• Lightor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    Ehhh I dunno. Saying it’s the stores fault they got robbed feels wrong. It’s the robbers fault for, you know, robbing. I mean, how far does that go? They had locks but not good enough locks. Yeah they had locks but no security system. Well they had a security system but no guard. At some point the blame is on the person that actually committed the crime.

    • Amelia_@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      My point is that corporations cannot be victims because they’re not people, they’re a legal construct. They cannot be victims any more than a table can be a victim when I spill my drink over it. The term “victim”, whether intentional or not, is an emotive word that invokes ideas of injustice and suffering.

      Marketing teams and corporate executives convinced people and legal systems that corporations are people in an attempt to engender sympathy, personification, and to avoid responsibility for their own failures, like the case in this article where managerial and procedural failures by those in charge led to the ability for this ex-employee to be able to do what he did.