|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52648
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JerryMagicKobe wrote: | It's not just what SAS said. It's that his comments were made while discussing a specific event: the suspension of a professional football player who had plenty of other options but chose to resort to physical violence against someone he voluntarily chose to be in a realtionship with. Within the context of the circumstances of that single event there is no doubt that any mention of 'provocation' is inappropriate.
If SAS wants to do a PSA advising women to choose one of the hundreds of millions of men in America who would NOT beat them no matter how they were 'provoked' or educate people about abusive relationships and avoiding conforntation, he could find a more neutral starting point than the backdrop of Ray Rice dragging his unconscious wife from a casino elevator. |
It's not just about the specifics of the context of the comment. Even with SAS's clarification, his point is weak and incorrect. Even if a woman makes bad choices in the men she hangs out with, those bad choices don't make her complicit in her being beaten. It's like saying that if you run an all night market in a high-crime area you are at fault if you get shot during a robbery. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52648
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | ChefLinda wrote: | Jodeke, with all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about. You are obviously from a generation that was taught to think a certain way about this issue and no amount of facts will change your mind. Right now all you are doing is playing a semantic word game.
There is nothing to interpret. When you or Stephen A say "Don't do anything to provoke men into beating you" it implies that if a woman just didn't do anything to provoke a man, he wouldn't beat her. This is placing the cause of the beating on the woman's actions rather than on the man who apparently can choose to beat her or not depending on if her behavior "pleases" him or "annoys" him. Ugh.
Therefore this line of reasoning leads to a logical conclusion that Stephen A is "blaming the victim" whether those words were uttered or not, or intended or not.
Any person is capable of provoking another person's anger. But how the other person responds to their own anger is completely up to them.
People with anger issues will often use ANY reason to blow their top and lose it. It is impossible for the the people related to them to "just say the right thing" or "avoid saying the wrong thing" "or just stay out of their way" or "just don't provoke them." People with anger issues are going to blow eventually. It's up to them to get help and figure out another way to deal with their anger rather than resorting to physical violence.
Therefore when a "man" (in this case Stephen A) with no particular expertise in the psychology of violence offers up his just-don't-provoke-your-man advice, it seems uniformed and shallow at best, and offensive and dangerous at worst. |
Frankly, this is not how I interpreted the comments by SAS. And I think there is a lot of misinterpretation going on with respect to these comments.
The point is, you shouldn't provoke someone, anyone. You have the legal right to however, but just because you have the legal right (or even philosophical right) to do something, doesn't mean someone else isn't going to cross the line in retaliation.
If someone cuts me off and I pull up next to them and tell them "Hey! You cut me off back there man, I want an apology, now!" I should be (and am legally) allowed to say that and should be able to without retaliation. But the reality is, when I choose to do that, I run the risk that I'm saying that to some psycho who has a gun. So that's why I don't. If I do say something and the guy shoots me, we'd be having the same discussion about how the onus is on the guy to redirect his anger but that doesn't pull the bullet out of my arm.
People like to pretend that because they are legally or even morally allowed to do things (say mean things, wear something skimpy, go to bars/clubs, whatever) that then, there will be no repercussions to that behavior. And philosophically, there shouldn't be.
But the point isn't to point the finger and place the blame on the victim or the perpetrator. The comments by SAS aren't directly or indirectly placing the cause of the beating on the woman's actions. The comments are essentially saying hey, be more aware of your surroundings. Be more aware of what you're saying, what you do, who you're with, where you are and how those things can play a role, however slight, in negative consequences regardless of whatever it is right or wrong. |
Another inane attempt to place the burden on the victim.
Of course people should try to be aware of their surroundings and situations. But this notion that if they don't, the consequences are their own doing is ridiculous. |
It's not an attempt to place the burden on the victim. That's just your interpretation of it. Which is a giant leap IMO but it's definitely more fun to be brash online and never accept a middle or reasonable ground.
All he said was don't pour gasoline on a fire to the best of your ability. And that sometimes, fires will occur naturally, but if you want to avoid getting burned, avoid pouring gasoline on a fire. Seems like sound advice.
