The victim isn't to blame for the actions of the thug
Does it make sense to claim that the violent criminal isn't at fault if he kills you because you resisted his attack? That the fault is his victim's? The victim should have cooperated; to expect a violent criminal to not kill a resisting victim is unrealistic. Right?
I've seen people making this case-- often. At least in one specific type of encounter with a specific species of thug.
By this way of thinking, parents need to teach their daughters how to not resist rape. Just like they need to teach their sons how to not resist arrest.
What? Do you actually imagine those aren't similar? You'd be wrong.
The rapists operate according to rules about how they expect their victims to behave during the encounter. Their victims don't really have any say in these rules or how they are imposed.
Police have the same kind of rules, but they call theirs "legislation" or, even more dishonestly, "laws". Their rules are no more legitimate and are just as self-serving.
Thugs are what they do.
How about parents teach your sons and daughters how to not violate people's rights. How to not become aggressive gangsters.
Where's the problem here? It's not how the victims react, it's in those who do the attacking and expect to face no resistance.
Yes, I realize if you resist, the police may murder you, and copsuckers everywhere will blame you. Blaming the victim is very popular. But it's wrong. It's insane. Cops are far worse than freelance kidnappers and rapists because they demand your compliance. At least with the freelance thugs, few people will blame you for fighting back and killing the vermin.
I feel like a SHTF event is imminent. Notice I don't say I think it is, rather it's just a feeling. Possibly triggered by the upcoming election.
I don't have a crystal ball. I'm almost definitely wrong.
If you can see it coming, it's not going to happen. That's almost a guarantee.
Just like the Coronapocalypse came at us out of nowhere, triggered by unexpected government overreactions to a fairly normal virus, a more serious event will also be a surprise. Consider the Coronapanic a practice run. It should have shown you the holes in your preps if you were paying attention.
I lucked out with the panicdemic because I was ready. Well, maybe it wasn't completely luck; I've prepped for years "just in case", and it finally paid off. I was pretty sure I wouldn't see it coming when it finally happened, and I didn't. But it didn't matter because I stay ready all the time-- and I have done so since well before the Y2K fizzle. I intend to be just as ready, if not more ready, the next time something ...
Sometimes it's good to just listen to people's stories without interrupting, even when you know the stories are nonsense.
My 2nd wife used to tell of a ghost that lived in her house when she was a kid. It was an interesting story even though I didn't believe it. I learned quickly that her family was very prone to believe anything as long as it fit with their magical worldview.
Other people tell me stories about beneficial things political government can do. These stories are no more true-- in the sense of being objective reality-- than ghost stories, but they can still be informative if you want to know which particular superstitions a person is living under.
Interrupt and you'll never hear the whole tale. Listen and you might be entertained by some fantastical tales of magical realms. Just don't bet your life on them being true.
My nature is such that I simply can't see government as a solution to anything. This puts me at odds with most of the rest of my species.
Yes, I think "social media" has become a horror. This doesn't mean I want government to regulate it; it means I think people who don't like it (or are too dumb to know not to take it at face value) should probably stop using it.
The same is true of so many other things I don't like.
Litter/pollution, scammers, sexual predators, abortion, animal cruelty, Hillary Clinton, poverty, drug abuse, pandemics, crime, and all manner of awful things.
I may hate them, but that doesn't mean I want government to step in. Look how often that has the opposite effect anyway; making the original problem worse-- or at least not solving it-- while also creating a host of new problems that never would have existed otherwise (anti-gun legislation being a perfect example).
And even if government intervention doesn't make this specific problem worse this particular ...
