Army trains its soldiers to turn and charge into it. Because your chances suck. It never was a fair fight; it was designed not to be. But only desperate aggressiveness will give you even the chance of survival, and if nothing else you might as well go down fighting.
They plant that in our minds, you see, because if we never thought about it in advance, never practiced, and then ran into an actual near ambush, too many of us might not do the one thing that could have saved anyone.
But yeah, that Carson's awful, wanting to blame the victims and thump his chest about how brave he'd be, right?
"Only a collectivist would suggest that private citizens should want to sacrifice themselves to a group effort for the greater good."
The left suggests that women pee on themselves to discourage rape. That would work about as well on an active shooter.
I just clicked through to the Mediaite article. A recent comment reads,
"So, instead of talking about sensible gun laws, a better option is to gang rush the shooter like a football team has their defense blitz a QB?
"Great plan! lol"
Well, I guess I have to take back my comment.
Oh - except France has entirely "sensible gun laws." If I were the unnamed Frenchman, Prof. Mogoolian, the three young Americans or the Brit IT guy, I would have found it entirely reassuring to know that the jihadi's AK and his pistol were illegal and quite hard to come by, unlike in silly gun-obsesses America.
Women who have graduated from "gun free" campuses have admitted to carrying guns anyway. Apparently they would rather be expelled for successfully defending themselves than be raped. Fortunately they had to do neither during their times in college.
Yes, I blame the victims.
"So, instead of talking about sensible gun laws, a better option is to gang rush the shooter like a football team has their defense blitz a QB?"
I like to ask "what sensible gun laws do you think would have stopped this?" Because unless you are in favor of literally having the police go door to door and rounding up all the guns in private hands, and banning the manufacture, sale and import of any other guns, nothing you propose would make a difference. No "gun show loophole" or "enhanced background checks" or "letting gun manufacturers be sued". You can defend those measures on their own merits, but these massacres exist because (a) someone is murderous enough to want to do them and (b) this country has a lot of guns in private hands, and a person who wants one will get one.
Jonathan Haidt has started studying and writing about the current shift toward a victim culture. It's interesting stuff, having to do with the reliance on third parties to settle disputes (an appropriate and civilizing thing on and of itself) combined with a generation of overprotected kids.
What I haven't see him elaborate (to be fair I my not be up to speed on what he's written on the topic) is the role played by the people in power to encourage weakness and dependency (eg the Democratic Party). He's an honest liber so if he hasn't gotten there yet I suspect he will.
"Blaming the victim" is insane. There are times when the victim, while tragically impacted, made some poor decisions.
Locally, we've had a bit of a flooding problem (a one damned week flood warning where I live in Columbia, SC). Saying that people who were advised to evacuate certain areas hours before a dam failed probably should've left isn't "blaming the victim". It sucks that we've had about 2 straight weeks of rain and 20 inches this past weekend. But it was a poor choice anyway.
I like to ask "what sensible gun laws do you think would have stopped this?" Because unless you are in favor of literally having the police go door to door and rounding up all the guns in private hands, and banning the manufacture, sale and import of any other guns, nothing you propose would make a difference.
Some Progs have decided to stop their lie and actually call for it. Just as they are moving away from abortion being "Safe, legal, and rare" to it being celebrated.
"the role played by the people in power to encourage weakness and dependency (eg the Democratic Party)"
I keep going back to this Richard Fernandez column, when this comes up. It is chilling.
The British Daily Mail has an article headed by a picture showing ISIS gunman Seifeddine Rezgui “with his AK47 – casually passing abandoned inflatables as a group of men keep their distance behind him”. Rezgui isn’t even holding his weapon at the ready. He knew the men only 10 yards behind him wouldn’t sprint the distance to tackle him.
He is walking with the confidence of a wolf among sheep.
One commenter wondered what Someone was doing while this ‘tragedy’ occurred. “How come there was an alarm raised, carrying that machine gun, it was obvious to the onlookers in the picture. Somebody could have prevented another tragedy in the name of this perverse and ancient religion.”
The column is titled "You are the Someone." Read it. It is powerful. And probably prophetic although we are Americans, at least some of us are.
Victim empowerment is big on the Left. "Don't blame the victim" is one of their war chants.