If you want to prove that you can add accelerant to a fire without getting burned, then pour away. |
A horrible anaolgy. You are comparing an event involving basic physics to the interactions between two people that result in a crime. Talk about a giant leap. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52648
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | This is something you started. |
I didn't start anything. You put words in my mouth and when I pointed out that you were incorrect, rather than acknowledge your error and actually read the thread you are participating in you got defensive and challenged me to show you. It doesn't work that way. |
You could have just not pointed out that he was incorrect. |
Actually, that's what I did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67574
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | ronnyjeremy wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | ronnyjeremy wrote: | | He's leaving his radio show based in NY, not first take. |
So he'll still be on First Take with Skip Bayless? |
yes |
LINK
That doesn't make sense, he ranted on FirstTake. To be honest I don't think he said anything out of bounds. |
Easy thing for a guy to say. |
Like I said, it's something you started. This started the debate. Of course you, master spinner, will find a way to refute your own words.
I'm still waiting.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Last edited by jodeke on Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:47 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | ChefLinda wrote: | Jodeke, with all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about. You are obviously from a generation that was taught to think a certain way about this issue and no amount of facts will change your mind. Right now all you are doing is playing a semantic word game.
There is nothing to interpret. When you or Stephen A say "Don't do anything to provoke men into beating you" it implies that if a woman just didn't do anything to provoke a man, he wouldn't beat her. This is placing the cause of the beating on the woman's actions rather than on the man who apparently can choose to beat her or not depending on if her behavior "pleases" him or "annoys" him. Ugh.
Therefore this line of reasoning leads to a logical conclusion that Stephen A is "blaming the victim" whether those words were uttered or not, or intended or not.
Any person is capable of provoking another person's anger. But how the other person responds to their own anger is completely up to them.
People with anger issues will often use ANY reason to blow their top and lose it. It is impossible for the the people related to them to "just say the right thing" or "avoid saying the wrong thing" "or just stay out of their way" or "just don't provoke them." People with anger issues are going to blow eventually. It's up to them to get help and figure out another way to deal with their anger rather than resorting to physical violence.
Therefore when a "man" (in this case Stephen A) with no particular expertise in the psychology of violence offers up his just-don't-provoke-your-man advice, it seems uniformed and shallow at best, and offensive and dangerous at worst. |
Frankly, this is not how I interpreted the comments by SAS. And I think there is a lot of misinterpretation going on with respect to these comments.
The point is, you shouldn't provoke someone, anyone. You have the legal right to however, but just because you have the legal right (or even philosophical right) to do something, doesn't mean someone else isn't going to cross the line in retaliation.
If someone cuts me off and I pull up next to them and tell them "Hey! You cut me off back there man, I want an apology, now!" I should be (and am legally) allowed to say that and should be able to without retaliation. But the reality is, when I choose to do that, I run the risk that I'm saying that to some psycho who has a gun. So that's why I don't. If I do say something and the guy shoots me, we'd be having the same discussion about how the onus is on the guy to redirect his anger but that doesn't pull the bullet out of my arm.
People like to pretend that because they are legally or even morally allowed to do things (say mean things, wear something skimpy, go to bars/clubs, whatever) that then, there will be no repercussions to that behavior. And philosophically, there shouldn't be.
But the point isn't to point the finger and place the blame on the victim or the perpetrator. The comments by SAS aren't directly or indirectly placing the cause of the beating on the woman's actions. The comments are essentially saying hey, be more aware of your surroundings. Be more aware of what you're saying, what you do, who you're with, where you are and how those things can play a role, however slight, in negative consequences regardless of whatever it is right or wrong. |
Another inane attempt to place the burden on the victim.
Of course people should try to be aware of their surroundings and situations. But this notion that if they don't, the consequences are their own doing is ridiculous. |
It's not an attempt to place the burden on the victim. That's just your interpretation of it. Which is a giant leap IMO but it's definitely more fun to be brash online and never accept a middle or reasonable ground.
All he said was don't pour gasoline on a fire to the best of your ability. And that sometimes, fires will occur naturally, but if you want to avoid getting burned, avoid pouring gasoline on a fire. Seems like sound advice.
If you want to prove that you can add accelerant to a fire without getting burned, then pour away. |
A horrible anaolgy. You are comparing an event involving basic physics to the interactions between two people that result in a crime. Talk about a giant leap. |
Leap??? There's no leaping there. It's just an analogy.
