3 ms·
That's more a colloquial sense, which I think imo is closer to a 'fall guy'. The parent is the biblical sense.
by 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 agoNo. 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 agoIf 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.