3 ms·
This article is incredibly heavy-handed with its presentation. > Taylor said people told themselves it was a victimless crime, that theft was built into the bu
by thomastjeffery 3y ago
This article is incredibly heavy-handed with its presentation.
> Taylor said people told themselves it was a victimless crime, that theft was built into the business models of big retailers, that supermarkets were the real criminals for raising prices or that shops were ripping off farmers or their own staff.
> She said this was known as neutralisation, essentially “moral justifications that people conjure up to make themselves feel better when they’re doing something wrong”.
All the writer has done here is to say that crime is definitely always obviously wrong; all while providing a poignant counterexample.
The whole thing reads like they are simply embarrassed to admit the reality in front of them.
- ghusto 3y agoWelcome to The Guardian: The Daily Mail of the left
- mobiuscog 3y agoWhilst it's certainly more 'left' than the Mail, the comparison is well off. I'm not a supporter of either, but The Guardian at least has well researched/written articles in general, whereas The Daily Mail is pure tabloid gutter 'press'.
- thomastjeffery 3y agoMy criticism is specific to the presentation. The content itself looks fine, and that's what counts. The presentation is only as absurd as it is because the facts were stubbornly included. There is nothing leftist about it either: this article is clearly written to be intentionally moderate. That's precisely what I am criticizing here: the moderate political voice is blatantly shoehorned in a way that makes the whole article incoherent. It would be one thing to actually support a moderate stance; but that isn't happening either. Instead, we have a vain appeasement to the pipe dream that is political neutrality. Who is it for? You?