What are ur hot takes 👨

@⸸⸸⸸𝕶𝖎𝖑𝖑𝖌𝖆𝐳𝖒𝖔𝖙𝖗𝖔𝖓⸸⸸⸸ Power dynamics matter before someone “commits the crime” because power affects consent, pressure, risk, credibility, retaliation, and whose version of events gets believed. That does not mean the person with more power is automatically guilty. It means the situation requires more care because the consequences are not evenly distributed. The cheating analogy does not really work because “capacity to cheat” is hypothetical. Power dynamics are not hypothetical. They are already operating in the interaction. A boss, teacher, celebrity, older partner, wealthy person, or socially dominant person does not have to actively weaponize that power for it to shape what the other person feels able to say or refuse. Power is not a measure of inherent goodness. But it is absolutely relevant to ethics, consent, and accountability. 

@Kayla⟡
Of course, it is i don't fully say never. When that situation has actually been taken advantage of, then it is certainly an applicable consideration when condemning said offender, for all of those reasons you mention. 
They utilized power,in action, to effect consent in a decision, to pressure one into risks otherwise not taken, they took advantage of leverage in credibility to get what they want in a situation that did not warrant them the right to acquire what they have received etc. 

If one does indeed abuse their power, that power should be brought in for reasoning on the punishment for said action taken, USING that power. 
unquestionably.  As i did mention " unless a negative action has actually been taken utilizing said advantage. "

It however, does not entail any intrinsic moral consideration on said person, their character or how they should act any different in a general free sense then any other natural free actor in life. 
They dont need to live under any other rules of of life purely by capacity of the ability to commit a crime they have not committed having done nothing wrong. 
And that is where my point lays.  I feel that sometimes people can make that assumption, or even flat out assume guilt for that reason without concrete evidence, purely by its existence. 

But yes. As said. If someone does utilize their superior capacity for coercion or force,
they should face, unquestionably, further harsh consequences.
When they actually do. 

@⸸⸸⸸𝕶𝖎𝖑𝖑𝖌𝖆𝐳𝖒𝖔𝖙𝖗𝖔𝖓⸸⸸⸸ I think this clarification is more reasonable, but I still think you’re drawing the line too late. I agree that power should not create automatic moral guilt. Someone is not “bad” just because they are older, richer, more popular, a boss, a teacher, etc. But power does create a higher ethical responsibility because the situation is already unequal before any obvious abuse happens. That does not mean “assume guilt.” It means “account for risk.” 

A professor dating a student, a boss dating an employee, or a much older person pursuing someone much younger is not the same as two evenly positioned people making a private choice. Even without overt coercion, the less powerful person may have more to lose, may feel less able to say no, may worry about retaliation, or may not fully understand the social consequences. 

So I agree with you that capacity alone is not evidence of wrongdoing. But I disagree that people with more power do not need to act differently. They absolutely do. Not because they are inherently worse people, but because our choices carry more weight. Ethical responsibility is not the same thing as presumed guilt.

This framing is harmful because it makes power seem ethically neutral until someone can prove obvious misconduct. In real life, power often works quietly. People do not always have to threaten, pressure, or “use” their leverage out loud for the other person to feel constrained by it.

That matters because the burden then falls on the less powerful person to prove coercion after the fact, usually when the damage is already done. It also gives the more powerful person an easy escape route: “I never forced them.” But coercion is not always explicit. Sometimes it is the fear of losing access, approval, safety, housing, grades, work, social standing, or credibility.

@Kayla⟡

we do indeed disagree in that capacity. As i dont think any situation one might find themselves in inherently warrants a moral demand of behavior of any kind outside of force and to me, the assumption is of very little difference from the presumption of guilt without evidence. 
And is extremely ill defined and vague a demand upon something so unquantifiable, especially when such dynamics are near impossible to avoid and sometimes, you dont even have a choice in which how you find yourself in them, or the nature of them, above or bellow. 
So of course, myself, i dont base any moral decisions using those essentially arbitrary categorizations unless applicable to a proven crime. 
If there is no crime, i never support the obstruction of a free agents liberty and expect nothing more of them purely inherently of their existence. 

