I think the difference is that I can blame both parties to different degrees without absolving the aggressor, in my mind. I will read through it, though.
You're touching on an important point here, particularly in the context of "blaming the victim." The average person believes that blame is something that there is a certain amount of to be distributed proportionally to the parties at fault. Namely, to give blame to the victim, you must take away blame from the "assailant."
Granted, there are numerous accounts of egregious errors when blaming the victim, and perhaps they outweigh and outvalue the instances where the victim actually was responsible for what happened to them. A key distinction here is that-- to use the mugging example-- the person who was mugged may have been responsible for their poor judgment, and evoking a criminal response in that setting, but that person is never going to be considered criminally at fault for what they did. Socially, perhaps, maybe even likely. It's certainly very unlikely, however, that the criminal will be shown any mercy regardless of how much the person was implicitly "asking for it."
So in this example, if I could try to relay Majivo's sentiment, the assailant is always exactly as much at fault regardless of the context of the crime. Their punishment will not differ despite the foolishness of the victim. However, realistically, there was a quantifiable and statistical likelihood of the crime based on the victim's actions, and knowing that something has a good chance of attracting an assailant and doing it anyway is accepting that risk. In a sense, it adds a different kind of blame to the victim, though it's really more a reduction of sympathy than an ascribing of blame. See, socially, criminals are entitled to blame and therefor rejection, and victims are entitled to sympathy and comfort. So while we may say that the criminal is still entirely 100% at fault for being a criminal, we can also say, "Wow, that person was so stupid to put themself in that situation that I can really only offer 50% of the sympathy that I otherwise would."
All of that assumes a certain typical value set in the human culture. Personally, I view blame and responsibility differently than most people. Namely, I don't blame anyone for anything. There is responsibility and recourse, and human faults are simply an inevitability of the world. I guess you'd say I have a "blame the world" or "blame the circumstances" mentality. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't lock up a murderer, but I wouldn't hate a murderer either. The criminal is also a victim of the world, and their punishment becomes a part of what victimizes them. But I would also be a less severe punisher in many cases, in light of that. The punishment does not aim to avenge anything or necessarily shame the criminal beyond their inherent regret, simply to create the most ideal future out of the unsavory present circumstances. Utilitarian justice, I guess you'd say (actually a quick google search reveals that utilitarian justice is an actual term, so as a disclaimer, I don't necessarily embrace any of the connotations of the established meaning.)
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...
Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.
Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.