[DaBackpack]

Part of this is for a sanity check, since I just finished a pretty disconcerting conversation with some friends, but anyway -----

Do those with power have a higher moral responsibility w/r/t their actions and words compared to others? How responsible are they for the actions of people they affect? If somebody else carries out an act in your name, what are you obligated to do to repent? (This includes with misinterpretations of your words)

An obvious example is with Nietzsche --- the philosophy of the Ubermensch was famously mischaracterized by Hitler, who used it to justify genocide and the rise of the Third Reich. How responsible does that make Nietzsche for the Third Reich? How obligated was he to take action? (In reality, he strongly disavowed National Socialism and anti-semitism, but he passed before the end of WWII)

A lesser example is with JK Rowling, who is known to include several problematic passages in the "Harry Potter" series. One that comes to mind is the story of Hermione and Kreacher, wherein Hermione tries to free the house elves from indentured servitude, but Kreacher basically tells her that the house elves live to be servants and don't know what they would do if they actually had freedom. Naturally people saw the connections between this and American slavery apologism (with Kreacher as "Uncle Tom") and criticized her for not being more thoughtful. Did she have a heightened responsibility to be careful with what she was saying, considering that she was an internationally best-selling author? And that children paid strong attention to the words she wrote? Does she have a responsibility to publicly recontextualize that passage?

I personally think that those with more power have a higher moral responsibility to "do the right thing" than those of lower status. It's why I'm more concerned with Rowling spewing toxic bullshit than I am with Anon#2143 doing the same --- your actions have consequences, and the larger your audience/circle of influence, the more consequences there are.

It's also why I think Jordan B. Peterson is so evil. He has a sizable fanbase; people listen to him. He's also fairly good with rhetoric, so he's able to say something innocuous like "lobsters are motivated by serotonin" to present a sinister, subliteral dogma without having to use the words "systems of oppression are necessary for human societies to progress". And, of course, because all he's talking about is lobsters, he's able to wriggle his way out of any criticism with "that's not what I meant!" He assumes no responsibility for his TRUE denotations and more or less forces the task of interpretation of all his statements onto others. It's a classic case of cowardly dog-whistling --- despite his power and influence, he doesn't want to dirty his hands by actually admitting what his actual beliefs are. Beliefs that he knowingly tries to convey to his impressionable audience.