Most sane people, who don't look at every single aspect of life through the prism of politics, also agree that it's wrong to blame the victim. However, we see nothing wrong, depending on the circumstances, to evaluate whether the victim could have done something better.
Example: if you get mugged walking in downtown Oakland after Midnight, I would first blame the mugger, but I would also strongly suggest you exercise a little better judgment.
The "blaming the victim" phenomenon is a manifestation of our society dumbing down.
Or should I say, being dumbed down.
The passsengers on Flight 93 put an end to airliner highjackings.
Now, they did not survive, though the rest of the world benefits.
However, in a shooter situation such as at this college, survival odds for the shootees would indeed increase substantially if anyone charged the shooter while all that could threw books, pencils, and whatever else was handy at him to confuse him and throw him off balance.
That is what Carson was getting at.
IOW, that is a situation where, "Don't just stand there! Do something! Anything!" indeed is good advice.
tim maguire said...
Ironically, this taboo against blaming the victim serves to deny people crucial information they need to keep themselves safe, increasing the chances that they will be victimized.
And that feeds into the "Government is the solution!" faction. Government will keep you safe, and if it can't keep you safe it'll get you "Justice" and maybe compensation. And then it'll tax you on that compensation.
But you'll keep looking to Government. Like a toddler who falls down and then holds up his hands to be picked up and kissed better.
When I was in high school I was told stuff like "if you see what looks like trouble (ie. some guys dawdling in a dark alley) walk across the street. Be aware of your surroundings." I developed street smarts. By getting mugged a bunch of times when I was a kid. Now I am conscious of where I am, and who is around me. I can often tell the person who may be up to no good. Generally, rather than walking across the street I walk right by them so they know I'm not intimidated.
If I was mugged/robbed/assaulted, I wouldn't blame myself. But I would take an inventory of my actions to see if I might have contributed in some way to being viewed as someone who they would target.
if I was walking around at 2 in the morning, scantily clad and drunk and was a hot woman, I would not excuse a rapist. But I might tell myself "Boy was I stupid."
Hagar wrote:
The passsengers on Flight 93 put an end to airliner highjackings.
Now, they did not survive, though the rest of the world benefits.
However, in a shooter situation such as at this college, survival odds for the shootees would indeed increase substantially if anyone charged the shooter while all that could threw books, pencils, and whatever else was handy at him to confuse him and throw him off balance.
That is what Carson was getting at.
basically yeah. You don't line up and let him shoot you one by one Once its determined that that is his intention you better charge him. or do something. Otherwise you're dead. People tend to freeze like a deer in the headlights. Or even worse, submit to being killed. I have seen that reaction in myself from time to time, so I can't guarantee I'd muster the courage to charge him. But, sometimes that's what has to happen if you don't want to die.
If hes proven that his intent is to walk down a line and shoot people one by one, and you're on the line, unless some miracle happens before he gets to you, you will be shot. So do something about it. Its not going to be worse than you getting shot.
We recently had training in my company about an armed intruder situation. Basically, you have to evaluate the situation very quickly and decide whether to hide in place, make a run for it, or prepare to fight with whatever improvised weapons you have at your disposal. If you can make a break for the door, do it. If you can't run but can find a way to hide, do it. If it looks like you're going to have to fight, go for it with everything you have, preferably in numbers.
It's not wrong to blame the victim if the victim is in fact at fault. Obviously (I hope) this does not mean we should not sympathize with the victim, but it does mean we should consider what other similarly-situated people might do to avoid being victimized. And in doing so, we should consider the world as it is and not how we might wish it to be.
I remember discussing this in English class in high school after the school shooting in Jonesboro. The consensus was to stay in the room, but if the shooter came into the room, everyone was to throw things at him, including desks, and then tackle him to the ground.
Why is it called "blaming the victim" if you do something stupid and you get hurt? I once injured myself using a training weight as a hammer. Should I blame the weight or my own carelessness? Yet somehow when we get injured by a person, suddenly your foolishness, carelessness or stupidity cannot be mentioned. Chrissie Hynde - thanks to Ann - admitted acting stupidly and getting raped for it.
Here's what she said: "Let me assure you that technically speaking, however you want to look at it, this was all my doing, and I take full responsibility."
Yeah, that just sounds like common sense to me. You know, no one dragged me into the park in the middle of the night with a gun at my head and forced me to do anything. I went off with these guys of my own volition and, you know, I shouldn't have. I mean, I was stupid to do that, but I did it, so."
That's what a grownup says.
Progressives want victims. They want poverty, division, and hatred. When your goal is government power over the people it is better to have them divided against each other.
We need to stop treating them like good people. They are not good people.
I remember discussing this in English class in high school after the school shooting in Jonesboro. The consensus was to stay in the room, but if the shooter came into the room, everyone was to throw things at him, including desks, and then tackle him to the ground.
My wife HATES these hypotheticals, but I have told her, in that situation, I'd take my chance. If I'm going to die, I want it to be by my choice, not the whim of a lunatic.
Carson is just stating the obvious. That kind of thing drives progressives crazy.
Other examples include...there is no war on women, the war on poverty was an abject failure because it created a culture of dependency, weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, Bush didn't lie.
Inadvertently, the media may be preparing the next set of prospective victims to act in their own defense. In the airplane hijacking situation pre 9/11 the assumption was that the hijackers wanted to get the pilot to fly to Havana (or wherever) and if no one interfered with that objective, everyone would come out OK. The passengers on the 4th plane on 9/11 realized that this assumption was wrong. We now know that these shooters want to kill, not just make a point. In Oregon, at least one brave (but unarmed) man confronted the gunman and tried to stop him. People need to realize that if you're going to die, die as you attack the gunman. I don't support Carson for President right now, but he'd be great as head of Homeland Security.
Forget "gun free zones". Learn how to use a gun and arm yourself.
It must be exhausting being part of the Outrage Machine.
Isn't he basically advocating for the action of the military personnel overseas on the train? Question: are those young men not heroes?
Carson was expressing a Flight 93 American refusal to surrender for a non existent chance to live forever.
He is a difficult man for the Liberal Narrative that celebrates surrender as leading from the grave.
Bibi understands where the "Never again" slogan came from. Attacking and killing your executioners turned out to have been the only rational lifestyle, as European Jew remnants did some intense Monday morning quarterbacking in 1945, one from a family and one from a city being all that was left and trying to escape the British Empire's blockade around Israel to keep them out.
Carson may be right to say that fathers (or both fathers and mothers) should be more involved in their children's lives.
Carson may be right that Americans should have some idea what to do if a spree shooter or terrorist pops up.
BUT Carson is a candidate for President. And there is absolutely nothing that the Executive Branch of our Federal Government can do about either of those things.
Saying "Parents should get more involved" and "Americans should know what to do" is just a clever way of throwing up his hands and saying that, as President, he can't and won't do anything about the problem.
And that seems to be the attitude of a lot of conservatives: Either ignore the problem or throw up their hands and say that there's nothing that the government can do about it.
"The consensus was to stay in the room, but if the shooter came into the room, everyone was to throw things at him, including desks, and then tackle him to the ground."
The university I worked at until this last Spring had a campus wide drill for a possible shooter on campus. This was pretty much exactly what the campus safety and local police recommended.
Ah, I just found the email:
As you learned in the shooter video below, RUN - HIDE- FIGHT is the plan. (Please take 5 min to watch it. Link is below.)
In the classroom and offices, please turn off the lights, lock the door, silence your phones, and hide from plain sight.
This would be a good time to tell your students about:
RUN - if possible, evacuate the building; don't let others slow you
down; take them with you.
HIDE - turn off lights; lock door; block door with something; silence
phones; call 911; be quiet
FIGHT - incapacitate the shooter any way you can; improvise
weapons; be physically aggressive
sinz52 said...
Carson may be right to say that fathers . . .
Congratulations, sinz52. That may be the most idiotic, un-reasoned post I have read on this blog , in a very long time - and there is daily competition.
I haven't been a student for centuries but I saw a video recently advising students to do precisely what Dr Carson recommends.
A suggestion: call a gunman who has taken over a classroom a "hijacker." It might open the eyes of some idiots.
e's nothing that the government can do about it.
Sinz52, now that you know the truth, you can devise solutions with a hope of efficacy. But first, the scales had to fall from your eyes. Congratulations!
Or, as Sun Tzu said: "When on deadly ground, fight!"
