No, primarily the people around the victim need to change. Which means beliefs in general, of everyone, need to change. That the victim would then also change is a bonus, which wouldn't even be needed anymore.
It's bizarre for you to claim my points are directed at the victim, when I'm arguing that isn't my intention.
My point is: if someone would have internalized that, what happened would be less of a problem. However, internalizing such things is more likely if everyone around you has internalized those things, which would already go a much longer way towards making what happened less of a problem.
The train of thought starts at the first point, suggests a solution, but doesn't say that only that single point is the solution. The entirety of the post suggests a solution, in which most people would not consider what happened a problem anymore. And only the entirety is the message. That single point out of context isn't.
Your "solution" is nothing more than the "just ignore it" tripe that victims already hear enough. Framing it in big words and bullet points adds no real weight.
You are knee-jerk reacting to what you perceive as victim-blaming. I am arguing that the beliefs of people need to change for it to be possible to 'just ignore it'. So yes, the solution ultimately is 'just ignore it', but because circumstances are such that ignoring it is possible. And because that is possible, it wouldn't happen in the first place. So I'm not saying either of the women mentioned could solve their current problem by 'ignoring it'.
Though experiment: suppose there were only three people in the world: you, a girl I vaguely knew and someone you both didn't know and didn't communicate with. In that case, the 'someone' couldn't possibly harass the girl by posting nasty online comments, because you and her just wouldn't have any reason to care. If there was a fourth, an ex-boyfriend, who posted nude picture online, but was otherwise not a threat and not being an ass, then there still needn't be any reason to care. Extrapolate to a world.
If I were an anti-Putin Russian advocating a world in which everyone could safely use real-name accounts for their anti-Putin propaganda, you wouldn't argue that my advocacy was false or insincere, just because I was using an anonymous account, now would you?
My comment only makes sense in this world, since it advocates a combination of changes that would lead to a different world.
If I wanted to retract what I wrote or backpedal on it, I would edit or delete it. I would not need to play any 'gambit' nor would there by any point. What's the point of that if I leave the post up?
I'm explaining that I intended something different from your interpretation and all you're doing is keeping hammering that your initial reading must necessarily be right. Why would I bother?
