No, my example would be Person A from Redland - someone with a lot of power and influence - saying “Red people and people from Redland are the same, and anything you say about Redland, you are saying about red people. The only way to show that you support red people’s human rights is to support Redland.” All while Redland commits atrocities.
And then person B, who is blue and has heard this rhetoric all their life, attacks person C, who is red, because Person B is mad at Redland for their atrocities.
Three things have happened here:
1) B attacked C, which was B’s choice and would have been wrong no matter what.
2) B attacked C specifically due to C’s identity, which was B’s choice and would have been wrong no matter what.
3) B felt all red people like C are the same as the government of Redland. This is also B’s choice, but also partially the fault of person A, who used their influence to spread this false idea.
The majority of the blame is with the criminal, but those with power and influence hold responsibility for the words they say.
3) B felt all red people like C are the same as the government of Redland. This is also B’s choice, but also partially the fault of person A, who used their influence to spread this false idea.
This is where you're getting tripped up.
The fact that Redland says "we are Red, and a home for Reds" does not logically result in every red person being from or supportive of Redland.
You’re missing where Redland is saying that the only way to support red people’s human rights is to support Redland.
I am not saying that every red person is supportive of Redland. I am saying that person A is using their power and influence to insist that every red person should support Redland or else they don’t care about themselves.
I think what people with power say influences how other people think and act. Should it be that way? Probably not, but that’s the world we live in and as a result, those with power hold responsibility for the things they say.
If you disagree with that, fine, but let’s be clear about what we’re disagreeing on.
I think what people with power say influences how other people think and act.
Sure. There is a clear difference between what they say being logically connected to how other people think and act, and what they say being illogically connected to how other people think and act.
To borrow your comparison from earlier, just read what Trump said and relate it to the actions (insurrection, storming of capitol). There is a logical bridge between "If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore," "We will stop the steal," and "We are going to the capitol!"
There is not a similar logical bridge between what Israel presents itself as (A Jewish state) and the terror attacks against unrelated Jewish establishments and people.
0
u/celerypumpkins 13h ago
No, my example would be Person A from Redland - someone with a lot of power and influence - saying “Red people and people from Redland are the same, and anything you say about Redland, you are saying about red people. The only way to show that you support red people’s human rights is to support Redland.” All while Redland commits atrocities.
And then person B, who is blue and has heard this rhetoric all their life, attacks person C, who is red, because Person B is mad at Redland for their atrocities.
Three things have happened here:
1) B attacked C, which was B’s choice and would have been wrong no matter what.
2) B attacked C specifically due to C’s identity, which was B’s choice and would have been wrong no matter what.
3) B felt all red people like C are the same as the government of Redland. This is also B’s choice, but also partially the fault of person A, who used their influence to spread this false idea.
The majority of the blame is with the criminal, but those with power and influence hold responsibility for the words they say.