7 ms·
It's more than just refusing to name the assailant. It's the notion that in renouncing their humanity with such a horrific act, they are now bereft of a name. T
by korethr 6y ago
It's more than just refusing to name the assailant. It's the notion that in renouncing their humanity with such a horrific act, they are now bereft of a name. The assailant has already declared to the world that they aren't a real person anymore, but an it. So consider its name to be gone and stop using said name.
- vmception 6y agoI see, that is a bit more obtuse. Any thoughts on how that ought to affect trial and sentencing?
- korethr 6y agoNow that you say that, that points out why it probably shouldn't catch on. That attitude being taken seriously widespread could have some bad effects on the right to a fair trial. Fundamental rights should not be toyed with lightly. Even people who commit such a horrible act still have that fundamental right, because if they don't, that sets the precedent for myself or any other person to not have the right to a fair trial because of an accusation of a crime-too-horrible. I still hate the immortality CNN bestows to mass shooters.