3 ms·

You don't have children, I can tell. He was threatening to take away their children if they spoke to him. Would it be OK if he threatened to murder them where t

by feoren 4y ago

You don't have children, I can tell. He was threatening to take away their children if they spoke to him. Would it be OK if he threatened to murder them where they stand if they said another word? If you had kids, you wouldn't think the two threats are so far apart. If someone was writing a movie about a totalitarian state and wanted you to hate a character, this is exactly a line they'd use. This is an authoritarian power-tripping asshole. He should absolutely, immediately, and irrevocably lose his job over this threat, just as he should if he threatened to murder them. I would even say jail time would be appropriate; you'd face jail time if you went into someone's home and threatened to kidnap their children. How can you possibly defend this?

hosh 4y ago
I have a grown daughter, a two-year old, and one on the way. There are lots of things you can’t tell just by text. Who said anything about defending this? I happen to agree with the author of that article, including things she did not elaborate on in the article as an advocate of free range parenting. It boggles my mind that people seem to read things that are not said.
- mynameisvlad 4y ago
  > It boggles my mind that people seem to read things that are not said. If one person misreads something, maybe they just misread it. If multiple people misread something, then maybe it wasn't expressed well in the first place.
  - hosh 4y ago
    I said for example, "this isn't necessarily a power trip". I said nothing more, and nothing less. And yet many people took that to mean something a lot more. I say, "there are deeper issues at play", yet people are so attached to the idea that this is about police overreach. Go to the end of the article to the author's link to her foundation, Let Grow, and see what other kind of articles the author has written about. Look at the front page, and the language. What is that foundation advocating for? Are they framing it in terms of police overreach? Is that the most important thing they are advocating for? Did they even talk about police overreach in the front-page text, above the fold?
    - mynameisvlad 4y ago
      You were dismissive and tried to do the whole “both sides” bullshit that’s so common nowadays. You minimized the thing others care about because it doesn’t suit your needs. Just because you don’t give a shit about police brutality does not mean everyone thinks the same. By you trying to minimize discussion of it and paint both sides, you actively look like you are defending cops. Once again, one person, maybe they misread. Multiple people, it’s on you to communicate your thoughts. If everyone is misinterpreting it in the same way, then it was just written that way; don’t blame others for reading the things you wrote.

by feoren 4y ago

hosh 4y ago

I have a grown daughter, a two-year old, and one on the way. There are lots of things you can’t tell just by text. Who said anything about defending this? I happen to agree with the author of that article, including things she did not elaborate on in the article as an advocate of free range parenting. It boggles my mind that people seem to read things that are not said.

mynameisvlad 4y ago
> It boggles my mind that people seem to read things that are not said. If one person misreads something, maybe they just misread it. If multiple people misread something, then maybe it wasn't expressed well in the first place.
- hosh 4y ago
  I said for example, "this isn't necessarily a power trip". I said nothing more, and nothing less. And yet many people took that to mean something a lot more. I say, "there are deeper issues at play", yet people are so attached to the idea that this is about police overreach. Go to the end of the article to the author's link to her foundation, Let Grow, and see what other kind of articles the author has written about. Look at the front page, and the language. What is that foundation advocating for? Are they framing it in terms of police overreach? Is that the most important thing they are advocating for? Did they even talk about police overreach in the front-page text, above the fold?
  - mynameisvlad 4y ago
    You were dismissive and tried to do the whole “both sides” bullshit that’s so common nowadays. You minimized the thing others care about because it doesn’t suit your needs. Just because you don’t give a shit about police brutality does not mean everyone thinks the same. By you trying to minimize discussion of it and paint both sides, you actively look like you are defending cops. Once again, one person, maybe they misread. Multiple people, it’s on you to communicate your thoughts. If everyone is misinterpreting it in the same way, then it was just written that way; don’t blame others for reading the things you wrote.