[bato]

To continue along your analogy, that would be akin to the local population saying "there's need to involve police forces, it's only the one guy" "Just because there's a violent criminal in town doesn't mean we have to do anything about it, we're on the whole nice people"

Instead of you know, assisting the police with their enquiries, teaching their kids it's not ok to slice open people, volunteering for search parties to find the victims, organising groups to walk kids to and from school, etc.

[TTPrograms]

You kind of missed the analogy - we should do all of those things. The problem is that the acts of the violent criminal are being treated as the acts of the whole town.

[breadbox]

No, they aren't. That may be what you're hearing, but I promise you that's not what the intended message is.

When someone says "This town has a crime problem," they're not saying "The town itself is committing lots crimes" or even "This town contains nothing but criminals." What they are saying is that it doesn't matter how many good people there are in the town, it's still that town's responsibility to do something about it. The town can't just wait around for some other town to come and fix things for them. Or go on letting people get robbed and killed as long as it doesn't happen to anyone that "matters".

Women say "This industry is fucked" because they want things to get better. Some people hear this and seem to think that if they personally didn't cause it, then it's not their job to fix things or even acknowledge the issue. But news flash, the only way things get better if the people who aren't causing the problem drive the change. Because the people who are causing the problem aren't going to. They're entirely happy with the shitty status quo.

[livingparadox]

Except, if we are going to make the analogy faithful to the real life scenario, the blame is not transferring the guilt of the criminal, but the separate crime of not doing anything about the criminal.