This is about the spot though, where things likely get very circular in argument lolol. 

so yeah, basically that is what my 
"hot take"
input was. 

@⸸⸸⸸𝕶𝖎𝖑𝖑𝖌𝖆𝐳𝖒𝖔𝖙𝖗𝖔𝖓⸸⸸⸸ I don’t think this has to become circular unless we stop separating guilt, restriction, and ethical responsibility. A circular version of my argument would be “power matters because power matters,” which is not what I mean; I’m saying power matters because it changes the practical conditions around consent, risk, refusal, and consequences. I’m also not arguing that someone should be punished or have their liberty obstructed just for having more power (even if they can't help that they have it). I’m saying that when a situation is unequal, the person with more power has a responsibility to account for that imbalance before harm becomes provable after the fact. Otherwise, the standard becomes “nothing matters until someone can prove coercion,” which protects the powerful in all the gray areas where coercion is real but not always visible. (Logic of/for every bad actor/dictator/criminal)

I enjoy a good spirited convo, thanks for making space for a high brow discussion (or maybe I forced the space, either way thanks :) 

EDIT: 

Your argument is circular:

“Power dynamics only matter if someone misuses power. But misuse only counts if there is clear, provable force/coercion. Therefore, power dynamics do not matter unless there is clear, provable force/coercion.”

That's the definition of a circular argument -- builds your conclusion into the premise. 

Power is not had in a vacuum, it's relational, and it would not be reality to say so

@Kayla⟡

Right right, i meant circular not in the direct debate sense, in the "we have reached the impasse where if we continue it will likely go back and forth and back and forth probably returning to the same points again and again in the typical internet argument way we probably both would find exceedingly exhausting, and at this point it looks like we have both clearly demonstrated what hills it is we will both die on, so lets shake on it and go watch dumb shyte on youtube"
lol. 


"has a responsibility to account for that imbalance before harm becomes provable after the fact" right, in which in my position i posit that that account need not consider any other consideration of different behavior than any other actor is free to do outside of coercion themselves of their own free will. 
And is only really, in my opinion, factors validly incorporated when found to have been used in coercion. I feel the punishment fitting the crime is far more valid than the moral enforcement of roles behavior purely on merit of position based on presumed capacity of harm. 
That some can get away with it is like, yeah. thats how the universe works essentially, when anyone commits a horrid act despite their relative positions, there is a reason there is no presumption of guilt and we only consider them guilty upon investigating the situation and deciding it is the case beyond a reasonable doubt. 
Innocent until proven guilty. Without that, that is definitely, where the powerful presume authority to enact coercion upon the people. 

So for the last paragraph, i will attempt to make that more clear, as previously mentioned here, that was not what i meant by circular. i wasnt going for the academic meaning of it, just the "avoiding us being here all day" meaning of it  lol. :

""" Your argument is circular:

“Power dynamics only matter if someone misuses power. But misuse only counts if there is clear, provable force/coercion. Therefore, power dynamics do not matter unless there is clear, provable force/coercion.”

That's the definition of a circular argument -- builds your conclusion into the premise. """

"power dynamics only matter if someone missuses power"
I do mean that yes. 

"But misuse only counts if there is clear, provable force/coercion"

This is probably the key part. 
It always counts, clear, provable force/coercion is what would be required of us, to act upon as good people to legitimately punish the outcomes of said abuse. 
Bad behavior (that is utilizing force/coercion against someones personal liberty against their consent)  IS always bad, whether you are caught or you are not. The latter part about it being provable, is about us combatting those situations. 



And now i will eat hotwings. lol.  regardless of all this have a great night Kayla. 

@⸸⸸⸸𝕶𝖎𝖑𝖑𝖌𝖆𝐳𝖒𝖔𝖙𝖗𝖔𝖓⸸⸸⸸
Also 
"toilet paper is too thin"
being what directly fallows us is cracking me the fuck up xD