01-04-2024, 07:02 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-04-2024, 07:07 PM by Eric Cartman.)
(01-04-2024, 06:37 PM)Rendle wrote:(01-04-2024, 05:04 PM)Uncle wrote: I think the implication is that it's not something that conservatives are inflicting upon others, but something they do to themselves
It's like if I said "conservatives weaponized James Gunn's past tweets" or "when we argue my wife always weaponizes my relationship with my family" or "intelligence agencies use blackmail in order to weaponize a target's sexuality". Just because something is weaponized against you doesn't mean you deserve it (or in Claudina's case, doesn't mean she didn't). Perhaps the word 'weapon' wouldn't be as suitable if this information came to light in a neutral probe into plagiarism, but it's hard to imagine that the people who found and exposed this information were moved to do so by their deep passion for academic integrity. For them it is about the sinner and not the sin.
I agree with you as to motive, but where the 'punishment' is wholly appropriate to the 'crime' I disagree that that is something you can term as 'weaponised', even where the motives for exposing the 'crime' and bringing down the 'punishment' are suspect.
For example; "jilted lover weaponised a botched surgery while drunk into a doctor losing his medical licence".
Is that 'weaponised' because the motives for exposing what happened were purely self serving (revenge for being jilted), or is losing your medical licence because you botched a surgery while drunk entirely appropriate and therefore the use of 'weaponised' is only there to exonerate the perpetrator from their act by questioning the integrity of the source?
The other examples you provide are where the 'punishment' (losing your employment or reputation) are inappropriate to the 'crime' (being outed as gay); something where the 'crime' is disproportionately 'punished' for the purpose of harm.

2 users liked this post: