• snooggums@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Enabling is worse than the crime itself.

    Fuck no. In some cases it can be as bad as the crime, but most of the time the crimes are far worse than those that let it happen.

    • Redfox8@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      7 hours ago

      I think the point is that enabling a: allows an individual to repeatedly comit the crime and b: allows more people to comit the same crime. Ergo worse than an individual criminal act.

      • snooggums@piefed.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 hours ago

        That is committing a crime as an accomplice, which is different than enabling a crime which by default is passive or encouraging.

        Trump is a rapist and Epstein is an accomplice. Johnson avoiding a vote is a form of enabling, but that is not as bad as the rapist and their accomplice.

        The term enabling when it comes to crime is used differently than for people who enable overeating or substance abuse by covering symptoms because there are more specific terms for active involvement in crimes.