Here I thought the worst part was a child being sexually assaulted, but I guess the worst part was the idea of outrage being directed at the perpetrator.
That's not outrage being directed at the perpetrator, it's outrage being directed at an entire demographic of people of which the perpetrator happens to belong.
We must have read two different articles. Can you quote where in the linked article it said that?
Oh I don't know maybe the first three words?
MONSTERS APPEAL MIGRANT
Or the next three words that follow
the MONSTER migrant
Instead of maybe "the rapist", no we got to tie in that he is a migrant in all caps, at every possible turn.
Also further down referred to as
the MONSTER
Or
the migrant
Oh and also let's rope in some unrelated burglar who also happens to be a migrant.
All very easy to spot so I figure you're not really asking in good faith, just like someone who has an agency in "just asking questions" would do.
So you believe a child rapist isn't a monster, and that we aren't allowed to have heated discourse about the legal loopholes being utilized for foreign criminals to escape justice?
Nope, not what we were talking about mate.
Op said:
That's not outrage being directed at the perpetrator, it's outrage being directed at an entire demographic of people of which the perpetrator happens to belong.
You said :
It's not in the article, it's in the comment you were replying to. What am I missing?
So don't try to move the goalposts just because you talked shit, I'm sick of this bullshit.
We were talking about why a, admittedly monstrous, rapist needs to be used to demonize a whole demographic. You pretended like that wasn't in the article, I proved it was, that is the fucking conversation we're having here.
Damn the projection massive.
Still no relevant response to what I pointed out, buddy,.
I'm not obligated to invest any more serious energy into you, bud. We're allowed to disengage if we feel someone lost the plot.
just an observation, but replying to them is not disengagement.
You want some engagement too now?
Dr of what? Sealioning?
Are you a little bit slow?
It's not in the article, it's in the comment you were replying to. What am I missing?
What am I missing?
All the context.
Assuming you are not trolling:
The Sun is being criticized for:
targeting a group instead of an individual
using scare language when describing this group
Let's say I want to report on "Police finds wanted man hiding in sofa" (currently on BBC with that headline)
My hateful newspaper do a quick check of his Twitter, and go with "Wanted criminal TRANS ALLY found CRAWLING inside leather furniture"
The outrage is directed at the perpetrator's identity, not their actions. No sympathy for the perp, but racism is never excusable.
Scaremongering immigrants, barf.
Here I thought the worst part was a child being sexually assaulted, but I guess the worst part was the idea of outrage being directed at the perpetrator.
That's not outrage being directed at the perpetrator, it's outrage being directed at an entire demographic of people of which the perpetrator happens to belong.
We must have read two different articles. Can you quote where in the linked article it said that?
Oh I don't know maybe the first three words?
Or the next three words that follow
Instead of maybe "the rapist", no we got to tie in that he is a migrant in all caps, at every possible turn.
Also further down referred to as
Or
Oh and also let's rope in some unrelated burglar who also happens to be a migrant.
All very easy to spot so I figure you're not really asking in good faith, just like someone who has an agency in "just asking questions" would do.
So you believe a child rapist isn't a monster, and that we aren't allowed to have heated discourse about the legal loopholes being utilized for foreign criminals to escape justice?
Nope, not what we were talking about mate. Op said:
You said :
So don't try to move the goalposts just because you talked shit, I'm sick of this bullshit.
We were talking about why a, admittedly monstrous, rapist needs to be used to demonize a whole demographic. You pretended like that wasn't in the article, I proved it was, that is the fucking conversation we're having here.
Damn the projection massive.
Still no relevant response to what I pointed out, buddy,.
I'm not obligated to invest any more serious energy into you, bud. We're allowed to disengage if we feel someone lost the plot.
just an observation, but replying to them is not disengagement.
You want some engagement too now?
Dr of what? Sealioning?
Are you a little bit slow?
It's not in the article, it's in the comment you were replying to. What am I missing?
All the context.
Assuming you are not trolling:
The Sun is being criticized for:
Let's say I want to report on "Police finds wanted man hiding in sofa" (currently on BBC with that headline)
My hateful newspaper do a quick check of his Twitter, and go with "Wanted criminal TRANS ALLY found CRAWLING inside leather furniture"
The outrage is directed at the perpetrator's identity, not their actions. No sympathy for the perp, but racism is never excusable.