3 ms·
You're putting in a lot of words in my mouth and it's a bit weird how aggressive you're coming off here. There's nothing I'm proposing here at all. I'm only cr
by pleasantpeasant 4y ago
You're putting in a lot of words in my mouth and it's a bit weird how aggressive you're coming off here.
There's nothing I'm proposing here at all. I'm only critical of the obvious pro-private militarized police force, which every American should be. And this article is blatant propaganda for that agenda. The author herself works at The Federalist Society, a far-right conservative magazine.
- pmarreck 4y agoI didn't see much particularly pro- about it, other than the fact that they seem more focused on treating people like people and not like case numbers. Was that part not true?
- mikem170 4y agoI think they were referring to how the article seemed to be one-sided. It didn't mention any of the controversy around their activities, like the article link [0] provided by the (currently) top rated comment in this discussion, which talked about how poorly trained these security people are, how they have broken the law, beat up and shot people, how the local prosecutors are not happy with some of this stuff, etc. It would have been a more fair article if they mentioned this other stuff, but they didn't, it only painted these private security people in the best light possible. Call that a lie of omission. Some people feel this is manipulative. [0] https://www.opb.org/article/2021/12/02/part-two-police-prosecutors-downtown-portland-wary-role-of-private-security/ https://www.opb.org/article/2021/12/02/part-two-police-prose...
- pmarreck 4y agoThat's fair. And balanced. Too bad our media seems to have given up on that.