I figure that:
Victim-blaming is pervasive, especially when it comes to police brutality.
Victim-blaming is used to excuse and enable and sometimes to threaten rape, bashings, bullying, police brutality, and various other forms of violence.
Victim-blaming often reinforces arguments based on transmisogyny, racism, ableism, etc.
Victim-blaming can trigger other victims.
Victim-blaming is usually wrong.
Victim-blaming can deflect from actually examining other factors.
So all told, I think avoiding victim-blaming is a good idea. Not perfect.
I don’t think public discourse would lose if victim-blaming were socially unacceptable in almost any case. Or at least if rushing to blame the victim, and ignoring any [other] contributors, instead of first considering all [other] contributors. But then I can’t really understand how we get to the point that although the n-word is rightly socially unacceptable, we get bans on Huck Finn and arguments over whether this or that other word is a slur. So I can’t really predict where this would go.
I do think public discourse would benefit because avoiding victim-blaming is a principle that we can apply pretty consistently, where even checking privilege can be hard to apply at all consistently [as in the debate over whether trans womyn ever had male privilege, what it means to have male privilege, wheher being beaten up for being a girl is male privilege, and as a corollary, whether a cis girl or cis boy who was assumed to be a trans girl can have male privilege].
So that said, do you think we should try to make victim-blaming socially unacceptable? do you think enough of us can find others to get together to make victim-blaming socially unacceptable? if so, how?
P.S. As to censorship, I’m against that. This isn’t censorship. This is more like making the blood libel socially unacceptable. That doesn’t depend on censorship.