Hacker News Reader

Comment by TeMPOraL | Hacker News Reader

> I know this sounds kind of "well what did you expect wearing something like that"

Which is a perfectly rational question/argument.

> Expecting people to behave against their own self interest in the short term, for the good of strangers in the long term, will always end in disappointment.

I agree. This is a systemic problem, and appeals to ethics won't work (and the advertisers won't change their metrics because of them) - one needs to attack the economic incentives underlying their current strategies.

View on HN

> (and the advertisers won't change their metrics because of them)

uh. That isn't what I was doing - one party's act in self interest can benefit third parties (even if accidentally)... like electing to not set yourself on fire in a crowded Museum of Yarn and Flammables.

> ...attack the economic incentives underlying their current strategies.

That has been going on since the first ad click payment. I'm guessing that the ideal solution is one that would require a scale of economy that is outside the capabilities of the majority of the market participants, and that is why we still have catch the monkey ads.

>Which is a perfectly rational question/argument.

How is that rational at all? That question is referencing the common practice of blaming rape victims rather than the rapists, by questioning what the victim was wearing.

It is a perfectly rational question. You're layering a bunch of unnecessary stuff about blame on top of it. Rape is always the fault of the rapist. Full stop. Now, given that there probably always will be rapists in the world, can we be allowed to ask questions that help prevent rape?

No, because rapists are given cover and can more easily rationalize their behavior when society implies that rape is a natural or expected consequence of the failure to take precautions against it.

Rape is a natural or expected consequence of the failure to take precautions against it.

It doesn't matter what society implies.

Note that I can say that while unequivocally condemning rape and providing zero cover to rapists. I am describing what is, not what I think ought to be.

>> Rape is a natural or expected consequence of the failure to take precautions against it.

I don't understand - how is that not victim blaming, and going against your last line? And how exactly do you take precautions against rape, especially when you factor in the fact that the perpetrators are far more likely to be people who wield some kind of authority over the victim, including family members, bosses at work, police and security forces, etc. which is true at least where I come from (West Africa), and leads to chronic under reporting / decisions by families to either blame the victim or sweep the whole thing under the rug. Or am I somehow misunderstanding your meaning?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com