Occupy Thread

[acidphakist]

And you're obviously supposed to be sitting at the kid's table. Now get the fuck out of this thread.

 

Victim blaming occurs when the victim(s) of a crime, an accident, or any type of abusive maltreatment are held entirely or partially responsible for the transgressions committed against them. Blaming the victim has traditionally emerged especially in racist and sexist forms.^[1] However, this attitude may exist independently from these radical views and even be at least half-official in some countries.^[2]

People familiar with victimology are much less likely to see the victim as responsible.^[3] Knowledge about prior relationship between victim and perpetrator increases perceptions of victim blame for rape, but not for robbery.^[4] Another common instance is its use as a defence by bullies.

 

Why are you hesitating? Please cut and paste the part where I say I blame the victims. Go on...

[Guest A/D]

People must be able to safely peacefully protest in order to have a real democracy. Just because people are getting beat up doesn't mean we shouldn't expect & demand safety when protesting.

[acidphakist]

People must be able to safely peacefully protest in order to have a real democracy. Just because people are getting beat up doesn't mean we shouldn't expect & demand safety when protesting.

 

I totally agree!

[Guest A/D]

he did already, it's the part where you say being beaten up & maced is to be expected.

[acidphakist]

he did already, it's the part where you say being beaten up & maced is to be expected.

 

Please copy and paste where I say "I blame the victims."

 

I'll give you a hint: I never did.

[SR4]

I blame the victims.

[acidphakist]

I blame the victims.

lol

[Braintree]

he did already, it's the part where you say being beaten up & maced is to be expected.

 

Please copy and paste where I say "I blame the victims."

 

I'll give you a hint: I never did.

 

You are obviously an idiot.

[acidphakist]

he did already, it's the part where you say being beaten up & maced is to be expected.

 

Please copy and paste where I say "I blame the victims."

 

I'll give you a hint: I never did.

 

You are obviously an idiot.

 

Well you are the one who keeps avoiding it. Please copy and paste it. Let's get this over with.

[J3FF3R00]

Please copy and paste where I say "I blame the victims."

 

I'll give you a hint: I never did.

 

 

Although you didn't say it verbatim, you certainly implied it.

 

 

 

 

Once upon a time, a woman was picking up firewood. She came upon a poisonous snake frozen in the snow. She took the snake home and nursed it back to health. One day the snake bit her on the cheek. As she lay dying, she asked the snake, "Why have you done this to me?" And the snake answered, "Look, bitch, you knew I was a snake."

 

 

= "I blame the victim"

 

 

I've been to lots of different protests (mostly about the Iraq war) where there were old people and pregnant women. The first amendment says people have a right to assemble peacefully. Technically, they should be safe. The macho douchebag cops have to go screw that up.

It's people's right (and, if you ask me, civic responsibility) to stand up for their beliefs.

While I don't disagree that the police force is acting more violently than necessary I urge you not to lose focus of the true issue: whether or not it's ethical, the police ARE using too much force. As such you can expect bad things to happen to you.

 

 

= "I blame the victim"

 

 

Once upon a time, a woman was picking up firewood. She came upon a poisonous snake frozen in the snow. She took the snake home and nursed it back to health. One day the snake bit her on the cheek. As she lay dying, she asked the snake, "Why have you done this to me?" And the snake answered, "Look, bitch, you knew I was a snake."

lol basically this.

 

Both the preggers and the 84 year old woman knew (hopefully) that there could be dangerous things that can happen at protests/rallies/marches. For weeks the news has been saying how police have been using force to control these OWS crowds. Not only just the police, but the people involved in these gatherings have been known to be dangerous as well. So they made a conscious decision when they left the house that day to face these dangers. Not wise.

 

If you had a pregnant wife or 84 year old grandmother, would you allow her to go out into the cold and march with an angry mob infront of armed police? I would not.

 

this is the biggest stenchiest pile of fucking shit i've ever seen

 

Let us know how much it hurt when you get your head bashed in at the protest.

 

= "I blame the victim"

 

 

 

http://youtu.be/yoG9PmdGaT8

 

So just so we're clear, it's totally cool to mace an old woman and a pregnant lady in the face?

 

I don't recall saying that.

