So we recently posted this story, and I was wondering if the way the story is told glorifies or justifies the violence, or does it just talk about it as something that happened without approving it or having an opinion?
What are your thoughts?
My opinion is that the story is told from an OP’s perspective who, form the outset, was determined to villainize the owner.
It only glorifies/justifies violence when it’s directed at said owner; on one side, OP (rightly) condemns the boss for running a trespasser over, thus breaking their arm, and threatening them, but on the other, they apparently have no problem at all with a trespasser beating their boss senseless. So my problem with this story is this double standard.
(Also not helping things is that in the case of getting beat up by said trespasser, OP simply comments “We eventually learned the entirety of the story” but does not elaborate what that story was and how anything can justify a trespasser assaulting someone defending their property.)
I don’t think it glorifies violence, but I do think that it approves of violence, provided that it’s directed against someone unlikeable or unpleasant.
If this was reddit, it’d be ESH.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.