Blaming others for things that are not our business can attract charges of meddling and corresponding dismissals of blame. Such charges are contentious because the content and applicability conditions of anti‐meddling norms can be difficult to specify. An unappreciated reason they can be contentious is that it is often not settled in advance whether some wrongdoing is or is not the business of a would‐be blamer. Rather than pointing out violation of a pre‐established anti‐meddling norm, charges of meddling may sometimes be aiming to put such a norm in place. Grounds of anti‐meddling norms, including privacy, intimacy, and respect for victims, support giving those involved significant latitude to set their own boundaries on appropriate blame. This brings out the more general point that norms of blame, including standing norms, are often up for negotiation, and dismissals of blame can be moves in such a negotiation of trying to establish boundaries on blame, rather than merely pointing out violations of pre‐established boundaries.

中文翻译：

---

多管闲事的指责和谈判地位


将与我们无关的事情归咎于他人可能会招致干涉的指控，并相应地免除责任。此类指控颇具争议，因为反干预规范的内容和适用条件可能难以明确。他们可能引起争议的一个不被重视的原因是，某些不当行为是否是潜在指责者的事，往往无法提前解决。干涉指控有时可能旨在落实这样的规范，而不是指出违反预先制定的反干涉规范。反干预规范的依据，包括隐私、亲密关系和尊重受害者，支持给予相关人员很大的自由度，让他们在适当的指责上设定自己的界限。这引出了一个更普遍的观点，即责备规范，包括常设规范，通常需要进行谈判，而在这种谈判中，排除责备可以是试图建立责备界限的举动，而不仅仅是指出违反预先规定的行为。既定的界限。