A person whose; 1 direct flagrant furthering of normalizations of irresponsible choices,
or 2, deliberate lowering of values AROUND
something where responsibility could-be lowered;
Is a part of a temporary or
long-term group behavior or claimed demonstrative-positions amidst a wider debate or issue in
society, but either way, their actions LEAD TO irresponsible behavior or the lowering of-levels-of responsibility, WITHOUT DIRECTLY ADVOCATING, the irresponsible behavior.
The maintenance of the position that causes this is an establishMENT of a maintained-position, hence the
hybrid? err,.. tense-relative suffix ;
a -tant,
of a -
ment.
It is this indirect causation, that makes the word a INCLUSIVE-noun term, it's not just an adjective prone to ambiguity or flexible meaning.
-
ity/-tant/similar conjugations, infers irresponsibility-risk-causation AMONGST, their actions, character, or other personal things, or of a group, of the group's. The how or why, can be nearby the word itself, they do not need to be specified in the same sentence.
The -tant suffix denotes distinctly, that it is in the context of REPETITION, not
something new, that is being defended or advocated. It can be evocative of PAST-irresponsibility, while being then adjectivally applied TO a person-noun, position, social-construct, etc -
SEE example 2
One could find irresponsibilitants amongst both
republicans as
well as democrats within U.
S.
Politics and their statements, but
people might still disagree on how much and-WHEN the
two sides lower-values or risk harmful behavior, when their statements and positions don't seem to be going to cover-everyone, affect those
outside the
USA but not those within it, or other omitted inevitabilities that send mixed messages if you mention them at the same time.
If both at least did not pretend as though they're going to cover or care for everyone, then at least they'd be being honest about what they claim to be going to do, but regardless, their KNOWING, irresponsibilital-concessions to whoever writes their speeches, suggests neither can say-no to rhetoric if it might give them an edge in the election.
---
example 2 - The belligerent, backward
priest, refused to acknowledge the cultural damage his predecessors had caused on the claimant in court, but the judge made a decision for the claimant regardless, condemning the priest in their closing speech for trying to societally-normalize irresponSIBILITY while not appearing to be an irresponsiBILITANT at the same time, while having deceitfully and knowingly maintained one false-presentation to their donators, and another, to the supposed recipients of their at that time, assumed-genuine generosity.
