Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Even after two decades of reading your fucked-up thoughts, it's still just genuinely sad to get these glimpses into what must have been a truly loveless life. The media—at least, decent media—portrays victims in a way that serves to humanize them, honor their memories, and give comfort to their grieving family and friends. Such coverage needs no particular justification. You don't need to justify treating a murder victim like a human being; nor do you need to justify showing consideration for their loved ones and their grief-stricken communities. Reaffirming a person's—and your own—humanity is not a partisan matter, and being "impartial" about a murder-victim's humanity isn't something worth striving for.
For the record, most professional journalists do in fact mention details about victims' criminal records, for example—even when it has no relevance to their murder at the hands of police or vigilantes. However, some particularly repugnant outlets—and some dysfunctional fuckups such as yourself—tend to focus excessively on those details, with the objective of justifying killings—murders—by dehumanizing the victims, denying their human worth. Now, from the perspective of an unloved sociopath who had all decency beaten out of them as a child, these two objectives—humanization and dehumanization, respectively—may seem morally equivalent to one another. However, to most decent people, the former is more laudable—and also more interesting—than the latter. Journalists earn trust and appreciation from well-functioning humans, by writing human stories; they're not interested in gaining the trust of hate-filled groyper cranks who've never learned how to relate to other human beings in a normal way.
Reply With Quote