If there's one thing americans can agree on is hating the poor and wanting to see barbaric punishment for petty criminals. When your net worth is near trump and elons you can do as much crime as you please and your average american will just excuse it away as "doing business" or "running the country". But yeah, for sure, tell me all about china and tiny men squared and all the human rights abuses and how untouchable the party is.
The crimes of this guilty land can never be purged away except with blood:
Helps when the news is perpetually showing security footage of shoplifting or door cam footage of packages being taken.
: “Well you see, it’s part of the punishment.”
What an odd thing to say as hogs are thinking of any excuse to literally make it a felony to simply be part of a group they don’t like.
I can't stand articles like this. Not the facts it shows but the novel it tries to write. JFC, just write a fucking book already. I'm trying to read an article about the issue of starvation in the American penal system and I'm being taken down memory lane of this woman's divorce, her interest in scrap-booking and basket weaving, wtf? I feel absolutely awful for her but I truly do not care. Does this journalist get paid by the fucking word or something? Get to the point, holy shit.
Sharing a name, a face, and the life story of someone who was so ignored and dehumanized in her time on earth that the state and its corporate partners let her starve to death as a punishment for a "failure to register her address" is pretty much the only good thing that journalism is capable of doing nowadays. At demonstrations, when people chant "George Floyd! Say his name!", do you respond with "Get to the point, I only care about him as a statistic"?
Sorry if my mild criticism of the liberal New Yorker writer struck a deep nerve with you. I did not criticize the victim and no amount of rhetorical manipulation by you will alter that. She wrote over 11,250 words for this article. Short stories that are published average around 3k-7k words. You think I'd be upset over 5 words? My comment was not being hyperbolic. This is an absurd amount of writing for an article that is first and foremost trying to tell us information about a phenomenon in our corrupt incarceration system. You average reader could not finish this article in FORTY-FIVE minutes without break. It is that long. The critical information is spread out all over the article. It's awful. At the time of this comment there are 7 upvotes on your comment. I guarantee you 7 people did not bother to read about this woman's life. 7 people did not spend a minimum of 45 minutes reading this. I did what the average, normal person did and read a few paragraphs and though, "this is awful what happened to this woman," then scrolled and scrolled and scrolled and then scrolled some more and said, "fuck that." Honestly, I doubt you read it yourself. I seriously do.
Is this the first time you've tried to read a magazine article? Are you not familiar with the genre? You're making a category error here, like getting angry at a bagel for not tasting like a doughnut. The purpose is not "first and foremost" to provide information in a reverse-pyramid format. In this case it's to provide pathos and to instill in the reader the realization that "Oh, shit, this could easily happen to me or someone I care about." John McPhee's articles - also very long! I guess no one has ever read him! Certainly not anyone normal! - provide a structural model. McPhee often writes about geology or geography or some such, but in the context of an experience. He'll go on a rafting journey on the Colorado River and will use dialogue with his guide to provide some information, and then zoom out to give a big (big, big) picture account of the geology of the Grand Canyon.
It's the same thing in Stillman's articles on the prison system (and other New Yorker articles, like this one about the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham, which has stuck with me for 16 years), and Mary Casey's family probably saw one of Stillman's articles about asset forfeiture or felony murder and decided that she could be the one to tell their mother's story. Is it liberal Pulitzer bait? Sure. But until leftists get New Yorker money we're going to rely not only on the stats but also the narratives in these pieces. Sometimes taking a systemic injustice and giving it a particular human face is what connects with people, the way Savita Halappanavar's story was what led to the legalization of abortion in Ireland.
I find it funny that you thought that because I didn't enjoy the long-winded ramblings of some insufferable cosmopolitan liberal that I might be interested more of the same. The New Yorker sucks as a magazine. It's writers suck. It's readers suck which by the good graces of our collective ADHD none of us here are. Like I said, nobody here read the actual article and I don't think you read these two articles, either.
“I think, if you wrote a book, you fucked up, and it should have been a six-paragraph blog post.”
I have more respect for people who goon than these writers. Both acts are masturbatory but at least gooning is pleasurable.
acab
- every video must be labeled NSFW
- all videos/posts pertaining to police brutality must have a CW
- No cop apologia -all posts must in someway pertain to the presence of the police state, and/or the opposition to it
- memes acceptable so long as they are within the guidelines