Do you find yourself looking for opinions on him often?
Because I bet you sought them out, you would find that comment to be extremely mild criticism by comparison.
circuscritic
joined 2 years ago
His only two good roles were in Avenue 5 and the episode he did for Party Down.
And by good roles I mean, they both feel like he's playing an exaggerated version of himself: whiney, self-important, and delusional.
STOP. POSTING. NEWSWEEK.
It is trash and has been for sometime.
Go find this story being run In a credible outlet, and repost.
Oh, and last I saw, pretty much all credible pollsters had this election at a resounding, "heads or tails, pick one".
Go vote.
"Thanks for calling the FBI, how may I direct your call?"
"I like to discuss what actually constitutes child pornography and how to rectify the laws that are causing my beautiful sensual artwork to be unfairly maligned on the internet."
"I couldn't agree more. What's your home address, we'd love to hear your complaint in person"
You do understand the importance of editors in a newspaper, and their role in crafting headlines for articles....right?
Simply because a student said it, doesn't mean it should be included in a headline, especially if use misrepresents situation i.e. a battlefield or terrorist attack, and not everyone just shitting their guts out.
Editorial discretion and competence, it has meaning. Or, at least, it should.
Butchering language is an example of slang with a well-established context. But more than that, you're not going to confuse my use of butchering when it's discussing the concept of language.
Saying a scene is full of carnage, directly implies it resembles a war zone, mass shooting, or an explosion. Not 100 kids shitting themselves from a foodborne illness outbreak.
What if the headline said "It was an orgy of bodily fluids...". This is called poor editorial discretion, and while that also could technically be understood to be accurate, it would also be editorial malpractice.
Oh, and lol. Seriously? What makes you think I didn't spend 90 seconds reading that article about the mass food poisoning event....?
So what? Are you saying that all slang is appropriate when reporting on real world events? Even if it completely changes the context of the article to mean something entirely different?
This is The Guardian, not a blog post.
Any editor that uses the word "slammed" in it's current cliche slang context, should be immediately fired.
The fact that you're defending that overwrought example of the degeneration of our media, and moreso, citing it as why this particular butchering of the English language is actually correct, is disheartening.
You can cite all of the other poorly written articles you want, stacking wrongs upon wrongs, won't make this right.
Carnage is a real word, and it's definition isn't broad enough to encompass a mass vomiting and diarrhea event.
carnage /kär′nĭj/ noun
Massive slaughter, as in war; a massacre. Corpses, especially of those killed in battle. Flesh of slain animals or men.
Corpses, especially of those killed in battle. Flesh of slain animals or men.
Flesh of slain animals or men.
I say this not to be pedantic, but because I had to read the article to confirm this wasn't a mass death event.... because words matter.
Doesn't matter that it was a quote, the editor shouldn't have run with it. Find another quote, or use your own words. JFC.
There wouldn't be any press....
No lawyer would take the case. Hell, a lawyer might even get sanctioned for even attempting to file it.
This isn't like an uphill legal battle where there's a process that can draw attention. It's a non-starter.
Pretend you file a lawsuit by filling out a form online, but whenever you try and submit this lawsuit, it goes to 404 not found. You're suggesting they spend thousands of dollars, for a 404 error.
However, suing the hospital, is a very long and drawn out legal process.... So if your goal is to bring attention to the issue, well there you have it.
You are aware that legislatures cannot be held directly criminally responsible for the laws they pass, right?
I'm not disputing that their actions killed their daughter, I'm trying to explain to you that they cannot be held legally responsible in the manor you're suggesting.
Not even this?