 

Often in language, someone can 'say' something without 'saying' anything at all.

 

Don't blame these women for being victims. You would have to be a complete sociopath to mace either one in the face at a peaceful protest. Yes, people have been beaten by the police, but these people are largely grown men. It takes a particular type of coward to attack someone that is clearly fragile.

 

 

Yeah. You didn't exactly say it was "cool" but you kinda were saying she deserved it. That is wrong.

 

I never said anyone deserved to be beaten or maced. I'm simply saying that it is to be expected.

 

= "I blame the victim"

[acidphakist]

Please copy and paste where I say "I blame the victims."

 

I'll give you a hint: I never did.

 

 

Although you didn't say it verbatim, you certainly implied it.

 

 

 

 

Once upon a time, a woman was picking up firewood. She came upon a poisonous snake frozen in the snow. She took the snake home and nursed it back to health. One day the snake bit her on the cheek. As she lay dying, she asked the snake, "Why have you done this to me?" And the snake answered, "Look, bitch, you knew I was a snake."

 

 

= "I blame the victim"

 

 

I've been to lots of different protests (mostly about the Iraq war) where there were old people and pregnant women. The first amendment says people have a right to assemble peacefully. Technically, they should be safe. The macho douchebag cops have to go screw that up.

It's people's right (and, if you ask me, civic responsibility) to stand up for their beliefs.

While I don't disagree that the police force is acting more violently than necessary I urge you not to lose focus of the true issue: whether or not it's ethical, the police ARE using too much force. As such you can expect bad things to happen to you.

 

 

= "I blame the victim"

 

 

Once upon a time, a woman was picking up firewood. She came upon a poisonous snake frozen in the snow. She took the snake home and nursed it back to health. One day the snake bit her on the cheek. As she lay dying, she asked the snake, "Why have you done this to me?" And the snake answered, "Look, bitch, you knew I was a snake."

lol basically this.

 

Both the preggers and the 84 year old woman knew (hopefully) that there could be dangerous things that can happen at protests/rallies/marches. For weeks the news has been saying how police have been using force to control these OWS crowds. Not only just the police, but the people involved in these gatherings have been known to be dangerous as well. So they made a conscious decision when they left the house that day to face these dangers. Not wise.

 

If you had a pregnant wife or 84 year old grandmother, would you allow her to go out into the cold and march with an angry mob infront of armed police? I would not.

 

this is the biggest stenchiest pile of fucking shit i've ever seen

 

Let us know how much it hurt when you get your head bashed in at the protest.

 

= "I blame the victim"

 

 

 

http://youtu.be/yoG9PmdGaT8

 

So just so we're clear, it's totally cool to mace an old woman and a pregnant lady in the face?

 

I don't recall saying that.

 

Often in language, someone can 'say' something without 'saying' anything at all.

 

Don't blame these women for being victims. You would have to be a complete sociopath to mace either one in the face at a peaceful protest. Yes, people have been beaten by the police, but these people are largely grown men. It takes a particular type of coward to attack someone that is clearly fragile.

 

 

Yeah. You didn't exactly say it was "cool" but you kinda were saying she deserved it. That is wrong.

 

I never said anyone deserved to be beaten or maced. I'm simply saying that it is to be expected.

 

= "I blame the victim"

 

I don't believe it does! Please copy and....nevermind. You won't, will you?

[acid1]

I think he is just blaming the victims for not considering the risks involved.

 

You guys remind me of the people who smoke their whole lives then blame the cigarette companies when they get cancer.

[J3FF3R00]

I don't see how that is a fitting analogy. Please explain.

[Guest Babar]

2.11 INTERPRETANT, TOPOS AND REWRITING

An interpretant is an element of a text or its surroundings (non-linguistic context) that allows one to establish a semic relationship, that is, to definitively actualize or virtualize at least one seme. For example, when the phonic signifiers are identical (homophonic), as in Hamlet's response to King Claudius: "Not so, my lord: I am too much in the sun [son]", then the mesogeneric semes /weather/ and /filiation/ can be realized simultaneously. (For an analysis of homonymy, cf. Hébert 1998). A topos (topoï in the plural) is a socially-normed interpretant that can often be expressed as an axiom (for instance, the countryside is preferable to the city in rural legend).

