3 ms·

I think the additional context is fine. It's only an issue if you're sensitive to the word "homeless" and see the description as demeaning. Otherwise, it's addi

• Supermancho 3y ago
  > Otherwise, it's additional. Why didn't they add his hair color, since it's additional? At least they told us his gender...so that's also additional. What about his political views? It's nitpicking minor details, but that's often the problem with marginalized groups. It's subtly reinforced.
  • bombcar 3y ago
    They could add his race and it'd electrify the discussion for large swaths of the population!
  • signatoremo 3y ago
    I’m sure in that case someone sensitive to that particular detail would ask a similar question to yours, because they would feel similarly outraged.
    • Supermancho 3y ago
      > they would feel similarly outraged. That's not fair. Charitable interpretation would not ascribe feelings to other posters. Even if it were true, it's irrelevant to the issue I have pointed out. Let's break it down. Is the "homeless" detail an addition that is specifically due to the Friedman's (or the hosting site's) particular leanings? Is it responsible (staying impartial) to point it out, given the political climate of the area? Is it the slippery slope of an implication that it was "just a homeless man and these things happen to them"? Can Friedman assume that readership with below average intelligence will incorporate the nuance of the tragedy, without the implication? > I’m sure in that case someone sensitive to that particular detail would ask a similar question to yours I don't understand why you are sure about this. Good luck with whatever.