• Steve@communick.news
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    Being a murder is different than being a bigot.

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

        • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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?

          • Steve@communick.news
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

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

            • teuast@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              15
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • Steve@communick.news
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                1 year ago

                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?

    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Steve@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year 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.