"The blaming-the-victims concept has grown ridiculously beyond its proper place."
As has America, according to those who blamed her first so many times.
Obama is getting America's arc toward a more historically fair and reasonable destination, through victory shaming.
Although a Harvard Law man won't say it, they know all about successful methods of embracing suck.
"...absolutely nothing that the Executive Branch of our Federal Government can do about either of those things."
Yes, and Congress has the power of the purse, because it's clearly written in the constitution.
And candidates for POTUS never communicate indirectly with their SUPER PACS, because that is the law.
And SCOTUS merely calls balls and strikes, never foul penumbras out of the blue.
Ben Carson must be dangerous. These are disparate attempts at making him look stupid. He's not.
But then leftist don't believe in individualism. The basis of the whole 2cnd amendment assault is a core belief that the govt and its agents are the only ones that can offer protection. In the leftist world, you can't hang out a shingle and offer any service or product without the govt approved training and recognition. It stands to reason that protection is a service that by statute must be done by the govt. A simple common law tenet is that the people only grant power to the govt that the people already poses. Its the people that.....allow...... the govt agents the power to carry weapons. The people have always had the power to carry weapons, always. That some people are not only willing to cede their power to carry weapons, they are willing to cede the power of granting the power. The second amendment is very specific, and the founders understood that eventually circumstances would arise where a simple majority would be willing to trade away rights for promises of safety. That's why the constitution can change if 2/3 of the people approve. That's why some rights were enumerated. those things that are not spelled out are left........to the people to decide. No where does the constitution lay out a system to where SCOTUS decides things, like what the definition of marriage is. Or when life would be protected. Not in the constitution. Means SCOTUS does not have jurisdiction.
I think "Don't die on your knees" is a good motto to live by.
if I was walking around at 2 in the morning, scantily clad and drunk and was a hot woman, I would not excuse a rapist. But I might tell myself "Boy was I stupid."
----------------
If you lived.
Shh. Some of them don't.
Not their fault, necessarily. They were just brought up for a better, forgotten world.
The reason we don't speak honestly though, is so many don't survive, or are permanently victimized, it seems better in some cultures to keep quiet than to ... rub it in.
Shh.
No where does the constitution lay out a system to where SCOTUS decides things, like what the definition of marriage is. Or when life would be protected. Not in the constitution. Means SCOTUS does not have jurisdiction.
--------------------
Dude, it is in the Constitution, under the equal protection of the law for all citizens part... Look hard.
Life is protected when the men who make the lives decide they are worth protecting, and can convince the women likewise. If the children are dying, you're not trying (hard enough). Best not to make em, I say...
Btw, SCOTUS seems to have a lot of jurisdiction in your head. You are allowed to disagree, of course. No abortion, for you and yours. No gay marriages, either. You can define marriage however you like, to the point of rejecting divorce, or interracial couplings too, for you and yours.
Heck, you can still even consider illegitimate children to be just that, even if the law no longer recognizes bastardry... Individually, you are allowed to shape your world, with your beliefs. Many religious people do. Look at the Mennonites, as a community, down to your local individual non-conformist.
If you don't like where society is going, turn off. Many do. Create your own world, and live there. No divorce. No abortions. No wars. No taxes. No health insurance. No Social Security. No work. No food. etc. etc. Somewhere, you will find the balance.
SCOT
" Either ignore the problem or throw up their hands and say that there's nothing that the government can do about it."
Well, you could charge the shooter like those young guys did on the Brussels train but I know that is against your principles.
Crazy got loose.
If you're in a closed classroom sized room with an active shooter, and no real way to flee, everyone in the room must immediately attack with a mind-bending level of violence and savagery that will shock and surprise and overwhelm the attacker. This is elementary. Carson is doing nothing more than stating the obvious.
It's amazing how consistently stupid libtards are.
When in doubt, attack. If the difference between fleeing, hiding or attacking is so slight or unknowable that it requires thought, attack.
The danger is that there might be some other chinstroking libtard douchebag who thinks he's too good for violence when violence has already come looking for him.
Great comments here Ann and all. We should all think about how we might react in a classroom should this happen on our turf. And Carson - of course - is right. Have a plan in your mind ahead of time.
