It’s interesting how often you think about being criticized for your sexism. So much so you leave comments like this days later and accuse other users of being me when they rightfully point out the kind of misogyny that is allowed to flourish here with no pushback.
I’m confused. What is the distinction between victim blaming and warning others to be cautious? Taken at face value, I think it makes sense that giving parental controls to your car is a bad idea. Would be weird to blame the victim but I don’t see him doing that? Maybe I’m missing some English-specific conversational nuance here, since it’s not my first language?
Regarding the case itself, it seems that the woman didn’t actually grant the controls herself and he somehow got it? Does Tesla not have limited driver profiles that you can give to your partner? We don’t have Teslas around here, so I’m curious about what happened there. Is the Tesla app that poorly engineered?
That sentence from ExLisper is only blaming the victim for having given access to her vehicle while she was in a relationship with Pucci and says nothing condemning the actual abuser for taking control of the car without her consent.
It is ultimately the abuser’s fault for accessing the car’s controls and using it to terrify and abuse this woman.
It’s like blaming a rape victim for wearing a skirt out in public. The blame is always with the perpetrator taking advantage of a situation to inflict harm on someone, not on the person who is being harmed.
Is it? I think there are times where I’ve thought “yeah the actual problem here is obvious and well-understood, but let me just remind people of something important/useful”. Reading that comment, I never would have thought, “Oh he’s blaming the victim for granting access to her car”. Could be wrong and maybe I assume too much good will on this platform.
I mean, these EVs introduce a whole new problem of remote access, something new to be careful about… So that’s what I immediately thought of, but ah well.
I think there are times where I’ve thought “yeah the actual problem here is obvious and well-understood, but let me just remind people of something important/useful”.
Doing this in the aftermath of something as horrifying as being stalked and abused for years on end is nothing but victim blaming.
Don’t you think this woman knows now that it was a mistake to trust her boyfriend at the time with that access? Don’t you think she feels deep shame that she missed removing his access to the car, even if she knew how to do that in the first place?
It only works to shame the victim and say “I told you so” after the fact. Especially when the comment is only talking about what the victim should have done to avoid being abused.
You want to know what could have avoided this woman being tormented?
The ex-boyfriend choosing not to access her car and stalk and harass and torture her
Why isn’t the comment “Don’t access your exes shit after you break up no matter how angry you are”?
It only works to shame the victim and say “I told you so” after the fact.
You’d be right if he was talking to the woman, but he’s not. So I don’t see how that makes sense. I guess better framing could have helped, maybe? Or maybe it’s a difference in how different people view social media platforms like Lemmy, just a difference in how comments are interpreted I guess. Text is a terribly limited medium for conversation, after all.
Why isn’t the comment “Don’t access your exes shit after you break up no matter how angry you are”?
Going by numbers, wouldn’t there be more potential victims reading this than abusers? I also don’t think a potential abuser is going to look at that comment and do anything meaningful with it. On the other hand, a potential victim could be more cautious.
You’re missing the point and now I’m thinking you’re doing so on purpose.
The focus should be on getting abusers to stop their actions.
Would you tell a little girl that her dress was too short and that’s why she was raped? Would you advise her to wear pants from now on because a dress makes it too easy for a man to rape her?
Hmmm, you know, I think you’re being way too aggressive and making false equivalences. No one said the abusers shouldn’t be stopped. My point is, no one was advising “her”, but rather just lemmy. I interpreted that original comment as a general warning on a public forum to everyone. Maybe I was being generous with that interpretation, I don’t know. I do still think it would be the wrong place to try and prevent abusers as I explained in the last comment.
Obviously, abusers should be stopped, that’s why there are ongoing legal proceedings for the Tesla case (which is what the article is all about). But you need to calm down and read what I’m saying. I think we’re in agreement on the important bits here anyway. I’m mostly just curious about how we interpreted his comment so differently.
Would you advise her to wear pants from now on because a dress makes it too easy for a man to rape her?
This, for example, is a comparison that would never cross my mind in this instance since, from my perspective, his comment was not a conversation with the victim at all or even meant for them. So it registers in my mind as being completely different from the rape scenario.
I need to calm down? I am calm. I’m being too aggressive? Where? Those accusations are textbook ways for men to shut women up in debates like this. It’s not a good look for you to try to paint me as angry and aggressive when I’m not.
It’s not a false equivalence.
