Hacker News Reader

Comment by cassac | Hacker News Reader

No, if you are robbed you aren’t the victim. No more than you are the victim for tripping on your shoe laces. You make choices and those choices have consequences. Don’t tie your shoes? Trip! Go out in a sketchy area late at night? Robbed! You put yourself in the situation, and if you didn’t like the result, you change your actions. Seeing it as something done to you I think is the exact opposite of the main message.

View on HN

This logic just seems twisted. Of course i could have avoided event x, if i had made some other choice at some previous point in time. The whole point of living in society is to offset some personal responibilty to the community so that individuals can live without having to constantly think of all possible negative consequences their actions might potentially bring. What you describe in your comment is little more than victim blaming, not even one step away from blaming rape victims for dressing immodestly.

Did you even read the article?

“Epictetus was telling his students there can be no such thing as being the ‘victim’ of another. You can only be ‘victim’ of yourself.”

So no, I’m not victim blaming, I’m reading the article on what it means to be stoic. Obviously you disagree with the premise. Or... does being a stoic mean you support victim blaming?

You can get robbed anywhere (yes, even if the area isn't "sketchy") and if you do, it's not your fault. Of course, this does not mean that afterward you shouldn't take the right steps (perhaps you'll go to the police, or take self-defense classes). Knowing that it could have happened to anyone doesn't take away from your agency.

But if you are stoic it is not the offenders fault either. You are only promised suffering and it is up to you to manage that suffering. Maybe nobody on HN wants to be a stoic.

How am I down voted for saying what they are saying is stoic?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com