We recently had a terrible crime in Madison - a woman was brutally assaulted on a downtown bike path - the police call it an "attempted murder" it was so horrible.
Days after - the community rallied on a rainy night to protest rape and violence -which was nice but frankly screamed "Stop Making Us Victims" to the scumbag predators who prowl. I thought the protest was dumb - if they really wanted to change things, they would have brought to their protest garden sheers to the path to clear brush and posted garden oil torches along the entire path. Or they would have immediately organized a Marquette Neighborhood Bike Path Watch running evenings. Lots of others ways to get their message across besides marching against violence. Most importantly - someone could have mentioned what we all thought - what on earth are you doing alone at that time of night walking on an isolated bike path in downtown Madison?
But how many of us told our sons and daughters this "Do not find yourself walking alone on an isolated bike at at 12:30 AM in downtown Madison without a way to defend yourself". It is simply not safe to be a single female at this hour of night on that bike path in this town at that time. Situational awareness is so important.
There are many truths in life that offset the "We are victims" mindset. Self Defense. Awareness of time and place. Understanding of circumstances (as in - if you are a female at a drinking situation who separates from friends and leaves with a stranger when you have one too many, you are in serious danger).....so many more truths about the way we teach each other to stop being victims.
We need to teach these things as parents, educators and citizens and I think we are doing a very good job of it. My Irish Ma always told her ten kids - "Nothing good ever happens after Midnight" and "Don't make a choice tonight that can change your life forever".
Correction to my post: I think we are NOT doing a very good job these days in teaching our kids and each other to learn how to DEFEND ourselves.
BTW - City of Madison yesterday announced a plan to clear the bike path of brush and install better lighting......weeks later and we'll just have to see when it actually happens.
You know - government solutions.
Blogger JPS said...
Carson wants to "plant in people's minds what to do" in a mass shooting situation, and certain people are appalled.
I'll just point out that the natural response to a near ambush is to flee, hide, try to seek cover - and thereby let the ambush do what it was designed to do: Kill you and everyone with you.
It is for that reason that the Army trains its soldiers to turn and charge into it. Because your chances suck. It never was a fair fight; it was designed not to be. But only desperate aggressiveness will give you even the chance of survival, and if nothing else you might as well go down fighting.
Reminds me of something a Vietnam vet ROTC instructor once told us. "In a firefight, if you run away you WILL die. Face the firefight and return fire. Fire aeverything you got. You just might live." First Sgt Eddie McHughe. The hashmarks on his sleeve looked like a pedestrian crossing,
I digress.
PianoLessons said... [hush][hide comment]
Days after - the community rallied on a rainy night to protest rape and violence -which was nice but frankly screamed "Stop Making Us Victims" to the scumbag predators who prowl. I thought the protest was dumb - if they really wanted to change things, they would have brought to their protest garden sheers to the path to clear brush and posted garden oil torches along the entire path. Or they would have immediately organized a Marquette Neighborhood Bike Path Watch running evenings. Lots of others ways to get their message across besides marching against violence. Most importantly - someone could have mentioned what we all thought - what on earth are you doing alone at that time of night walking on an isolated bike path in downtown Madison?
10/8/15, 5:03 AM
Sure, they could have done some of the things you mention (clearing the path, installing lights, a watch, etc.) but throwing a march and "raising awareness" is so much more "fulfilling" and not nearly as much work so which option do you think this generation of "participation trophies" is going to select? This way they get to feel like they have "made a difference" without anything close to the amount of sweat that actually doing something constructive would require.
What would happen if you bombed one of these rallies? Would they hold a "Don't Bomb Rallies!" rally? Who would come?
And if you bombed that? Would they hold a "Don't Bomb "Don't Bomb Rallies!" Rallies" rally?
This is a good point. We should all be encouraged to consider how we would respond in the event of a mass shooting incident. While it is unlikely that most people will ever be subjected to such a horrific event, as we live in a country where these event occur on average once every two weeks, it is sensible that we all take part in mass-shooting drills much like fire-drills or tornado drills. Of course there are steps that policy-makers could do so that such an absurdity is not necessary, but until those steps are taken we should all consider what we'd do in a mass-shooting incident.
It could be part of Civil Defense training if the Soviets hadn't kidded us out of that.
Post a Comment