Am I victim blaming here?

[Salyut]

So on FB I pointed a Conservative to the Pink Pistols (apparently they have a chapter in the lower mainland) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Pistols) in a attempt to encourage him to do something productive (ie join, organize, and not sit around defending Harper all day). I get hit with this about two minutes later.


Arming a population burdened by violence isn't the solution to that violence; what a ridiculous, backward proposition. Gun culture in the United States hasn't cultivated a safer, violence free society. It has created a crisis in terms of firearms related violence.

Regardless,
People shouldn't have to alter their lives to satisfy systemic social expectations and comfort. I don't like firearms, I don't like violence all that much either to be honest. If someone is so uncomfortable with my queerness, for example, and that person seeks to act untoward me, the reason for that choice is not that I did not successfully deter them with violence or the threat of violence. They are responsible for their actions, plain and simple.

The solution to homophobia isn't for queers to "alter" their culture to meet the violence and oppression of homophobia and anti-queer violence vs-a-vis the acquisition of firearms or the exploration of self-defense initiatives. That's fucked up.

The solution is to end homophobia outright.

**Asking queers to protect themselves from violence puts the onus back on queers for not "dealing" with homophobia; it avoids an obvious and necessary discussion and deconstruction of why homophobia occurs and how to end it.

In fact, I'd argue that forcing queers to take up violent recourse as a way of meeting oppression and discrimination is a form of homophobia in and of itself; there is an obvious and long history of queers being forced to give up their liberties and alter their lives to satisfy mainstream social mores and values grounded in "tradition."


So uh... Did I inadvertently engage in victim blaming? :|

[Flying Trotsky]

It's a tough call. The guy who responded to you definitely has a point- gays shouldn't have to change their culture to defend themselves.

At the same time, I shouldn't have to fight against Capitalism, Fascism, and all the other things in this world that want to kill, exploit, or enslave me, but since these things exist, what other option do I have?

Yeah man, there's no easy answer for this, but it seems like your motivations are pure. If you did do something wrong, and I'm not sure that you did, I wouldn't say it's something to lose any sleep over.

[praxis1966]

You should just say to him, "Tell that shit to the Black Panthers."

EDIT: The long answer is, there is absolutely nothing wrong with self-defense, nor do dead martyrs do anybody any good if there's no one left around to remember them. I don't know why a personal disdain for violence should ever preempt one's own survival instincts.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Gay people should arm themselves, what's homophobic about that? Homophobic people exist, so people who might be on the receiving end of that violence should arm themselves. It's really a simple thing to understand. Or are gay people not supposed to be violent or defend themselves? It's really fallacious thinking, we shouldn't arm ourselves against the police even though police oppression happens, the solution is for the problem not to exist, even though it does. *breaking Godwin's law* "Us Jews shouldn't arm ourselves, the solution is for the Holocaust/Antisemitism not to exist".

Really it's just stupid.

[Flying Trotsky]

You know what? I've given it some more thought, and I'd say no- you're not blaming the victims, you're putting responsibility on them to defend themselves. To blame a victim is to say that they've done something to deserve the violence- what you're doing is advocating a way for these people to defend themselves against those who would make them victims.

Nothin' wrong with that- in fact, it's a pretty fun slogan: "Gays With Guns."

[Tenka]

You know what? I've given it some more thought, and I'd say no- you're not blaming the victims, you're putting responsibility on them to defend themselves. To blame a victim is to say that they've done something to deserve the violence- what you're doing is advocating a way for these people to defend themselves against those who would make them victims.

Nothin' wrong with that- in fact, it's a pretty fun slogan: "Gays With Guns."
Just like "Females with Firearms", you know, to deter rape and such.:rolleyes:
It would be better, in a world full of gun-toting reactionaries, to take their guns away, rather than to encourage all oppressed minorities to be armed with guns so that we can prosper through something akin (but not quite) to socially-applied "mutually assured destruction" (not that it would be nearly so effective on this scale), or so that we could resolve things by actually firing upon each other -- such a scenario as I'd like to reserve for an actual revolutionary period.
I'm not principally opposed to individual gun possession, but it is ludicrous to think it would solve or help alleviate any social problems whatsoever.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Of course it would help alleviate social problems if people armed themselves against bigoted attacks or at least learned to defend themselves. The person says he shouldn't have to arm himself against bigots who would attack him because bigots shouldn't exist. Good point, they shouldn't exist but they do, so what you going to do?

