Jesus H. Roosevelt Christ. Being in close proximity - a closed subway car - to a lunatic who is threatening not only you but everybody around you - and then you do something about it - is not "vigilantism." It's a reasonable response to an unreasonable threat. Too bad (maybe) the perp died.
Jesus H. Roosevelt Christ. Being in close proximity - a closed subway car - to a lunatic who is threatening not only you but everybody around you - and then you do something about it - is not "vigilantism." It's a reasonable response to an unreasonable threat. Too bad (maybe) the perp died.
What a fine place we live in now! Our elected officials go after men who are doing what men DO - protecting those unable to defend themselves - and put them in jail, then the public pisses and moans about Frenchmen who stand by and watch a different lunatic stab women and children. What do you people WANT, anyway?
I never new J. H. had a second middle name! (J. H. C. was one of my father's more extreme epithets of indignation).
On the subject at hand, the bias evident in the use of the word "vigilante" is fascinating, because it seems like the author was trying to be as unbiased as possible - but failed. I don't listen to podcasts so I can't comment on that.
I don't either. Articles I can skim and read at depth if they look good; since I don't know which podcasts are worth my increasingly limited time, I just mark them all TLDL and move on.
re: trying to appear unbiased. Ah yes, the, "I'm the adult in the room" problem. "I try to see both sides." Sometimes there ain't no other side.
There is ALWAYS another side. Thinking there is not is what justified the covid wing-nuts. And justified government bureaucrats to use their official positions to target a presidential candidate they deemed a threat to their existence.
Agreed. Even if the other side ends up being wrong for whatever reason, it exists and you can try your best to see and understand it and talk about it as unbiased as possible. Especially if your job is talking about it.
That is one of the major points of Free Speech. Allowing it allows people to talk about their side of things. And if you truly care about Truth, being right and doing the best thing, you should be taking in as many sides as you can so you can compare and contrast and shape your view based on others.
Thinking there is one side is like saying the science is settled.
Jesus H. Roosevelt Christ. Being in close proximity - a closed subway car - to a lunatic who is threatening not only you but everybody around you - and then you do something about it - is not "vigilantism." It's a reasonable response to an unreasonable threat. Too bad (maybe) the perp died.
What a fine place we live in now! Our elected officials go after men who are doing what men DO - protecting those unable to defend themselves - and put them in jail, then the public pisses and moans about Frenchmen who stand by and watch a different lunatic stab women and children. What do you people WANT, anyway?
I never new J. H. had a second middle name! (J. H. C. was one of my father's more extreme epithets of indignation).
On the subject at hand, the bias evident in the use of the word "vigilante" is fascinating, because it seems like the author was trying to be as unbiased as possible - but failed. I don't listen to podcasts so I can't comment on that.
Jesus Christ's real name was Bernie until Mary stubbed her toe :)
Lol!
I don't either. Articles I can skim and read at depth if they look good; since I don't know which podcasts are worth my increasingly limited time, I just mark them all TLDL and move on.
re: trying to appear unbiased. Ah yes, the, "I'm the adult in the room" problem. "I try to see both sides." Sometimes there ain't no other side.
At 800+ words/minute, I can read through a transcript before they hit the quarter post in the podcast.
They say JFK could do 2000. Sure got me beat.
Agreed. Plus all the ums and ahs and laughing and niceties. I don’t do audio format news.
There is ALWAYS another side. Thinking there is not is what justified the covid wing-nuts. And justified government bureaucrats to use their official positions to target a presidential candidate they deemed a threat to their existence.
Agreed. Even if the other side ends up being wrong for whatever reason, it exists and you can try your best to see and understand it and talk about it as unbiased as possible. Especially if your job is talking about it.
That is one of the major points of Free Speech. Allowing it allows people to talk about their side of things. And if you truly care about Truth, being right and doing the best thing, you should be taking in as many sides as you can so you can compare and contrast and shape your view based on others.
Thinking there is one side is like saying the science is settled.
Totally agree, Lynn!