This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Why do people always blame the victim?

edited April 2007 in Politics
My mom is watching Oprah in the other room. They are talking about the Virginia Tech shooting.

"Oh, you should have caught this guy earlier because of such and such writings he did, and he was obviously unstable."

It sounds suspiciously like another claim I have heard.

"They should have gotten Hitler right after the Beer Hall Putsch." or "Mein Kampf should have been a warning!"

After the Beer Hall Putsch, everyone just thought Hitler was this insane little man who was a member of this obscure political party. There were no signs that he would be dangerous to anyone but himself. No one read Mein Kampf until he got into power. And why would they? Who would care about this weird little man at this time? But of course, as people always do, they blamed the victims when he began his plight. They blamed, and still blame, Germany for not catching him at this stage. And people are blaming V. Tech for not catching their shooter at that stage.

"Now that 34 people, in the Columbine and Virgina Tech shootings, are dead," Oprah pleaded, "Will someone finally do something about it?"

We know that politicians and media take events like this to "prove their point", but this is going much too far. People don't realize that V. Tech is the victim, just as Germany was the victim in WWII. There was nothing more they could do. And how can one say that we should "take care of someone" just because they might become dangerous one day? The whole idea is just gross. I'd be interested to hear if anyone disagrees with me when I say that people that make any of the above claims are wrong.

Comments

  • Hindsight is 20/20
  • Most of the time, you shouldn't blame the victim. However, I'm of the opinion that there are some things that are simply inexcusable. If your kid got fat because you fed him McDonald's 3 times a day, you can't claim ignorance and sue someone. Fuck you.

    Likewise, anybody with half a brain that read the things this kid wrote should have realized there was something severely wrong. I'm not a psychologist, but a reading of his two plays told me that there was something medically wrong with him that required therapy or, more likely, medication. He was not being creative; he was being fucked up. Someone should have noticed, and someone should have done something.

    However, I can't see blaming someone in a punishment sense for not catching this. This is a lesson better learned by everyone, and I should think it will hit hardest with those that would have passed his writings off as being creative or some similar nonsense; I'm all about college being an institution of higher learning, but you really need to keep things in a real-world perspective too.
  • Likewise, anybody with half a brain that read the things this kid wrote should have realized there was something severely wrong. I'm not a psychologist, but a reading of his two plays told me that there was something medically wrong with him that required therapy or, more likely, medication. He was not being creative; he was being fucked up. Someone should have noticed, and someone should have done something.
    People did as much as they could at that time. I just watched the news reports on this on CNN. His English teachers did notice his disturbing writings and did submit them to the police. He was also reported by his roommate for suicidal signs, got court ordered to go get some help. He stalked 2 different girls, but neither pressed charges because they both claim that he was more of a nuisance. Aside from these things, he did nothing else. He never got a criminal record of any sort. So the police couldn't really do anything unless he did something.
  • edited April 2007
    My mom is watching Oprah in the other room. They are talking about the Virginia Tech shooting.

    "Oh, you should have caught this guy earlier because of such and such writings he did, and he was obviously unstable."

    It sounds suspiciously like another claim I have heard.

    "They should have gotten Hitler right after the Beer Hall Putsch." or "Mein Kampfshould have been a warning!"
    I hate how people are using his writing to show his insanity. We know he had mental issues (Reuters), but loads of people write violent, sexual stuff.Tarantino, for example, makes violent movies. He hasn't hurt anyone.And what about Vasquez? Jhonen is the god of comically morbid death and graphic mutilation. He is a perfectly normal individual.

    I'll admit, there are cases of crazy people, and their craziness is verifiable by their crazy art, literature, etc. But there are also tons of sane people who display some imagery that may be described as "disturbed" or "f*ckd up" in their works. Also, on the sexual note, many people write erotic literature. Politicians even write erotic fiction!! I know that this man was disturbed, but this fact should not be taken solely from his writing.

