Critical Hit

*traditional is a flawed term that im using here for the sake of brevity, not because i agree with it or think its valid. think the things that your capitalist uncle would consider "a real job" (even if he may not respect it); anything in a physical office, but also healthcare workers, teachers, secretarial work, cleaning staff, childcare workers, professional athletics, etc. *non-traditional would be the opposite, aka things your capitalist uncle would not consider to be "a real job". this does not mean i think your job is not real or valid, it means it is outside of the bounds of what modern society deems traditional and you've faced unique struggles as a result. artists and creatives who live on commissions, any kind of influencer, sex workers etc. are examples of what should go here.

"... a court that finally said - no, you don't get less time for this." Why finally? Was she convicted for several other crimes where the ruling always offered her an easier sentence?

The way the word claimed is used only when describing her defense. If you want to make sure her arguments are understood as fallible human arguments, then you should have the grace to also describe what Jake Loader claimed. And present at least a rough overview of the evidence of both sides.

The clear comparison between her prison sentence and his life long disability is one that is often used in murder or injury cases, but this article clearly only positions itself on Jake Loaders side.

The way they summarized a misogynistic joke as being "... a joke about scones."

The article itself is severely misogynistic. It is biased and bad journalism because it goes into too much detail in some parts (why is it important for the reader to understand the exact condition of Jake Loader? Did he agree to this depiction of himself?) and it invalidates parts of the public's understanding of the case.

A reader agreeing with Loader and the article will agree, gleefully think "She got what she deserves." and never question their own biases. Such a reader may maybe themselves make misogynistic jokes and comments and (thinking only in the interest of such a reader here) may invite a similar fate, but will certainly harm and belittle the person those comments are targeted towards.

A reader disagreeing with the article will probably go away reading this with the impression that the courts are deeply misogynistic, never even wanted to understand Corbie Walpole's point of view and sentenced her unfairly. We don't know if that is true. Because the article didn't talk about it.

By reducing this case to a fun to read short story with a satisfying "the evil gets punished" ending, they produce an easy to digest blurb and completely invalidate everybody's involvement in the case.

Walpole as a violent crazed woman who cannot take a joke, Loader as the poor victim without regards to his opinion, future or past and all the case workers to incompetent misogynistists.

SHOW US THE RICE NOW!!!

➡️ Go to Dropout to watch new Game Changer now

no bc how else are you supposed to react when your dad is proudly presenting a clip of himself and a dead celebrity, frozen in time, creating an ostensibly perfect nuclear family on valentine’s day…… and tagging papa john’s in it……..