What kind of rage filled idiot are you anyway?
And a straight up
ad hominem outta the blue. Niiiiice. Maybe you'll get a prize if you hit them all.
I'll answer your question though. I'm the kind of rage filled idiot who even in his most rage filled idiotic moments is capable of thinking rationally and using logic. You, on the other hand, appear to be the kind of happy-go-lucky genius who wouldn't know logic if it kicked your ass. (which it has been)
I never said that stealing and publishing private pictures wasn't a crime. I said I had no sympathy for those who had been victimized. Should the criminals be found and prosecuted? Absolutely. They broke the law. Will I feel sorry for the victims? Nope, not in this situation. In this context, the two perspectives are not mutually exclusive. But by all means, do rage on.
Oooh! I know that one. It's... it's... gimme a minute.
...Red Herring. Damned if I can remember the latin phrase. And damned if I ever claimed you were holding mutually exclusive positions at the same time. I just claimed you were shitting on the victims. Which you were and are. Try and stick to the topic (
straw man).
Sorry NB but you have swung wildly and in a different direction from what james t kirk wrote and I '2nd'. We are not suggesting that you are inviting yourself to be a victim which is the connotation behind the 'dressing as a slut' quotation. What we are suggesting (and there countless examples besides those put forward by JK) is that putting yourself at needless risk by ignoring common sense security measures is dumb.
Which is exactly what the slut shamers
et al would claim they are suggesting. Tis the same logic: you are doing something that even though you have every right to do and every reason to feel won't result in harm to yourself, "you should have known better". Putting your private nude pics up on an Apple server with password protection is no dumber than getting drunk at a party, dressing provocatively at a nightclub, etc.
How does car insurance look at keys left in the ignition: 'Insurance companies don’t look favorably on making it easier on thieves, especially if your unlocked car had the keys in the ignition or was sitting in an undesirable location. Some policies might not let you claim a loss in these cases, ..'
It's a sad fucking day when we look to insurance companies to be the arbiters of what is and isn't culpability, or ethical etc. Fortunately the law holds us to a higher standard, and I sure as hell hope that our personal codes do as well.
So according to your theory of never criticizing a 'victim'; if I publish my credit card complete with pin code in the local newspaper - should bad charges occur, the banks would be bastards not to treat me as any other 'victim' of credit card fraud. In fact - any mention or warning to other individuals of the consequences of such activity - is placing blame on the victim.
I did not say "never criticize a victim" (with or without scare quotes around the word). However, there are situations where you should definitely NOT criticize the victim. Or put scare quotes around the word. Fucks sakes, it ain't rocket science. Surely you can see that there is a world of difference between using a secure server hosted by one of the biggest companies in the world that built an empire on secure and superior tech... and announcing your credit card number for all to see.
So please - stop this concept of mixing risky behaviour from the radically different concept of inviting behavior. There are infinite examples of this. A victim is bitten by a shark - a horrible experience. Now the injuries don't change but you suggest that reporting that the victim dowsed himself in blood before jumping into a shark tank aren't relevant ?
And now we are finally picking the nit that matters. Let's make your analogy a bit more relevant, shall we? Here are the two ends of the scale
1. A victim swims in lake Ontario and gets bit by a shark. Totally unexpected, and totally not their fault.
2. A person jumps into a shark tank when covered in blood. Wilfully reckless and irresponsible. Their fault.
The problem is that this situation is more akin to someone swimming in Florida and getting attacked by a shark. Not outside of the realm of possibility, not entirely without precedent, but still unlikely, still unexpected and still not their fault.