Over the weekend you may have heard of or seen - nude photos of celebrities were stolen off of their phones and posted online. It’s a terrible invasion of privacy, but probably the most disconcerting part of this for me is that some people are blaming the celebrities for having the nude photos on their phones in the first place (x)
That’s a random sampling of strangers on Twitter who can be found by searching the phrase “stop taking nude pictures.”
And that’s, oh man, Ricky Gervais? Dammit.
Some people use this refrain to sit in holier-than-thou judgment (“Serves you right. No one will ever see pictures of MY butt on the Internet, because I’m so careful and smart and restrained that I’ve never even BEEN naked.”). Still, some other people use it to justify the fact that they looked at the stolen pictures in the first place. It’s a sneaky way to distance yourself from the problem: “I’m not the kind of perverted guy who would peek into a woman’s window while she was showering or spy on women going to the bathroom, but if you are stupid and trampy enough to have ever taken a naked picture in your life, sure I’ll look at it. But, ugh, do you have any with, like, better lighting?”
When you use this argument, here is what you’re really saying: Person A owned a thing. Person B stole it. Let’s all blame person A for having the audacity to own a thing in the first place.
To someone on the outside, one of the most baffling parts of the Ferguson Police Department’s response to their shooting of an unarmed teenager was when they refused to name the officer who pulled the trigger. “If we come out and say, ‘It was this officer,’ then he immediately becomes a target,” the Ferguson, MO police chief said, about officer Darren Wilson, the cop who shot 18 year-old Mike Brown. “We’re taking the threats seriously.” The reason it seemed strange is because it implied that the cops don’t see themselves as part of the community. In a perfect world, the police chief should look at a dead kid and be like, “Wow, this whole town needs to work together to figure out what happened here, because a child is dead, and that is unacceptable.” But instead he prioritized the comfort and security of his officer over the comfort and security of his community, which … okay, non-rhetorical question: Isn’t that literally the opposite of his job?