[Tenka]

Of course it would help alleviate social problems if people armed themselves against bigoted attacks or at least learned to defend themselves. The person says he shouldn't have to arm himself against bigots who would attack him because bigots shouldn't exist. Good point, they shouldn't exist but they do, so what you going to do?
Buy a silly little handgun and carry it with you wherever you go, always prepared to pull it out to deter any attacker, or shoot them if you need to? I think you're over-estimating the reliability of guns, and the paranoid vigilance of the average person. If someone whom you can't see is shooting at you, you have a better chance staying alive by running away than turning and trying to shoot back; if some attacker is manhandling you, it would probably be easier to gouge out their eyes with your thumbs than to reach for your gun and use it effectively, especially if they know about it. I think the cases are fairly rare where "self-defence" legitimately calls for the use of guns.
In any case, the answer to bigots in the context of capitalist liberal democrazy is never 'more guns', which they will always have the propensity to take most advantage of anyway; and if you tell someone who's been viciously assaulted that if only they'd been armed it wouldn't have played out that way, it is comparable to telling a person who has been raped that they should have taken 'more precautions', which I understand a few of us here to view as victim blaming.

[Ingraham Effingham]

Isn't it stereotyping and overgeneralizing to say homosexuals are automatically pacifists/nonviolent?

He's actually doing a disservice to his community by painting them with such a broad brush, and saying that picking up a gun constitutes "altering" gay culture.

He's playing the victim card a little close to his chest, i think, and you just called his bluff.

[Libertador]

Isn't it stereotyping and overgeneralizing to say homosexuals are automatically pacifists/nonviolent? Exactly. It's à la mode to assume that male homosexuals have feminine characteristics. Wait. That's being sexist within being homophobic.

http://forum.i3d.net/attachments/counter-strike-source/943173786d1244218297-moonlight-xhibit.jpg
Yo dawg, we heard you liked being sexist. So we put sexism in your homophobia so you can sexist while you homophobe.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Buy a silly little handgun and carry it with you wherever you go, always prepared to pull it out to deter any attacker, or shoot them if you need to?Well if you want to yeah do exactly that. Carry a silly little gun around just in case you need to use it if you feel the need to.


I think you're over-estimating the reliability of guns, and the paranoid vigilance of the average person. If someone whom you can't see is shooting at you, you have a better chance staying alive by running away than turning and trying to shoot back;Okay if you say so. Good thing I didn't say a gun is the best option in every single situation. If running away is the better option then use it. What's the problem here?


if some attacker is manhandling you, it would probably be easier to gouge out their eyes with your thumbs than to reach for your gun and use it effectively, especially if they know about it.It might be better to kick someone in the balls, to do a triple roundhouse kick to the face, to blast them with a Kamahamaha, etc, you can throw in a thousand variables can't you. Sometimes it's easier to bring a knife around with you, I've kept myself from being jumped a few times before because I brought out my knife, just imagine if I had a gun. What I'm stressing is it's not bad to know how to defend yourself(which includes more things than just guns) against attacks, that it's not victim blaming if you suggest to someone that they should learn how to defend themselves.


I think the cases are fairly rare where "self-defence" legitimately calls for the use of guns.And I can think of a thousand different cases where a gun would have been a legitimate tool to use against someone.

In any case, the answer to bigots in the context of capitalist liberal democrazy is never 'more guns', which they will always have the propensity to take most advantage of anyway;Never, that's a pretty strong word never. So when young black men used to get lynched in the South it wouldn't have been good for black communities to arm themselves against such things. Or when workers are getting shot at at picket lines it's not a good thing for them to arm themselves?


and if you tell someone who's been viciously assaulted that if only they'd been armed it wouldn't have played out that way, it is comparable to telling a person who has been raped that they should have taken 'more precautions', which I understand a few of us here to view as victim blaming.
I think there's a difference between saying "maybe we should learn how to defend ourselves because some people want to physically hurt and sometimes kill us" and "it's our fault because we don't know how to defend ourselves against these people." Tons of women take classes on how to defend themselves against potential attackers, damn those people teaching them how to do that! Or how about antifa groups that have started to teach themselves mixed martial arts?

[Tenka]

Isn't it stereotyping and overgeneralizing to say homosexuals are automatically pacifists/nonviolent?

He's actually doing a disservice to his community by painting them with such a broad brush, and saying that picking up a gun constitutes "altering" gay culture.

I hadn't noticed this before, but he might not mean it in as generalised a sense as it sounds. Pacifism and nonviolence has nothing really to do, though, with not wanting to live in a society where everyone feels the need to have lethal force easily at their disposal at all times to protect themselves from each other.

[AnonymousOne]

You know what? I've given it some more thought, and I'd say no- you're not blaming the victims, you're putting responsibility on them to defend themselves. To blame a victim is to say that they've done something to deserve the violence- what you're doing is advocating a way for these people to defend themselves against those who would make them victims.

