He got exposed as a fraud right after a glowing Newsweek piece heaping praise on him. They got fooled.
Screenshots of what started it: https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1638556661244911616 And yes, those screenshots are from the twitter tranny who hurt his hand a little while ago. I just saw this video of him getting into a fight on the NYT subway and I was laughing my ass off. This is EXACTLY his twitter energy. Imagine being a grown ass man and getting baited into a fistfight with a random jogger.
I followed Vasquez off and on since the war started since he blew up and got somewhat popular. His twitter didn't look like a warfighter to me, though. It looked like a tourist, LARPing. Absolutely 0 combat shown at any point. Not even things like incoming artillery anywhere nearby. Instead, all he showed was walking through past battles and destroyed vehicles, or hanging out somewhere with other dudes with faint gunfire heard in the distance. He always seemed to be focused on getting supplies and shit, and showing off his tacticool & supposed gear he bought with donations. He was never in a trench, and often in a nice new civilian vehicle driving around.
I always thought "for a guy who claims to be in the shit, he sure spends A LOT of time far, far away from the front lines and... no time at all anywhere near them.
He also came across to me as boastful and insecure, major red flag. Anyone "in the shit" would have SHOWN it. That footage is GOLD in that space. When people called him on it, he would flip the fuck out and go on a tirade, threatening to stop posting, etc. This is classic manipulative behavior.
Receipt apparently showing how he was spending everyone's donations.
Y'know in this case I think people trying to fund international mercenaries to kill people they have no business fighting might actually be a greater evil than scam artists grifting donations. So by that metric you probably still should be blaming the people who got conned.
But regardless of the present example and in a more general sense, blaming one doesn't mean excusing the other. I'm pretty sure I can manage apportioning blame to more than one party because im not a mental child. So even in the absence of explicit blame laying on both parties, if you're treating someone as an adult it's probably disrespectful to assume laying any blame on one party is excusing the other.
Allow me to flip to the next chapter of your quoted rationale. By completely excusing the irresponsible victims and making responsible victims share an equal portion of the burden of protecting them, you punish the greater good of responsibility and self-control. You don't have to do that.
You can grade their stupidly on a curve and budget their support/pay-in accordingly. It doesn't have to incentivize crime, you can still punish criminals fully as well as making idiots pay a "stupid surplus" on their recovered money to give everyone else a tax break next year.