It's as if we'll all have to censor our thoughts before pronouncing them.
You know, this really isn't a problem for people who don't have thoughts about silencing critics by intimidating their families.
You know, this really isn't a problem for people who don't have thoughts about silencing critics by intimidating their families.
In some cultures it's natural to only say things out loud that one has thought of 'thoughtfully'. In others you say a lot out loud but without meaning much.
Just imagine a conversation between two sorority sisters or two fraternity brothers. They can have some pretty horrible things they say about other people --it's quite disgusting; I've overheard them. Would it be fair to bring those conversations up later in life, or as they're being considered for a job? should those conversations be "wrong"?
I'd rather people be free to have all kinds of nasty thoughts --but provide disincentive upon acting them out --not just thinking them.
Another question. Now, let's say said reporter might say something under her breath to confidants. Let's suppose she's happy to see some unraveling, and let's suppose the reporter/journalist even says some hyperbolic things --should such a reporter now be attacked for expressing such feelings? People are people and I think should be free to feel enmity against others --we can't pretend we like everyone out there.
I think it's fair to judge the conversants to the extent you think it provides information about their current character. If it was a conversation years ago, well people change. If someone can't keep themselves from maliciously gossiping a week ago, then I might be reluctant to work with them.
N.B. I'm solely responding to your hypothetical here, rather than the uber situation, for I don't think your analogy fits well.
If that were not the case, I'd be afraid that university campuses or company water-coolers are overrun by psychopaths.
We cannot take people literally at all occasions. I'm afraid I cannot trust people who have an interest (whether it be page views or even a social cause, etc.) to discern the situation in a disinterested way. The dynamics are too complicated. Unfortunately it ends up being a situation where we have multiple interpretations of something. For example, I might say "I'm very happy for you" to someone, they may retort "no, you are not, you are just saying that". Who's right?
In other words, they both serve their own brand of red meat to their audiences.
Forget apples to oranges. What you're describing is (possibly rotten) apples to hand grenades. But since you asked, no, I wouldn't dream of behaving this way. If a reporter published something demonstrably false, I'd demand a correction. If the pattern persisted, I'd take them to court. You know, like a civilized human being, not some goddamned Mafioso or a member of the KGB.