Chain reaction

[DrFaroohk]

I've noticed a trend in the world that is disturbing - that in any set of events in which multiple people are involved in the escalating of said chain reaction, no one ever seems to give a shit about who started it. It's always the next step of the way.

Examples: Charlie and Bill are having an argument. Charlie initiated the conversation, Charlie brought up the subject of debate, and Charlie was the one who turned it ugly, from simple debate into blatant bickering. Yet 9 times out of 10, if the heated discussion needs to be broken up, it's always Bill who will get more shit for it. Why? Because he should have walked away. He should have never allowed the situation to get to where it was. And in thinking this way people are basically letting Charlie off the hook.

Or even in more serious cases, such as outright violence. No one ever cares who started the fight, and in most cases people will shit all over the second guy in the chain reaction - because he didn't run away, he didn't try hard enough to avoid the fight. Ok, I get that, but again, people almost seem to ignore the one who instigated said situation in the first place.

I had a car accident several years ago which fucked up my insurance and driving record for a while - because I didn't try hard enough to get out of the way. The driver was all fucked up on methadone or something similar, she swerved into my lane and hit me, and all everyone said was "Well if you'd been paying better attention and knew how to drive you could have avoided that!" Well asshole, guess what - I wasn't doing anything wrong. I was driving in my lane, sober, at the proper speed limit in a street-legal car. The other person drove a car with no reg, no insurance, no license, fucked up on drugs and they swerved into my lane. So how is it my fault?

Why do people think like this? Why don't we go to the root of the problem and deal with it that way?

[Boozy]

I think like that.

Frankly, I think the phrase "So-and-so started it" is childish and immature. Bad things happen, and people do bad things. If we constantly blame others for our own bad judgement, we end up in a world of hurt. Life is about choosing our own behaviour and responses to others. We can't control anyone else's behaviour.

"So-and-so started it" is how wars start, for crying out loud.

If I hear someone at work or on the forums excusing their own idiocy with a phrase like "Well, if so-and-so hadn't said/done this, then I wouldn't have...." I lose a lot of respect for that person. Adults take responsibility for their own actions.

[Hobbs]

Boozy, in you're relation to warfare, I think the logic there is flawed. Yes, it can be seen in several instances of "so-and-so started it" especially when involving such examples as the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand[sic], the bombing of Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Gulf of Tonkin as moments where the attacked country used that attack as motivation for conflict. However, unlike some random event like a bar fight, the beginning attack was a premeditated and planned effort, with the support of the government of the attacking nation. The retaliating nation is simply projecting its sovereign right to maintain rights over its territory.

As for punishing the defender, I think that more of the punishment should be on the instigator, especially if they threw the first punch. Once someone uses violence against you, it is legal (or should be) to proportionally respond to the threat and negate it.

[crashhelmet]

I can agree with you to a point Boozy, but in Doc's last example, he was a victim. He wasn't an antagonizer.

People that continue to pour fuel onto fires have no right to bitch and complain. People that are collateral damage, however, shouldn't be chastised for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Especially if they were in a normally safe situation.

Doc is being blamed for something he had no control over. Sure, he could've stayed home that day or taken a different route to wherever it was he was going. It's no reason to hold him at fault. If people are going to do that. the attitude could also be applied to victims of terrorism, serial killers, and natural disasters.

CH

[Boozy]

I can agree with you to a point Boozy, but in Doc's last example, he was a victim. He wasn't an antagonizer.

Yes, I agree with you there.

[Rageaholic]

I see this quite a bit on consumer review sites like PFB. A lot of the time it is the customers own stupidity, but others times it's not and they still get blamed. Did you get ripped off? Well it's your fault for falling for them! Did they screw up your order? You should have checked! Did your credit card company screw you? Should have used cashed! I understand that employees are humans and make mistakes too, but unless the error is obvious, why should the customer be blamed for their mistake?

I believe it's the "Just World" mindset, where people belief that people have control over their situations and that anything that happens to them could have been avoided. Even when this is true, and the person could have noticed the mistake, or done something to avoid the other parties screw up, had the other party never screwed up in the first place, this situation would have never happened.

[HYHYBT]

Fault can be split, as well. You brought up the example of a wrong order... if I put the wrong sandwich in your bag, that's my fault. If you wait until you're an hour down the road to check, even though it matters so much to you that you're still willing to come all the way back to get it fixed, and expect me to do something about your lost two hours and wasted gas, that's your fault.

[DrFaroohk]

The thing that really gets me is that people seem to put MORE of the blame on the second party. Yes, just because you hit me doesn't mean I get to hit you back, but at the time same, it isn't right to put 90% of the blame on ME and only 10% of the blame on you.

A lot of times its like just the barest nod of blame to the other person, and a big giant steel dildo for the second person. I just don't understand why people tend to ignore the root of the problem and only pick and choose what seems to be the easiest way out.

[Bright Star]

I've noticed a trend in the world that is disturbing - that in any set of events in which multiple people are involved in the escalating of said chain reaction, no one ever seems to give a shit about who started it. It's always the next step of the way.

Examples: Charlie and Bill are having an argument. Charlie initiated the conversation, Charlie brought up the subject of debate, and Charlie was the one who turned it ugly, from simple debate into blatant bickering. Yet 9 times out of 10, if the heated discussion needs to be broken up, it's always Bill who will get more shit for it. Why? Because he should have walked away. He should have never allowed the situation to get to where it was. And in thinking this way people are basically letting Charlie off the hook.

Or even in more serious cases, such as outright violence. No one ever cares who started the fight, and in most cases people will shit all over the second guy in the chain reaction - because he didn't run away, he didn't try hard enough to avoid the fight. Ok, I get that, but again, people almost seem to ignore the one who instigated said situation in the first place.

I had a car accident several years ago which fucked up my insurance and driving record for a while - because I didn't try hard enough to get out of the way. The driver was all fucked up on methadone or something similar, she swerved into my lane and hit me, and all everyone said was "Well if you'd been paying better attention and knew how to drive you could have avoided that!" Well asshole, guess what - I wasn't doing anything wrong. I was driving in my lane, sober, at the proper speed limit in a street-legal car. The other person drove a car with no reg, no insurance, no license, fucked up on drugs and they swerved into my lane. So how is it my fault?

Why do people think like this? Why don't we go to the root of the problem and deal with it that way?

That's the same situation when it comes to bullying. It's never the bully that gets into trouble but rather the victim when they try to fight back.

[DrFaroohk]

But if that is so consistent, then wouldn't it be pretty easy to just say "Ok, I saw you doing somethign wrong, so I know the other guy started it."

In all seriousness this mindset just gives the bully types even more power than they already had.