Hacker News Reader

Comment by opmac | Hacker News Reader

Classic victim blaming. What you say is mostly true, but it completely glosses over the potential issues raised by this post. So what if the author made a mistake about using Freelancer.com? That doesn't change the fact that what Freelancer is _supposedly_ doing here is incredibly shady and they should be held accountable. The only real issue I have with the author's post is there are a lot of details missing. What did you do to step on the toes? Where are these chat logs? I can't assume that Freelancer is 100% in the wrong here without proper evidence and at least hearing their point of view. That being said, the author is using this as review a platform to raise attention to a potentially serious issue, and there should be no reason to immediately blame him with "sorry, it's your fault for using Freelancer to begin with... good luck."

View on HN

The primary way HN audience can hold Freelancer accountable is not use their services. This is what a review is for -- so that other people can learn from OP's experience.

If OP wanted instead help with their particular situation, they would have to include the details you note are missing.

Does anybody have a theory as to why victim-blaming is such a popular response on HN? I don't see it nearly as much elsewhere.

I think that smarter people are more likely to victim-blame because it's harder to imagine themselves falling victim to whatever situation.

For most problems, they seem like they could have been easily prevented by either being more knowledgeable about the situation or thinking things through beforehand.

After reading a lot of the discussions here, and considering that most of us are here for the pursuit of knowledge, my guess is that the community here represents more of the right side of the bell curve.

I don't think inability to imagine bad luck or own mistake is proof of intelligence. It is proof of ego or arrogance or an attempt to mask I security.

Smart people made mistakes in the past, smart people can imagine situations where they become victims (whether by own fault or not). Some smart people do have inability to imagine themselves in other people's shoose - but dumb people are often similarly disabled

You're right, it's a one-sided kind of intelligence. Maybe what Casseres said would be better phrased "people who are proud of being smart".

The fact that it's one-sided smarts, the fact that one is probably not as smart as one thinks, and the ability to imagine another person's shoes, are all life lessons that may click into place at different times for different people.

This definitely seems like a major factor to me. If I'm proud of being smart, I'll be inclined to perform smartness. And one easy way to perform smartness is by making somebody else look dumb.

That's why I hate the word "smart" and probably shouldn't write comments first thing in the morning.

I believe "smart" and "intelligent" are two different things: one is having knowledge, and the other is being able to act wisely with that knowledge.

A person can memorize an encyclopedia, but if unable to do anything useful with that knowledge, can be smart but not intelligent.

No one is infallible; everyone makes mistakes. Being able to learn from them and not repeat them is what's harder for most people.

I disagree - I think it's about recognizing the realities of the situation and the best way to resolve it. The OP has learned that Freelancer.com is rather shady, and they essentially ripped him off of an amount of money that's rather modest by professional standards. The best way for OP to move forward is likely to learn how to do business as a freelancer without using these types of middlemen and write off the money lost to their mishaps. He could try suing for it, but my impression is that collecting an amount of money worth the time is unlikely. Better to spend the time establishing direct relationships with clients that need the work done and pay on time rather than trying to collect a pittance from Freelancer.com.

On the contrary, I find those who shout "Victim Blamer!" often ignore or discount the realities of the situation out of a quest for perceived justice. Getting such justice is often a long and expensive process that may actually leave the victim in an overall worse position, when it is possible at all. When there is a straightforward and practical plan that will put the victim back in a good situation without regard to causing any so-called "justice" to happen to the so-called "bad guy", well, sometimes it's best to just let it go. Karma will get them in the end.

That's not to say that there aren't situations where we do need some justice. I'm just saying pick your battles here. Not everything is worth fighting about, and things that are worth a fight are worth making sure you can win.

It's probably simply to boost one's ego, every time one of these posts brings up how you should've been more 'responsible', it occurs to me that they're trying to shake their own failing of a similar nature from their past.

It's the Libertarian pro-market bend here, it's what you get when you replace the legal framework of the state with a market system. In a regular Western democracy if someone cheats you you can seek redress through the court system. You can't do that in the trust market, if you didn't do diligence on your opponent it's your own fault.

Kind of like in the Mafia, a war of all against all. Me against my brothers. Me and my brothers against my cousins. Me and my brothers and cousins against the world.

If the other party did something illegal or broke a contract you most certainly have legal recourse.

The problem with intermediaries like these is that there's an inherent power differential. So, while technically they might not be doing anything illegal they're able to squeeze you. The best way to deal with this - if possible - is to not get yourself into a situation like that in the first place.

Another way is to make new laws (or create common law precedents depending on the legal system) that address issues that arise with these models. After all, that's how labour laws came into being as there was a huge power differential between early industrial workers, specifically day labourers, and their employers.

Another possibility is simple contrarianism.

HN commenters tend to be cerebral know-it-all types who genuinely enjoy argumentation and like to pick things apart. They also tend to identify as independent thinkers and they like to demonstrate their intellect by taking unconventional positions.

If this is the case here, in what way is GP demonstrating their intellect with the position they're taking?

What's with this assumption that victims are always blameless? If I run around the street and get hit by a car, should I not share some blame?

It seems whenever someone points out risky behavior here, someone else calls "victim blaming".

Maybe it's because, of course, not all those who pose as victims are actually victims.

It's very natural to side automatically with whover complains of an injustice; but people who strive to be rational are suspicious of this immediate emotional reaction, and want to be sure that they're not being tricked into showing an undeserved support.

Finally, the expression "victim blaming" subtly tries to shift the focus from the question "is this person really a victim" to the false question "should this victim be blamed".

Victim-blaming is rampant everywhere, first of all. And while those thoughts might not get typed in as much on Facebook where everything is happy-happy-happy and like-like-like, I bet they're being thought. Here on HN there's no such cultural slant toward positivity, but there is one toward intellectualism. And hey, whatever else victim-blaming is, it's sort of interesting as an intellectual idea.

Really? I find victim-blaming intellectually sterile. It can be done pretty much any time something bad happens, and it's not challenging to do. You just find the person who's most fucked and say it's all their fault.

I think it's much more interesting to understand the subtle dynamics that result in bad outcomes. As an example, Sidney Dekker's book, "The Field Guide to Understanding Human Error" [1] makes an excellent case that if you're going to do useful aviation accident investigation, you have to decline the simple-minded approach of blame, and instead look at the web of causes and experiences that lead to failure.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Field-Guide-Understanding-Human-Error...

In any set of events, the story is up to the interpreter. If you make your story that you were victimized, then you'll feel like there's little you can do yourself to change that. Claiming victimhood is not at all productive.

Instead, if you see those events as failings on your part, you are empowered to make the change required to have a better time in the future.

Victim mentality doesn't solve anything and goes further to make the interpreter of one's life a powerless pawn that will unavoidably be used in ways that person doesn't like.

Blame yourself and empower yourself.

Upwork is still awful. Avoid it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com