XCancel doesn't show notes. But you can enjoy the replies.
this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2025
964 points (99.3% liked)
People Twitter
9628 readers
662 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Enabling is worse than the crime itself. "all it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing" -motherfuckign J RR Tolkien. Fuck the bible.
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.
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.
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.
Fuck no was my first thought also. Yes everyone involved should be held accountable, but the fucking criminal is the worst one.
I tried, but I kept getting paper cuts.
If you're defending someone who is accused of a crime... Well... you better have a really good fucking reason. Like being their defense attorney. Except, IMO, lawyers caught doing shenanigans shouldn't just get disbarred and MAYBE prison time. They deserve to be enslaved on sugar plantations. As well as their children. Just my 2 cents. If you give them a carrot, and have a suitcase nuke in their crawl space where their family lives... Well, would have to be pretty motivated to not take the carrot.
I don’t think that’s equivalent. An attorney isn’t obstructing justice, they are a crucial part of the system, there to ensure that the accused gets a fair trial and that any possibility of them being innocent is taken into consideration. Even if they’re defending an obvious criminal.
These people aren’t part of the justice system. They’re blocking the release of information surfaced under a criminal investigation because they know that its release will impact them negatively, and they’re already not exactly popular.
I see you've never been in the same building as a prosecutor.
The discussion was about defense attorneys.
Unspecified. The one the context suggests, yes but they're using suspiciously broad language so as to support the concept of legal process as synonymous with justice.
I think that much broader implication is fucked up and wrong, and needed a gentle correction that could re-specify their meaning to only the narrow context under discussion.
This has been enlightening to all, and not at all tedious. Thank you.
No, further up, before that.
Lick whatever boots you like, but dont bother me about it again.
Huh?
If you believe in the rule of law (which you should unless you're a fascist) you can defent a pedofile or any othet criminal without being on their side. Point is just to make sure they get a fair trial and justice happens.
You are replying to someone who is advocating enslaving children due to the actions of their parent. This is not reasonable.
You should, even. Being a pedophile is not a crime. Acting it out by harming children is a crime. And by far not all child sexual abuse is done by pedophiles.
Ah, to be 15...
Absolute ripper of a take.