3 ms·
> I don't understand this ad hominem. Why should the policeman not be allowed to enjoy his retirement. I think the issue is the contrast between having ruined
by kergonath 5y ago
> I don't understand this ad hominem. Why should the policeman not be allowed to enjoy his retirement.
I think the issue is the contrast between having ruined someone’s life and the “fuck off and let me enjoy myself” reply. And the utter lack of empathy this betrays. A simple acknowledgment and possibly an apology for having caused so much hurt would have gone a long way.
- ars 5y agoIn todays world there is no apology he could give that would make people happy. People online are brutal. It's better not to engage at all.
- kergonath 5y agoThis does not really matter, it is not about them. Also, even if that were his reasons, the choice of words is appalling.
- lexapro 5y agoExactly. There is a huge difference between >He wasn't interested in talking, either. He wanted to enjoy his retirement. and >He wasn't interested in talking, either but feels sorry for what happened.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y agoHe did not have to mention anything about “enjoying retirement.” He could have just said “no comment.”
- lexapro 5y agoSo because of the internet people are no longer able to issue a short apology? How convenient.
- fxtentacle 5y agoIn today's culture, a simple apology might have set him up for a year-long social media shitstorm including doxxing. So I can totally relate to why he refused to talk to the press.
- dionidium 5y agoIf he wants to communicate an apology to the people who deserve one, then he can do that, but the public isn't owed the satisfaction of an article about it. Somewhere over the last 10 years people got the idea that when A harms B, then C deserves to hear them apologize so they can write a review of that apology on social media. It's a bad impulse. You're not owed anything here.