Do you not understand the point of the analogy? If it wasn't obvious, the example I gave is completely beside the point -- try to understand the meaning behind the example and construct your own better fitting analogy if that can help you more.
Frankly, this might explain some of the confusion people have had with the point SAS was trying to arrive at. There is a point that wasn't immediately obvious because he didn't spell it out in basic terms. It's nice that he did later, but it's unfortunate he felt the need to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | This is something you started. |
I didn't start anything. You put words in my mouth and when I pointed out that you were incorrect, rather than acknowledge your error and actually read the thread you are participating in you got defensive and challenged me to show you. It doesn't work that way. |
You could have just not pointed out that he was incorrect. |
Actually, that's what I did. |
You didn't point out that he was incorrect? Or you did? You said you did, and then you said you didn't.
If your goal is to avoid a heated discussion, just post in a different thread or something. You shouldn't have to do that of course, but, you COULD do that IF your goal was to avoid a heated discussion. (Which is why some folks avoid OT altogether FWIW).
See how that works? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67574
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | This is something you started. |
I didn't start anything. You put words in my mouth and when I pointed out that you were incorrect, rather than acknowledge your error and actually read the thread you are participating in you got defensive and challenged me to show you. It doesn't work that way. |
You could have just not pointed out that he was incorrect. |
Actually, that's what I did. |
And that caused continuation of what sparked the debate, I don't think I'm incorrect. I don't think there was anything wrong with what SAS said. I see a couple of posters who agree with me. Are they incorrect also?
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Last edited by jodeke on Mon Jul 28, 2014 1:40 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | This is something you started. |
I didn't start anything. You put words in my mouth and when I pointed out that you were incorrect, rather than acknowledge your error and actually read the thread you are participating in you got defensive and challenged me to show you. It doesn't work that way. |
You could have just not pointed out that he was incorrect. |
Actually, that's what I did. |
And that caused continuation of what sparked the debate, I don't think I'm wrong. I don't think there was anything wrong with what SAS said. I see a couple of posters who agree with me. Are they wrong also? |
If you guys were having this discussion in person, and jodeke and DMR were arguing back and forth and then jodeke just smacked DMR in the face and knocked him out cold...
... it could have been avoided had DMR just turned around and walked (or ran) away before any arguing could continue. Should we have to? No. But that's what SAS was getting at. That you want to try to do everything possible to avoid altercations of any kind. Continuing to argue in a heated discussion is not doing everything possible to avoid altercation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67574
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | This is something you started. |
I didn't start anything. You put words in my mouth and when I pointed out that you were incorrect, rather than acknowledge your error and actually read the thread you are participating in you got defensive and challenged me to show you. It doesn't work that way. |
You could have just not pointed out that he was incorrect. |
Actually, that's what I did. |
And that caused continuation of what sparked the debate, I don't think I'm wrong. I don't think there was anything wrong with what SAS said. I see a couple of posters who agree with me. Are they wrong also? |
If you guys were having this discussion in person, and jodeke and DMR were arguing back and forth and then jodeke just smacked DMR in the face and knocked him out cold...
... it could have been avoided had DMR just turned around and walked (or ran) away before any arguing could continue. Should we have to? No. But that's what SAS was getting at. That you want to try to do everything possible to avoid altercations of any kind. Continuing to argue in a heated discussion is not doing everything possible to avoid altercation. |
Don't get the thread locked.  Chuckle. I'm still waiting.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52648
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | ronnyjeremy wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | ronnyjeremy wrote: | | He's leaving his radio show based in NY, not first take. |
So he'll still be on First Take with Skip Bayless? |
yes |
LINK
That doesn't make sense, he ranted on FirstTake. To be honest I don't think he said anything out of bounds. |
Easy thing for a guy to say. |
Like I said, it's something you started. This started the debate. Of course you, master spinner, will find a way to refute your own words. |
Fair enough. It doesn't justify your actions after that (putting words in my mouth and pretending I hadn't already refuted your point in the thread)
. It was a simple and reasonable statement that as a man, your position to relate to being a victim of female abuse is stunted - as would mine be.
| Quote: | | I'm still waiting. |
Again, not sure what you are waiting for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerSanity
Moderator
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 33474
Location: Long Beach, California
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As someone with a Masters' degree in clinical psychology (and an extensive background in the social sciences, including experience dealing directly with victims of domestic violence), I can say that the science of victomology should be heeded and taken into consideration. However, my advocacy of victimology in no way makes it right or appropriate to discuss it when speaking to or about a specific victim of domestic violence, or when talking about how a specific instance of domestic violence could have been avoided. As JMK said, it is the timing and the context of the discussion which is most important.