    Sorry, I just had to get that off of my chest.
    Post edited by whatever on
  • There is a huge difference between Tarantino making a violent movie and this:

    mcbeef_8.jpg

    It's disjointed, poorly written, and somewhat incoherent. It more resembles a rant than it does anything else. If you seriously read this writing and don't think that it's definitely off, you really need to look at it more closely.
  • edited April 2007
    It's disjointed, poorly written, and somewhat incoherent. It more resembles a rant than it does anything else. If you seriously read this writing and don't think that it's definitely off, you really need to look at it more closely.
    It is off. I know it is disturbing and violent... I know it's poorly written. But still, what about my Jhonen V. example? In one of Jhonen's JTHM issues, Johnny straps a man to a wall, uses a machine to pierce him open, and collects the blood in plastic cups. Johnny explains his actions later on by stating that something living in his walls is trying to kill him, and if he doesn't paint it with blood, he'll be sent to hell. That sounds incoherent and disturbing as well, no? Yet, Jhonen is perfectly normal, and I'm pretty sure that he hasn't hurt anyone. I'm not defending this VT guy, but I'm just pointing out that you can't make accurate statements about a person when your statements are based merely on their literature, art, etc.
    Post edited by whatever on
  • Lawl, the discussion of Jhonen Vasquez. Seriously, read everything that guy has written all of you.
  • I've gotta side with WhaleShark there. I've read both the plays that've found their way onto the 'net and they are disjointed, rambling vent-fests. Sure, people use violence, disturbing images, vulgar language and all that ALL THE TIME in creative writing but there's an obvious artistic point to it. Those plays read like unedited stream-of-consciousness venting. YES, venting is a valid inspiration for creative writing but who the hell submits that piece for assessment or general consumption without first editing it into something coherent (and if your vents come out coherent then you're doing it wrong >_>). Submitting something like that for class criticism is a cry for attention.

    Seriously, someone hands you something like that? You check up on whoever wrote it. In this case, just looking at him (silent, no friends, deliberately so) would have set off alarm bells (and it did and...apparently that wasn't enough). If Jhonen Vasqez' work wasn't as polished and thought out as it is, I'd be worried about him, too. If JTHM was a bunch of amateurish sketches on paper from some weird lonely dude, yeah, I'd wonder. But as a professionally bound book, well, I assume he's okay since obviously whomever he's working with to produce the book will have checked up on him. Additionally, JTHM is a polished cohesive work with a sense of humour - obviously intended to entertain and entertain by disturbing people. Even in the example you describe: it's disturbing but the mode of death and the explanation for it is creative and, to the correct sense of humour, amusing. JTHM is drawn in a style that makes it obvious that it's not meant to be taken seriously. It has a purpose other "HEY LOOK GUYS I'M ANGRY(insert bajillion exclamation marks)".

    Of course, it's also possible that he genuinely had terrible English writing skills (not being a native English speaker, as far as I can tell) but he was in his third year of an English course so I'm assuming he could have done a lot better.
  • I'd like to point out that various college professors as well as two students actually did report the guy and said they were afraid that he was unstable based on his writings among other things. The college didn't do anything, quite possibly because they could have been sued if they had. There was an article in the paper about it today but I don't have it with me.
  • People blame the victim because they want to believe in a just world.
  • edited April 2007
    Don't forget that that students accused the wrong guy at first--It clearly wasn't all that obvious from these writings as it seems now.
    People blame the victim because they want to believe in a just world.
    WTF!?
    Post edited by Sail on
  • Don't forget that that students accused the wrong guy at first--It clearly wasn't all that obvious from these writings as it seems now.
    People blame the victim because they want to believe in a just world.
    WTF!?
    If there were justice in the world, then bad things would only happen to bad people. Blaming the victim means that you think the victim deserved what they got, which would imply that whatever happened was just.
  • Well I guess you really pissed off those gods....
Sign In or Register to comment.