A rewriting is an interpretive operation of the type X → |Y|, by which one or more signs, signifiers, or signifieds is transposed into one or more different signs, signifiers, or signifieds. The source unit (X) is part of the object-text, and the target unit (Y) is part of its reading (although it can have correspondences in the source text).

[kcinsu]

This is why I don't get too involved in online discussions much anymore... people spend all of their time deconstructing how the words were put together, instead of the underlying meaning of them. Can't see the forest for the trees kind of thing. Everyone dances around the point, just to feel the victor of the conversation. It's quite exhausting.

[J3FF3R00]

For the record, acid1...

 

 

Both the preggers and the 84 year old woman knew (hopefully) that there could be dangerous things that can happen at protests/rallies/marches. For weeks the news has been saying how police have been using force to control these OWS crowds. Not only just the police, but the people involved in these gatherings have been known to be dangerous as well. So they made a conscious decision when they left the house that day to face these dangers. Not wise.

 

If you had a pregnant wife or 84 year old grandmother, would you allow her to go out into the cold and march with an angry mob infront of armed police? I would not.

 

= "I blame the victim"

[acidphakist]

This is why I don't get too involved in online discussions much anymore... people spend all of their time deconstructing how the words were put together, instead of the underlying meaning of them. Can't see the forest for the trees kind of thing. Everyone dances around the point, just to feel the victor of the conversation. It's quite exhausting.

 

If you exercised more often you'd have better stamina.

[acid1]

I don't see how that is a fitting analogy. Please explain.

 

jefferoo, I appreciate your trollisms, they are unstylistically vague. Like a child constantly saying "why" to every question.

 

Once you get a job where you have to manage or lead people you will understand risk assessment and the analogy. However, if you ever get there you wouldn't feel the need to participate in things like OWS.

[Guest Babar]

This is why I don't get too involved in online discussions much anymore... people spend all of their time deconstructing how the words were put together, instead of the underlying meaning of them. Can't see the forest for the trees kind of thing. Everyone dances around the point, just to feel the victor of the conversation. It's quite exhausting.

 

I wanted to seek other truths: I took up the subject-matter of geometry, which I conceived of as •a continuous body, or •a space indefinitely extended in length, breadth and height or depth, and divisible into different parts that can have various shapes and sizes, and can be moved and swapped around in all sorts of way (geometers assume that their subject-matter has all these properties). I went through some of their simpler proofs, and noted that it’s because we conceive them as evident that we all regard them as utterly certain. I noted also that these demonstrations gave no assurance—none—of the existence of their subject-matter. For example, I saw that given a triangle its three angles of must equal two right angles; but I saw nothing assuring me that there are any triangles in the world.

[J3FF3R00]

I don't see how that is a fitting analogy. Please explain.

 

jefferoo, I appreciate your trollisms, they are unstylistically vague. Like a child constantly saying "why" to every question.

 

Once you get a job where you have to manage or lead people you will understand risk assessment and the analogy. However, if you ever get there you wouldn't feel the need to participate in things like OWS.

Brilliant explanation. *golf clap*

 

Btw, I seriously didn't understand the analogy. I've also had many jobs where I've had to manage/lead people. It still isn't clear. Challenge yourself and please try to explain.

 

[Guest Babar]

maybe they are blaming the daze, not the risks taken

[chenGOD]

that's right - you've done all the proving.

 

No, I just like playing "beat them to submission with lots of words" like you always do! I'm learning, right daddy?

 

No, because your initial premise is faulty. You can't argue from a faulty premise. Good work on trolling the thread.

[acidphakist]

that's right - you've done all the proving.

 

No, I just like playing "beat them to submission with lots of words" like you always do! I'm learning, right daddy?

 

No, because your initial premise is faulty. You can't argue from a faulty premise. Good work on trolling the thread.

 

That wasn't nearly verbose enough for you. I think you'd better try again.

[J3FF3R00]

I believe this video will clear up some recent confusion....

 

[media='']

[/media]

[chenGOD]

I'm not verbose - I'm explicit.

 

Sinicalypse was an example of verbosity.