5 ms·

SBF aside, I don't think it's true that a scapegoat must be sinless. Actually I think that's impossible, as the expression goes "Give me six lines written by th

by shawnz 3y ago

SBF aside, I don't think it's true that a scapegoat must be sinless. Actually I think that's impossible, as the expression goes "Give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I will find something in them which will hang him". In fact I think the best scapegoats have some objective fault which lets you seed the blame for them more easily.

panzagl 3y ago
Goats sin?
throw7 3y ago
That's more a colloquial sense, which I think imo is closer to a 'fall guy'. The parent is the biblical sense.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  No. I am speaking in both the biblical and colloquial sense. If you did a crime and get punished for it, you are not a scapegoat in the colloquial sense just because other people also committed similar crimes. Suppose I'm a bank robber. The feds catch me and and throw me in jail, but they fail or neglect to catch some other bank robbers. Am I a scapegoat in the colloquial sense? No. I'm not a scapegoat because I am in fact a bank robber being punished for bank robbery. I'm not being punished for the bank robberies perpetrated by other bank robbers, I'm being punished for my own crimes. Since SBF will be punished for his own crimes, not for the crimes of other cryptobros, he is not a scapegoat in any sense.
  - shawnz 3y ago
    If you collaborated with other bank robbers, and they intentionally arranged it so that you would take most or all of the punishment while allowing them to escape free, then I think most would describe that as scapegoating you (even though part of the blame really does lie on you for participating in the scheme). I don't really know or care about the specifics of the SBF case and I'm not saying this applies to SBF. All I am saying is that at least two people in this discussion disagree with your understanding of the colloquial definition (me and the person you originally replied to with this criticism). So on that basis alone I don't think you have a right to be so assured in your definition.
mikestew 3y ago
SBF aside, I don't think it's true that a scapegoat must be sinless. It's an Old Testament thing, the original meaning can easily be looked up. Some take the scapegoat as a metaphor for the New Testament Jesus (who is viewed as sinless by most followers). Ergo, we lay the sins of the community upon the innocent goat, and send him out in to the desert. Regardless, I'll give you that goats can be ornery little fuckers, but I don't think they do a lot of "sinning" in the biblical sense.
- shawnz 3y ago
  I'm aware that it's a biblical idea, but even in the biblical sense, is it explicitly specified that the goat being without sin is relevant to its ability to be a scapegoat, aside from the fact that animals are incapable of sin as far as Christians are concerned? Regardless, clearly the colloquial definition is what the original poster was referring to anyway, since any Christian must necessarily believe that SBF along with every other human alive today is subject to original sin. So it's a useless term for any practical purpose if you believe that scapegoats must be sinless and are talking in a strictly biblical sense.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    The goat is without sin insofar as the humans are concerned, the sins in question are unambiguously those committed by the people, not the goat. If the goat committed his own goaty sins, that's irrelevant. Those hypothetical goat sins are unknown to the humans and don't factor into the goat's execution. In the figurative or colloquial sense of the expression, a scapegoat is a person being punished for something other people did. They might also be a bad person in other unrelated ways, but what makes them a scapegoat is the part where they're punished for something they didn't do, for something other people did. You cannot be a scapegoat if you actually did the thing you're being punished for. In both cases, the scapegoat is punished for something somebody else did. The biblical meaning and the colloquial meaning align neatly, there is no meaningful distinction here. SBF is to be punished for his own crimes, not for the crimes of other cryptobros, so he is not in any sense a scapegoat. Not in the biblical sense, nor in the colloquial sense.

by shawnz 3y ago

panzagl 3y ago

Goats sin?

throw7 3y ago

That's more a colloquial sense, which I think imo is closer to a 'fall guy'. The parent is the biblical sense.

mcpackieh 3y ago
No. I am speaking in both the biblical and colloquial sense. If you did a crime and get punished for it, you are not a scapegoat in the colloquial sense just because other people also committed similar crimes. Suppose I'm a bank robber. The feds catch me and and throw me in jail, but they fail or neglect to catch some other bank robbers. Am I a scapegoat in the colloquial sense? No. I'm not a scapegoat because I am in fact a bank robber being punished for bank robbery. I'm not being punished for the bank robberies perpetrated by other bank robbers, I'm being punished for my own crimes. Since SBF will be punished for his own crimes, not for the crimes of other cryptobros, he is not a scapegoat in any sense.
- shawnz 3y ago
  If you collaborated with other bank robbers, and they intentionally arranged it so that you would take most or all of the punishment while allowing them to escape free, then I think most would describe that as scapegoating you (even though part of the blame really does lie on you for participating in the scheme). I don't really know or care about the specifics of the SBF case and I'm not saying this applies to SBF. All I am saying is that at least two people in this discussion disagree with your understanding of the colloquial definition (me and the person you originally replied to with this criticism). So on that basis alone I don't think you have a right to be so assured in your definition.

mikestew 3y ago

SBF aside, I don't think it's true that a scapegoat must be sinless. It's an Old Testament thing, the original meaning can easily be looked up. Some take the scapegoat as a metaphor for the New Testament Jesus (who is viewed as sinless by most followers). Ergo, we lay the sins of the community upon the innocent goat, and send him out in to the desert. Regardless, I'll give you that goats can be ornery little fuckers, but I don't think they do a lot of "sinning" in the biblical sense.

shawnz 3y ago
I'm aware that it's a biblical idea, but even in the biblical sense, is it explicitly specified that the goat being without sin is relevant to its ability to be a scapegoat, aside from the fact that animals are incapable of sin as far as Christians are concerned? Regardless, clearly the colloquial definition is what the original poster was referring to anyway, since any Christian must necessarily believe that SBF along with every other human alive today is subject to original sin. So it's a useless term for any practical purpose if you believe that scapegoats must be sinless and are talking in a strictly biblical sense.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  The goat is without sin insofar as the humans are concerned, the sins in question are unambiguously those committed by the people, not the goat. If the goat committed his own goaty sins, that's irrelevant. Those hypothetical goat sins are unknown to the humans and don't factor into the goat's execution. In the figurative or colloquial sense of the expression, a scapegoat is a person being punished for something other people did. They might also be a bad person in other unrelated ways, but what makes them a scapegoat is the part where they're punished for something they didn't do, for something other people did. You cannot be a scapegoat if you actually did the thing you're being punished for. In both cases, the scapegoat is punished for something somebody else did. The biblical meaning and the colloquial meaning align neatly, there is no meaningful distinction here. SBF is to be punished for his own crimes, not for the crimes of other cryptobros, so he is not in any sense a scapegoat. Not in the biblical sense, nor in the colloquial sense.