>>18885248The problem with this way of approaching the situation is that it places far too much emphasis on the perpetrator's emotional experience and not nearly enough on the people who were actually harmed.
First, feeling remorse doesn't necessarily demonstrate genuine moral growth. People can feel guilty because they're experiencing consequences, because they're uncomfortable with how others perceive them, or because they've finally witnessed the emotional impact of their actions. Feeling bad about something is not the same as understanding why it was wrong or taking responsibility for it.
Second, describing someone as "not a monster" and emphasizing redemption risks softening the seriousness of what happened. Publishing someone's address is not simply another online incident or an unfortunate mistake. It can expose someone to stalking, threats, harassment, and real-world danger. The victim's fear should not become a tool for developing the perpetrator's redemption narrative.
Third, this argument overlooks the broader pattern of prejudice involved. Doxxing, harassment, racism, and targeting transgender people are not isolated acts of internet drama. They can reflect a willingness to dehumanize people based on their race, gender identity, or other personal characteristics. These behaviours can reinforce discrimination and contribute to hostile environments where certain people are made to feel unsafe simply for existing.
The victim was always a human being. She didn't become worthy of empathy when she started crying. She deserved consideration before her address was published, not afterward. The same applies to people targeted by racism and transphobia. Their dignity and humanity were never dependent on whether the perpetrator eventually felt guilty.
Fourth, telling someone they can change is reasonable, but it should not be confused with suggesting that they deserve reassurance or emotional comfort. The people they harassed, doxxed, or subjected to racism are not responsible for helping them overcome their guilt. They don't owe them forgiveness, understanding, or another opportunity to demonstrate their character.
Fifth, there is a distinction between feeling guilty and being accountable. Accountability requires acknowledging the severity of the harm, examining the prejudices and attitudes that contributed to the behaviour, accepting consequences, making reasonable efforts to mitigate the damage, and demonstrating that the behaviour has stopped. Crying in bed and feeling terrible are not substitutes for those actions.
Finally, the discussion of whether the perpetrator deserves to live or deserves to be hurt introduces an emotionally charged issue that can shift attention away from the original victims. Their mental health matters, but it shouldn't overshadow the seriousness of the harm they've inflicted.
Ultimately, the biggest flaw in this argument is that it makes the perpetrator's potential redemption the emotional centre of a situation in which other people were victimized.
People can change, but the possibility of change doesn't diminish the severity of their past actions. Remorse does not automatically undo racism, transphobia, harassment, or doxxing. Genuine accountability means confronting the attitudes that enabled those behaviours, not simply regretting them after seeing their consequences.
Someone can deserve the opportunity to improve without being entitled to forgiveness, sympathy, or absolution from the people they've hurt.