This is a post I made in my discord and on my twitter, and felt it was important to share on all my social media. It's large so I will make it a thread.
Okay, so. The time has come for me to talk about something extremely uncomfortable, and to explain some things. I hope you will bare with me while I do this, as this is incredibly difficult for me to do. There are some things that I will need to explain before I can get to the core of why I must do this, and I hope you will hear me out all the way through to the end.
Let's start with a couple of exercises, because I feel this will better lead into what I will need to say after. I will use a couple of hypothetical scenarios to illustrate a couple of concepts that I feel are of utmost importance. These concepts are so deeply intertwined with our reality that we need to know and understand them.
Let's say we have a person driving down the road. They are minding their own business and they are adhering to all the necessary safety standards and rules of the road to operate their vehicle in a safe manner. This person is doing everything that they should be. Now another person throws themself in front of this driver's car. Even though the driver is doing all that they should be the person that threw themself in front of this car gets hit and dies. Our driver eventually finds themself in court where the prosecutor says "Did you kill the decedent: yes or no?" I believe that most of us would agree that this question cannot ethically or accurately be answered with a simple yes or no. This question is a trap, and it is not fair to the driver because the driver cannot control what other people do. This scenario shows that something is missing here. The thing that is missing is called nuance. We need nuance to protect us from situations like these. We need nuance to make sure our laws are just and fair for all. So hold onto nuance for now as it will come into play later.
Next we need to illustrate another concept. In this scenario we have person A and person B. Person A knows that person B wants to kill someone. Person A gets a gun, loads it and gives it to person B. Person B then goes and kills the person they wanted to kill. Person A, knowing what person B's intentions were, gave person B the power to act on their intentions. I don't really know what exactly the right word for this scenario is, so I will give it an apt description "Murder By Proxy." I believe that most of us agree that, while person A did not pull the trigger themself, person A is equally responsible for the murder that person B committed because they knew what would happen. They had listened to what person B intended to do, and then gave them the power to do it.
This brings me to the segue that will tie into the hardest part of what I must say. I am all for differences of opinion. What is a difference of opinion? A difference of opinion is being unable to agree on how best to use a budget, not agreeing on what color looks best, or even having different ways in which we live our lives. What is not a difference of opinion? Acts of violence. Once we cross the line from being unable to agree into committing violence it is no longer a mere difference of opinion. Once that line has been crossed it is near impossible to go back.
1/x