623
I'm with Kira (startrek.website)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/risa@startrek.website
79 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -14 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Being a murder is different than being a bigot.

I would bet the vast majority of bigots, have never killed anyone.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    But a whole lot of them would vote for somebody who has.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Perhaps. But that still wouldn't make them killers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    If someone hands a loaded gun to someone who they believe intends to commit murder, do you believe that they are not a part of the murder committed?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Who is part of what murder? Neither of the people in your scenario has killed anyone yet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    OK, you need to be walked through it every step of the way, then.

    1. Akhil gives a gun to Omar.

    2. Akhil knows Omar hates, to pick a threatened minority at random, gay people, and wants to kill them.

    3. Omar shoots up, let's say, a gay nightclub. In, to pick a city totally at random, Orlando, Florida. And just for funsies, let's call it The Pulse. I'm sure this totally imaginary scenario bears no resemblance to any actual event, and no gay nightclub called The Pulse in Orlando, Florida has ever been shot up by a virulent homophobe named Omar Mateen. Pure imagination.

    4. The judicial system would view Akhil as an accessory to murder in that instance.

    Let me further introduce you to the concept of stochastic terrorism. Boy, aren't you learning a lot tonight! I'm happy for you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -8 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Yes I agree with all of that. Person A would be an accessory to murder.

    Being an accessory to murder is a different thing than being a murderer. That's why they have different labels. I think you view them as the same? Or are suggesting they are?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    In the example in question maybe, maybe not. If Omar wasn't handed the gun from person A, he could have gotten the gun in some other way.

    However, in an election, no one gets elected without votes, so yes I do consider everyone who votes for a bigot to be responsible for what that bigot did.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    See I would hold the bigot responsible. Its doesn't seem right or practical to put millions of people on trial for one person's act.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    I would bet with many the only reason none of them have killed someone is because they would get in trouble with the law, not because they are morally against it.

    You can see it in the stories from during the colonial era back when black people weren't considered humans.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago

    That could be possible.

    Though going to a time and place where the target group were so "othered" (is that a word) as to not even be human, that removes more mental barriers than simply the law.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent