Talk:Blame/Archives/2012

Unencyclopedic piece
I'm moving this here for now:

Blame is by no means a clear concept because consensus about where responsibily lies is often far from clear. For example, some people believe that one person can cause another to commit a fault while others believe that the intention to commit a fault resides within the person who commits the act. Those who believe that other's can cause a deed would say that a rape victim brought her rape upon herself because she 'provoked  it' with provocative clothing. Those who believe that rape is a freely chosen choice would say the rapist caused (and is to blame) for the rape while the rape victim chose to dress provocatively but did not cause her own rape. Those who believe that a victim can cause his or her own victimization often blame the victim in good faith.

Another case where blame becomes problematic is where blame is based on erroneous cause and effect connections. In this case, blame is often erroneously attached to mere coincidences which are far from the control of the blamed politician. Blame, to be correct, must establish a reasonable connection between cause and effect but people often shortcut considerations of cause and effect and wrongly hold people to blame for things outside their control.

Lying is often involved in blaming, although it is certainly possible to assign blame by appealing to truth (however selectively it is applied). For example, a person could be genuinely or falsely blamed for hitting another person. False blame is a potent tactic in social, political, and relational situations where unrestrained scapegoating is permitted.

One especially insidious type of false blame is the double-bind form of blame. Double-bind blame is often stated as "he brought what (we) did upon himself". In using double-bind blame, the blamers deliberately dissemble so that they become totally blameless for their actions while the blamed becomes blamed what they did to her. Double bind blame is a cunning confusion of cause and effect that tyrannical authorities often use to shift blame for their actions onto the scapegoat. The scapegoat may or may not be to blame for his actions but he surely has no direct responsibility for what others do onto him, however official such sanctions might be. Politicians, parents, judges and others in authority often use this status quo form of blame to scapegoat their targets while appearing blameless themselves.

The incoherent and rambling prose is hardly appropriate for an encyclopedia article. This needs a massive rewrite, if we should have a dedicated article "blame" at all".--Eloquence* 22:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is the psychology ?
At the start of the article it says " This article is about the psychological behavior." yet it is full of philosophy from the likes of Aristotle who wasnt exactly a psychologist. --Penbat (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Versioning
Not sure where this fits in, but  is also a command in Version Control Systems and collaborative editing software that shows the author/latest editor of each line of code. For example, .--87.162.44.235 (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That picture is ridiculous, btw
If you want to maintain any sort of credibility for this article it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.85.110 (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree and removed. SQGibbon (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I vote for keep. It is difficult to represent blame in a picture but it does as well as any picture can do. --Penbat (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't need to lower our standards. If a good picture can't be found then we're better off without anything.  In any case its inclusion is clearly meant as a joke.  SQGibbon (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It clearly evokes blame when people see it. Domitri (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasnt suggesting that it was in anyway a bad picture. I dont see any standards lowered and it is clever the way it expresses blame.--Penbat (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a confused looking man pointing in two directions. It's only clear that it expresses blame if you know that's what it's supposed to be representing in the first place.  Looking through the most recent featured articles I don't see any with pictures of goofy looking men.  Assuming that's the standard all articles should be trying for then allowing this picture in is a lowering of our standards. SQGibbon (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)