Nothin' wrong with that- in fact, it's a pretty fun slogan: "Gays With Guns."

Whoa! That's a fine line to tread, by putting that responsibility on the LGBTQ+ community, we're almost into, "It's your own damn fault you got attacked, you didn't carry a gun!". Which is very much victim blaming. Especially when that message is coming from someone outside the LGBTQ+ community, it feels as if it's almost dismissing the root cause of the attacks, homophobia, and instead saying that the best way to stop it is to carry a gun.

I can tell you that I do not own a gun, and I will not own a gun. I'd need to have enough training with the damn thing before I wasn't a risk to myself and others, and I don't have that kind of time. I'm sure many others feel the same way.

I don't want to be told to go spend a bunch of time, and money to go buy a gun or have to be ready to use it in all instances. I'd rather we target and defeat homophobia, or remove the infection instead of just putting a bandage over the wound of homophobic attacks.

[Libertador]

Whoa! That's a fine line to tread, by putting that responsibility on the LGBTQ+ community, we're almost into, "It's your own damn fault you got attacked, you didn't carry a gun!". So it's the Palestinians own fault they aren't fighting back? Oh wait.

[AnonymousOne]

So it's the Palestinians own fault they aren't fighting back? Oh wait.

Ermm, I'd say that this isn't a very good analogy. A more accurate one would be, "It's the Palestinians own damn fault for being shelled by Israel, they should carry more artillery."

[Libertador]

Ermm, I'd say that this isn't a very good analogy. A more accurate one would be, "It's the Palestinians own damn fault for being shelled by Israel, they should carry more artillery."Or that. It's twelve a.m. and I've not yet had my bottle of hard cider so I apologize if my sentences aren't making enough sense.

[Salyut]

and if you tell someone who's been viciously assaulted that if only they'd been armed it wouldn't have played out that way, it is comparable to telling a person who has been raped that they should have taken 'more precautions', which I understand a few of us here to view as victim blaming.

For the record I've never believed or stated anything like that. All I did was link the organization in an attempt to get this Tory to stop moaning and do something productive - and I figured that he probably wouldn't be down with Queers Against Israeli Apartheid.

I’m just confused as to whether suggesting the option of counter-violence as a viable option in the event of a physical assault is homophobic*/reactionary/victim blaming (in which case I guess I should be sent to OI or revaluate my thinking), or uh, it isn't.

Also to answer the gun reliability thing. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj5Kcs4dzro)

[Flying Trotsky]

Whoa! That's a fine line to tread, by putting that responsibility on the LGBTQ+ community, we're almost into, "It's your own damn fault you got attacked, you didn't carry a gun!". Which is very much victim blaming. Especially when that message is coming from someone outside the LGBTQ+ community, it feels as if it's almost dismissing the root cause of the attacks, homophobia, and instead saying that the best way to stop it is to carry a gun.

I can tell you that I do not own a gun, and I will not own a gun. I'd need to have enough training with the damn thing before I wasn't a risk to myself and others, and I don't have that kind of time. I'm sure many others feel the same way.

I don't want to be told to go spend a bunch of time, and money to go buy a gun or have to be ready to use it in all instances. I'd rather we target and defeat homophobia, or remove the infection instead of just putting a bandage over the wound of homophobic attacks.


Allow me to clarify. I'm not saying that the victim should be blamed- that goes against the very definition of the word "victim". What I'm saying is that people who are targeted by bigots/racists/homophobes/xenophobes/etc. should have the ability to defend themselves.

See how it works? I'm not blaming the gays in this scenario for not having guns (they shouldn't be targeted in the first place), I'm saying that the gays in this scenario should be given the opportunity to take their defense into their own hands.

[AnonymousOne]

Allow me to clarify. I'm not saying that the victim should be blamed- that goes against the very definition of the word "victim". What I'm saying is that people who are targeted by bigots/racists/homophobes/xenophobes/etc. should have the ability to defend themselves.

See how it works? I'm not blaming the gays in this scenario for not having guns (they shouldn't be targeted in the first place), I'm saying that the gays in this scenario should be given the opportunity to take their defense into their own hands.

Right, you didn't say "opportunity" or "possibility" or "resources that should be made available" instead you said "responsibility" which seems loaded towards the idea that if they don't carry a gun and get attacked they're responsible for that.

I didn't think you were trying to engage in victim blaming, I just thought that the way you phrased with responsibility was making it appear as if you were.

[Flying Trotsky]

Yeah, my bad. Sorry about that.

[Broletariat]

I love when misunderstandings have a happy ending like this.

Brings a tear to my eye.