By law, we had to make certain redactions.… But we said to Congress, any congressman can come in and spend as much time as they want looking at everything unredacted.
By law, we had to make certain redactions.… But we said to Congress, any congressman can come in and spend as much time as they want looking at everything unredacted.
It is a fine line, and I clearly said I am not defending abuse. A sexual offender is a sexual offender. But language is a issue. I do not see that commenter defending offenders, and it can often be on this forum that offense is taken to language that does not lean into the frenzy.
Why were they pointing this out? i don’t know maybe they have a thing about language, maybe they were in a rush and didn’t realise the tone it may imply. The downvoted response reeks of the old attitude of oh look a pediatrician lets beat him! Step back and look objectively. Rational conversations are allowed…unless you want an echo chamber.
You are implying that I do not care for victims, you know nothing about me…and I would argue you have jumped to the cliche ‘wont someone think of the kids’. Is taking the time to look at how language is used against victims (child or adults) defending offenders? Life is not black and white, and taking the time to understand motivation of attacks does not mean you sympathize with offenders. There are plenty of psychologists that look at this.
I hope you keep asking why…and i hope it comes from educated studies…most likely from physiologists who have made a career from understanding motivation and the neurosciences. It is a subject that people feel hurt but accusing random people on the internet is not a fix.