[mpyne]

Should Obama be held responsible for the actions of his Naval officers if he declares we should pursue missile strikes in Syria?

I mean, saying something and then your fans going overboard is one thing. But everytime 'dickwolves' gets mentioned the fanatics pull out the big guns again... maybe at some point Gabe and Tycho should anticipate that women out there will be the target of those same fanatics if they push the D.W. button again?

[saraid216]

> Should Obama be held responsible for the actions of his Naval officers if he declares we should pursue missile strikes in Syria?

Um, this is not a good analogy. There's an extra layer of kerfuffle that makes this different.

Better analogy: Should a well-known religious leader be held responsible for the actions of those who listen to him? How about a talk show host?

[danielweber]

If I say something that offends a certain religion and those people burn down a building in response, and I knew they would do that, am I responsible for that?

I used to think so -- if I didn't do X then bad thing Y wouldn't happen, so I could stop it, right? -- but it was some liberal friends of mine who convinced me otherwise. All you can be responsible for is yourself.

[mpyne]

Point taken, and I actually try to preach that mantra myself. But I agree with jlgreco about the greater credibility our law seems to give to public figures with regard to incitement.

Certainly it's a problem I'm glad that I don't have to worry about, and I feel bad for Gabe in that regard just like I tend to pity many celebrity figures who just want their privacy back. :-/

[saraid216]

> All you can be responsible for is yourself.

This is a nice piece of self-help advice, but it's a self-delusory trick to reduce the level of mental insanity that comes from a full acknowledgement of responsibility.

Keep in mind that you're presuming a direct chain of cause and effect from your offensive words to the building-burning. When there isn't such a direct chain, then you have a much less direct responsibility. Which is the point. The strength of your agency in the causality is precisely what obligates you to make a meaningful decision.

If you didn't know that committing a diff would result in someone losing all their money, then it's not really your fault. But if you did, then it is.

It's liberalism's most detestable idiocy that everyone really is an island unto themselves and fuck the promontory that sinks into the sea. If you ever speak to anyone with the intent of persuading them at all, even if it's an evangelical-style "if only you'd read the Bible, you'd recognize that Jesus is your savior" except with facts and figures, you're somewhat responsible for the consequences of that persuasion.

[jlgreco]

I'm not convinced that we can map the ethics used with situations involving the military chain of command to situations involving informal mobs.

Now, we still have concepts like "inciting imminent lawless action" that are fairly non-controversial, so clearly there is at least some sense of blaming people who tell others to go make a mess, but I don't think that is nearly as clear-cut as your example.