Then there's the question of whether Smith's "emotionally manipulative" conduct warranted a months-long, intensive investigation. He might be a total ass in his private affairs, but the key phrase there is "private affairs." Why does the entire internet need to scrutinize this?
-
Show this thread
-
A minor online journalist's bad relationships don't rise to the level of national journalistic concern. He might be a genuinely bad person -- inflicting emotional harm on romantic partners is bad. But it's also extremely common. These new standards are not workable.
15 replies 10 retweets 83 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @DavidKlion @Boringstein
The author of the piece is the one who framed every accusation as existing in a “gray area,” specifically contrasting the offenses (including the physical ones) with illegal sexual assault. So if you’re frustrated with this perception, be frustrated with the author.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
People are commonly horrible in interpersonal relationships to the point of inflicting real harm. The question is, when is it justified to journalistically publicize these harms. The article’s focus on “emotional manipulation” suggests this justificatory standard was not met.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I don’t want to go into greater detail about the specific charges on here because I know some of the accusers have been reading this thread. I’ll just reiterate that the “gray area” framing is what has caused critics (both male and female) to raise questions.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.