To say that people should be careful of the choices they make and where those choices, even if seemingly innocent or innocuous, may lead is relatively common sense. In fact, it is such a common sense point that parents, in general, ingrain (or should ingrain) such warnings into the heads of their children well before they will ever make any potentially dangerous decisions as teenagers or adults. Therefore, the real issue in this thread, and why some posters are revealing themselves to a certain degree, is that a problem arises when one discusses victomology directly to a victim after-the-fact or directly in response to a specific event (such as sexual assault or domestic violence) right after the event concluded. In any pragmatic sense, there is no need to bring up what that victim should have or could have done differently in that specific moment because doing so tends to imply that, in some way, the victim should take some blame or accountability. Otherwise, why bring it up at that moment at all?
It is obvious that one shouldn't walk down a deserted alley in a bad part of town at 2AM or else risk becoming a victim of a crime. However, to bring that point up to someone who was just mugged is not only insensitive, but, implies, in some way that you believe that person should take some accountability for being mugged. If your first thought is to, in any way, tell the victim how they should have behaved rather than comforting the victim and telling them it wasn't their fault, that says something about you. Accordingly, I can understand how those who fail to see this point probably have questionable backgrounds or motives.
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service
Twitter: @DeleteThisPost |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52648
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | ChefLinda wrote: | Jodeke, with all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about. You are obviously from a generation that was taught to think a certain way about this issue and no amount of facts will change your mind. Right now all you are doing is playing a semantic word game.
There is nothing to interpret. When you or Stephen A say "Don't do anything to provoke men into beating you" it implies that if a woman just didn't do anything to provoke a man, he wouldn't beat her. This is placing the cause of the beating on the woman's actions rather than on the man who apparently can choose to beat her or not depending on if her behavior "pleases" him or "annoys" him. Ugh.
Therefore this line of reasoning leads to a logical conclusion that Stephen A is "blaming the victim" whether those words were uttered or not, or intended or not.
Any person is capable of provoking another person's anger. But how the other person responds to their own anger is completely up to them.
People with anger issues will often use ANY reason to blow their top and lose it. It is impossible for the the people related to them to "just say the right thing" or "avoid saying the wrong thing" "or just stay out of their way" or "just don't provoke them." People with anger issues are going to blow eventually. It's up to them to get help and figure out another way to deal with their anger rather than resorting to physical violence.
Therefore when a "man" (in this case Stephen A) with no particular expertise in the psychology of violence offers up his just-don't-provoke-your-man advice, it seems uniformed and shallow at best, and offensive and dangerous at worst. |
Frankly, this is not how I interpreted the comments by SAS. And I think there is a lot of misinterpretation going on with respect to these comments.
The point is, you shouldn't provoke someone, anyone. You have the legal right to however, but just because you have the legal right (or even philosophical right) to do something, doesn't mean someone else isn't going to cross the line in retaliation.
If someone cuts me off and I pull up next to them and tell them "Hey! You cut me off back there man, I want an apology, now!" I should be (and am legally) allowed to say that and should be able to without retaliation. But the reality is, when I choose to do that, I run the risk that I'm saying that to some psycho who has a gun. So that's why I don't. If I do say something and the guy shoots me, we'd be having the same discussion about how the onus is on the guy to redirect his anger but that doesn't pull the bullet out of my arm.
People like to pretend that because they are legally or even morally allowed to do things (say mean things, wear something skimpy, go to bars/clubs, whatever) that then, there will be no repercussions to that behavior. And philosophically, there shouldn't be.
But the point isn't to point the finger and place the blame on the victim or the perpetrator. The comments by SAS aren't directly or indirectly placing the cause of the beating on the woman's actions. The comments are essentially saying hey, be more aware of your surroundings. Be more aware of what you're saying, what you do, who you're with, where you are and how those things can play a role, however slight, in negative consequences regardless of whatever it is right or wrong. |
Another inane attempt to place the burden on the victim.
