My only points here are that this approach while flawed CAN be used successfully dependent on how accurate your knowledge of the criteria is, for rape it seems from other peoples studies to be rather pointless, I cannot claim any special knowledge in that regard. Second that while flawed it does not equal apologizing for rapists it also does not mean that this method cannot work.
Dude, what matters is if it does work, and there is no indication that it does. Berating a victim, and in quite the insulting terms, for not doing something that doesn't work and does not apply in any form or shape to her assault, is not being helpful, it's just propagating a stereotype whose only use is to lay some of the blame on the victim.
Again, it's stupid to try to link that reporter's dress at the awards to her assault in Egypt. That wasn't a gang of Lara Logan fans, who knew exactly what she wore on what occasion. It was a gang who was so ignorant of who she even is, as to think she's an Israeli instead of an American. (Not that it would make the assault any more acceptable, mind you.) If it
were a gang so informed about her as to know even what she wore at various events, then they'd have known she's not an Israeli and there wouldn't have been an attack.
This guy may be an idiot, he may be a bigot, but what he is saying should not garner such moral outrage, it is actually a valid way to go about protecting yourself against many forms of attackers and is used often.
It's only a valid way if it's been actually shown to work, not if it just fits some insulting stereotype. You can't claim it's a valid way in the same thread where you say you don't know what works.
In the military we use camo becuase we know what the enemy is looking for and we try not to look like that.
But in the military you don't use divining rods to protect you from mines, and I hope you wouldn't defend someone berating a soldier for not carrying his divining rod after he's got his legs blown off. And doubly so if he were to phrase it as insulting as calling such soldiers naive or "Earth to careless soldiers." If it's not been shown to work, then it isn't valid advice, it's just finding something to blame the victim for.
And even in the army, the camo isn't the alpha and the omega. As some guy who's been in the AA, I can tell you that if someone were to blame a soldier who was hit by fragments from an anti-radar missile for not wearing their camo last week, I'd be the first to call that someone a frakking idiot. That kind of missile is simply not influenced by what camo you wear even at the moment, and no missile is influenced by what you wore last year. Or for something less technical and niche, the same applies to someone hit by indirect mortar fire.
But even the analogy with camo uniforms is actually not making the case. In fact it's showing why that's not working. Camo actually makes you not seen, or at least hopefully long enough so you shoot that guy before he shoots you. It doesn't make someone think "nah, I'm not shooting that guy because he's so awesomely patterened". A woman
can't make hereself unseen in a city, and much less while filming a demonstration.
The SS will often use decoys of presidential convoys for this same very reason . . . no moral outrage there, and clearly is seen as a potential way to avoid an attack without ever apologizing for the attacker.
But again, that one is because someone doesn't know where the president is. There's no way it's even similar to something that's not working and is just based on a stereotype that the victim must have done something to provoke it.
The fact that we try to find patterns, and then try to not match the pattern is not controversial unless the attack in question is rape.
It is, if the pattern is matching prejudice instead of reality. Plus, I can think of examples of "pattern matching" that are actually just repackaged racism, for example, just off the top of my head. So it's not just about rape.
And again: claiming that it's just fact or just pattern matching is not a blanket excuse. You can tell a lot about people by what patterns they see that aren't actually there. E.g., a racist sees patterns confirming his racist views everywhere. A sexist sees patterns confirming his sexist views everywhere. An anti-semite sees semitic conspiracy patterns everywhere. And according to one study basically wife-beaters see a pattern of wife-beating everywhere so basically they're only doing what (they think) everyone else does. It's called selective confirmation. People see and remember the cases or details that match their preconceptions, and promptly ignore or forget the cases and details that don't. It's not making it objective, it's actually showing the prejudice they filter their data through. And when someone is grasping so far for something to match that preconceived pattern as that journalist is doing with Lara Logan's dress worn on another occasion and totally unknown to the guys who assaulted her, yeah, it says a lot.
THIS was my point, which ultimately if seen in an objective way, should not be controversial.
Of course this guy was an idiot, and seemed unable, like many in this thread, to make any logical constructions for valid conclusions.
You mean like your string of non-sequiturs and just claiming something is valid without having anything that actually adds up to said conclusions?
