11 ms·
So. You recognize the laws are stupid. Still, this article doesn't talk about what you think it's important, so let's blame the victim for getting caught. Hmm.
by lolcraft 14y ago
So. You recognize the laws are stupid. Still, this article doesn't talk about what you think it's important, so let's blame the victim for getting caught. Hmm. Yeah, that was callous, and a bit pointless.
- tptacek 14y agoI like how it's not enough that I agree with you; because I don't agree with you with the right measure of emotion, I must be your adversary. This is a problem I have in general with _Reason_ (and also with Radley Balko, who I also enjoy reading and often agree with, and whose writing introduced me to _Reason_). They have a bad habit of building emotional narratives around cases where the facts don't support them. As a result, every time I read one of these pieces, I find myself having to dig in to see where I'm being manipulated. Often, it turns out I'm not, and the piece is completely honest. But sometimes they're not. This isn't a dishonest piece, just kind of a dumb one. Other stories about narcotics laws have turned out to be directly misleading: key facts of the case had been withheld to create an undue perception of victimhood, because victimhood suits the ideological agenda of the writer.