Of course people should try to be aware of their surroundings and situations. But this notion that if they don't, the consequences are their own doing is ridiculous. |
It's not an attempt to place the burden on the victim. That's just your interpretation of it. Which is a giant leap IMO but it's definitely more fun to be brash online and never accept a middle or reasonable ground.
All he said was don't pour gasoline on a fire to the best of your ability. And that sometimes, fires will occur naturally, but if you want to avoid getting burned, avoid pouring gasoline on a fire. Seems like sound advice.
If you want to prove that you can add accelerant to a fire without getting burned, then pour away. |
A horrible anaolgy. You are comparing an event involving basic physics to the interactions between two people that result in a crime. Talk about a giant leap. |
Leap??? There's no leaping there. It's just an analogy. |
And a horribly flawed one for the obvious reasons I outlined. To make it simpler for you. The fire doesn't have the ability to choose to ignite or not ignite the accelerant.
| Quote: | | Do you not understand the point of the analogy? |
I understand that its point is flawed.
You miss the point of analogies in general. For an analogy to be applicable it has to have a reasonable correlation to the thing it is being compared to. Just throwing out something that sounds vaguely like the matter at doesn't make it an apt analogy.
| Quote: | | If it wasn't obvious, the example I gave is completely beside the point - |
That doesn't even make sense. For an analogy to be one, it can't be besides the point.
| Quote: | | try to understand the meaning behind the example and construct your own better fitting analogy if that can help you more. |
I don't need help in that regard. The fact that the analogy is flawed doesn't mean that I am failing to understand anything.
| Quote: | | Frankly, this might explain some of the confusion people have had with the point SAS was trying to arrive at. There is a point that wasn't immediately obvious because he didn't spell it out in basic terms. It's nice that he did later, but it's unfortunate he felt the need to. |
The only confusion is amongst those who feel that avoiding potentially dangerous situations where a crime a of violence may occur mean is the responsibility of the victim, and if they fail to meet that responsibility they bare some blame in the violence.
Last edited by DaMuleRules on Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:18 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52648
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | This is something you started. |
I didn't start anything. You put words in my mouth and when I pointed out that you were incorrect, rather than acknowledge your error and actually read the thread you are participating in you got defensive and challenged me to show you. It doesn't work that way. |
You could have just not pointed out that he was incorrect. |
Actually, that's what I did. |
And that caused continuation of what sparked the debate, I don't think I'm incorrect. I don't think there was anything wrong with what SAS said. I see a couple of posters who agree with me. Are they incorrect also? |
Being correct is not a function of popular vote. And I am sure you are smart enough to realize that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52648
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | This is something you started. |
I didn't start anything. You put words in my mouth and when I pointed out that you were incorrect, rather than acknowledge your error and actually read the thread you are participating in you got defensive and challenged me to show you. It doesn't work that way. |
You could have just not pointed out that he was incorrect. |
Actually, that's what I did. |
You didn't point out that he was incorrect? Or you did? You said you did, and then you said you didn't. |
I think we are talking about two different things.
I am referring to jodeke's statement that something I said indicates I believe hitting women is OK, despite the fact that I had previously stated otherwise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shansen008
Star Player
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 3568
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LakerSanity wrote: | As someone with a Masters' degree in clinical psychology (and an extensive background in the social sciences, including experience dealing directly with victims of domestic violence), I can say that the science of victomology should be heeded and taken into consideration. However, my advocacy of victimology in no way makes it right or appropriate to discuss it when speaking to or about a specific victim of domestic violence, or when talking about how a specific instance of domestic violence could have been avoided. As JMK said, it is the timing and the context of the discussion which is most important.
To say that people should be careful of the choices they make and where those choices, even if seemingly innocent or innocuous, may lead is relatively common sense. In fact, it is such a common sense point that parents, in general, ingrain (or should ingrain) such warnings into the heads of their children well before they will ever make any potentially dangerous decisions as teenagers or adults. Therefore, the real issue in this thread, and why some posters are revealing themselves to a certain degree, is that a problem arises when one discusses victomology directly to a victim after-the-fact or directly in response to a specific event (such as sexual assault or domestic violence) right after the event concluded. In any pragmatic sense, there is no need to bring up what that victim should have or could have done differently in that specific moment because doing so tends to imply that, in some way, the victim should take some blame or accountability. Otherwise, why bring it up at that moment at all?