The wrong place to try to prevent abusers, but the perfect place to advise potential victims to change their behavior lest an abuser take advantage? Double standards.
Your comment was blaming a woman for a man taking control of her Tesla to terrorize her. An LLM gaining access to the user’s email because the user allowed it is not the same as a man purposefully stalking and abusing his ex-partner in any way he can.
It’s interesting how often you think about being criticized for your sexism. So much so you leave comments like this days later and accuse other users of being me when they rightfully point out the kind of misogyny that is allowed to flourish here with no pushback.
Very interesting.
I’m confused. What is the distinction between victim blaming and warning others to be cautious? Taken at face value, I think it makes sense that giving parental controls to your car is a bad idea. Would be weird to blame the victim but I don’t see him doing that? Maybe I’m missing some English-specific conversational nuance here, since it’s not my first language?
Regarding the case itself, it seems that the woman didn’t actually grant the controls herself and he somehow got it? Does Tesla not have limited driver profiles that you can give to your partner? We don’t have Teslas around here, so I’m curious about what happened there. Is the Tesla app that poorly engineered?
That sentence from ExLisper is only blaming the victim for having given access to her vehicle while she was in a relationship with Pucci and says nothing condemning the actual abuser for taking control of the car without her consent.
It is ultimately the abuser’s fault for accessing the car’s controls and using it to terrify and abuse this woman.
It’s like blaming a rape victim for wearing a skirt out in public. The blame is always with the perpetrator taking advantage of a situation to inflict harm on someone, not on the person who is being harmed.
Is it? I think there are times where I’ve thought “yeah the actual problem here is obvious and well-understood, but let me just remind people of something important/useful”. Reading that comment, I never would have thought, “Oh he’s blaming the victim for granting access to her car”. Could be wrong and maybe I assume too much good will on this platform.
I mean, these EVs introduce a whole new problem of remote access, something new to be careful about… So that’s what I immediately thought of, but ah well.
Doing this in the aftermath of something as horrifying as being stalked and abused for years on end is nothing but victim blaming.
Don’t you think this woman knows now that it was a mistake to trust her boyfriend at the time with that access? Don’t you think she feels deep shame that she missed removing his access to the car, even if she knew how to do that in the first place?
It only works to shame the victim and say “I told you so” after the fact. Especially when the comment is only talking about what the victim should have done to avoid being abused.
You want to know what could have avoided this woman being tormented?
The ex-boyfriend choosing not to access her car and stalk and harass and torture her
Why isn’t the comment “Don’t access your exes shit after you break up no matter how angry you are”?
You’d be right if he was talking to the woman, but he’s not. So I don’t see how that makes sense. I guess better framing could have helped, maybe? Or maybe it’s a difference in how different people view social media platforms like Lemmy, just a difference in how comments are interpreted I guess. Text is a terribly limited medium for conversation, after all.
Going by numbers, wouldn’t there be more potential victims reading this than abusers? I also don’t think a potential abuser is going to look at that comment and do anything meaningful with it. On the other hand, a potential victim could be more cautious.
You’re missing the point and now I’m thinking you’re doing so on purpose.
The focus should be on getting abusers to stop their actions.
Would you tell a little girl that her dress was too short and that’s why she was raped? Would you advise her to wear pants from now on because a dress makes it too easy for a man to rape her?
Hmmm, you know, I think you’re being way too aggressive and making false equivalences. No one said the abusers shouldn’t be stopped. My point is, no one was advising “her”, but rather just lemmy. I interpreted that original comment as a general warning on a public forum to everyone. Maybe I was being generous with that interpretation, I don’t know. I do still think it would be the wrong place to try and prevent abusers as I explained in the last comment.
Obviously, abusers should be stopped, that’s why there are ongoing legal proceedings for the Tesla case (which is what the article is all about). But you need to calm down and read what I’m saying. I think we’re in agreement on the important bits here anyway. I’m mostly just curious about how we interpreted his comment so differently.
This, for example, is a comparison that would never cross my mind in this instance since, from my perspective, his comment was not a conversation with the victim at all or even meant for them. So it registers in my mind as being completely different from the rape scenario.
I need to calm down? I am calm. I’m being too aggressive? Where? Those accusations are textbook ways for men to shut women up in debates like this. It’s not a good look for you to try to paint me as angry and aggressive when I’m not.
It’s not a false equivalence.
The wrong place to try to prevent abusers, but the perfect place to advise potential victims to change their behavior lest an abuser take advantage? Double standards.