Rubbish. That's a flawed, sweeping generalisation wrapped in emotion rather than reason. One idiot committing a crime does not make 70 million people responsible for it any more than one Thai, American, or Australian criminal speaks for their entire nation. If we're going to condemn collective blame in one context, we should be consistent enough to condemn it in all contexts. As for the person who asked which side of the road the doctor was walking on, that's not necessarily victim-blaming either. Context and causation matter. The doctor was clearly the victim. The rider bears responsibility for his own actions. Those two facts can be true while still asking whether there were factors that might have affected the outcome. Most of us teach our children to walk facing oncoming traffic whenever possible. Not because drivers are blameless, but because self-preservation matters. You face danger so you can see it coming and react to it. That's common sense, not an assignment of blame. If a drunk driver mounts a pavement and kills someone, the driver is responsible. But it is still reasonable to ask whether the victim saw the vehicle, whether they had a chance to move, or whether the tragedy could have been avoided in the final seconds. That's analysing an event, not excusing it. The real problem today is that too many people seem incapable of distinguishing between understanding what happened and defending what happened. The moment someone asks a factual question, the mob rushes to accuse them of victim-blaming. Critical thinking isn't the same thing as taking sides.
Create an account or sign in to comment