It is obvious that one shouldn't walk down a deserted alley in a bad part of town at 2AM or else risk becoming a victim of a crime. However, to bring that point up to someone who was just mugged is not only insensitive, but, implies, in some way that you believe that person should take some accountability for being mugged. If your first thought is to, in any way, tell the victim how they should have behaved rather than comforting the victim and telling them it wasn't their fault, that says something about you. Accordingly, I can understand how those who fail to see this point probably have questionable backgrounds or motives. |
I agree with much of what both sides say in this argument really. Though i tend to lean towards our problem being more with sensitivity than insensitivity. Caring for someone is one thing, and it should be done. But toward the end there you get pretty caught up in hypothetical situations which do a great job of proving your point, but they dont really speak to the context of what SAS said. Yes, the topic was being discussed because of an incident, but he wasnt speaking directly to the victim. He was speaking in a general sense about domestic violence. He referenced back to the Rice incident some, yes. He wasnt interviewing her and telling her she was dumb to be in that situation. He isnt her caseworker telling her shes stupid, and not telling her that she didnt do anything wrong, and everything is gonna be alright. Thats not his job. I didnt find what he said offensive because i knew exactly what he meant when he said it. I just think a lot of people just like to be offended and they look for ways to be offended. Even if that means taking someones words to mean something they dont. Even after being told over and over that they just didnt get it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52648
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | But that's what SAS was getting at. That you want to try to do everything possible to avoid altercations of any kind. Continuing to argue in a heated discussion is not doing everything possible to avoid altercation. |
There we agree. The problem arises when Smith then applies fault for failing to do so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | This is something you started. |
I didn't start anything. You put words in my mouth and when I pointed out that you were incorrect, rather than acknowledge your error and actually read the thread you are participating in you got defensive and challenged me to show you. It doesn't work that way. |
You could have just not pointed out that he was incorrect. |
Actually, that's what I did. |
You didn't point out that he was incorrect? Or you did? You said you did, and then you said you didn't. |
I think we are talking about two different things.
I am referring to jodeke's statement that something I said indicates I believe hitting women is OK, despite the fact that I had previously stated otherwise. |
Great.
In either case, you do realize you could end the discussion with him by just not contributing to the topic anymore, right?
Not saying you should have to. Just wondering if it was clear that you COULD end this heated discussion by just not saying anything to him anymore in this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | But that's what SAS was getting at. That you want to try to do everything possible to avoid altercations of any kind. Continuing to argue in a heated discussion is not doing everything possible to avoid altercation. |
There we agree. The problem arises when Smith then applies fault for failing to do so. |
Where did he "apply fault"? He didn't. That was a misinterpretation on your part. (I know, I know, you're adamant that it is not). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerSanity
Moderator
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 33474
Location: Long Beach, California
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It doesn't matter if SAS was speaking directly the victim or just talking about the victim's circumstances. The problem is the same, especially since, for all intents and purposes, as a public figure, SAS was speaking to many victims and, just as importantly, many current or potential criminals.
SAS had the opportunity to unequivocally make it clear that you don't blame a victim of domestic violence, even by indirectly implying blame by merely asking what Rice's spouse could have done differently to have avoided becoming a victim. He didn't do that. Instead, he diminished that message and, thereby, diminished the culpability of those who engage in such immoral conduct.
It was his first thought to say the "PC" thing as he has been trained to do being a public figure, immediately followed by what he really thought. Such behavior unfortunately aligns with some individuals within this thread. It's like saying "no disrespect, but..." which, of course, is immediately followed by a disrespectful statement. It's not the disclaimer which is significant because it the subsequent message that lasts and which the audience must address. Unfortunately, that wrong message is what was communicated. Moreover, and significantly, because his message was communicated to a very large audience, unfortunately, it likely had a pretty terrible impact.
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service
Twitter: @DeleteThisPost |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JerryMagicKobe
Moderator
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 15100
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well said, LS.
I think everyone has had an opportunity to share their thoughts, so this seems like a logical time to lock the thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
