[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.