I'm just sitting out on my balcony right now, watching as someone down below completely and utterly nukes the entire main thread from the For a dollar visiti Uljepsalo ja dan 🙏
It certainly makes my day a bit more interesting, doesn't it? 🙏
So, when journalists report on people gathering at a Spa Resort, it's considered perfectly fine because it serves the public interest, but the moment they cover an announced gathering at a Cathedral, suddenly it's framed as a provocation.
It’s just a textbook case of double standards.
For me, the news isn't about some supposed "conflict," but rather the sheer fact that someone could be foolish enough to organize an entirely unnecessary get-together despite everything going on. Just any gathering at all.
And if we're talking about fulfilling social and psychological needs, I'd happily grab a coffee or a beer at my local pub with a few friends while keeping six feet apart. Why am I being told I can't do that?
If the priest tells you at the start of Mass that there's a baptism today and it's being recorded, you have every right to just walk out. If someone starts filming you without prior notice, you have the right to call the police and sue.
It's the same when you go to the Stadium; if they say the stands are being filmed, you can either accept that certain people have permission from the venue to record or just stay home. If you start filming people at the Stadium or recording the game yourself, you might end up getting sued, kicked out, and banned from the Stadium entirely. Someone might also try to get physical with you, but they'll be held accountable for that too.
It isn’t exactly the priest who spends the entire ceremony filming baptisms on his phone. It’s just a crowd of people holding up their devices, capturing everything through a screen. And honestly, I can’t recall ever hearing a single word from the clergy about it—not once.
If someone decides to start filming you without any prior warning, don't you think you're well within your rights to call the police or even pursue legal action?
Why exactly didn't those defenders step up and make that play today? Do they somehow operate under a different set of rules than everyone else on the field?
restlesssurfer97 said:Was it really absolutely necessary for me to waste forty-seven seconds of my life on this?
If you truly can't see what’s flawed about your logic, there isn't much I can do to help you.
You've convinced yourself that without some kind of "clash," there wouldn't be any buzz at all, and because you can't actually prove that premise, you're jumping to the false conclusion that the coverage exists simply because of the conflict—and therefore, that the conflict was manufactured just to drive interest. In doing so, aren't you essentially giving everyone a free pass to behave however they please?
Your reasoning implies that the more intense the confrontation, the more inevitable the media frenzy becomes.
But hypothetically speaking, if she had been completely ignored by the press, would there have been a "story" or a "clash" to begin with?
Paul Martinez73 said:It seems like nobody here has quite grasped the concepts of private property and filming permits yet. If the cops gunned you down after you broke into a precinct to film them, you'd probably be telling everyone you got exactly what you deserved 🤷
Well, given that particular value system, I can't say I'm surprised this gets the green light.
The next time someone tries to snap my picture with a phone or camera during a baptism at church without asking first, I might just have to throw a punch and cite your logic as my defense.
restlesssurfer97 said:You're trying to twist things, but I get the feeling you're doing it on purpose, so I'm not even going to bother arguing about it. 🤣
You claimed she was looking for a "fight," and that she got exactly what she wanted. That's a bold take, unless you happen to know her personally.
I wonder if you would be typing the exact same thing if, say, the police had opened fire on her while she was filming them? That would certainly make for a more compelling headline, wouldn't it?
Honestly, you've been catching me by surprise lately too. Was an empty church supposed to be the story? 🤔
Or are you really going that low, actually implying that I'm saying she deserved to get beaten—which, by the way, she didn't—just to make a point?
Of course she was looking for a story; that’s literally what a journalist does. And honestly, she found one just by the sheer fact that the mice were being kept there in the first place.
Yet, according to your logic, she was also looking for aggression. It’s actually quite surprising to see such a stance—it feels dangerous when people make these kinds of sweeping judgments from a distance without really thinking it through. Isn't it essentially providing a moral excuse for anyone who happens to dislike a certain reporter to just label them as nitpicky or something similar?
I suppose we should apply that same logic to all the journalists who faced heat from folks like Bandic or Mamic, shouldn't we? At the end of the day, they simply got exactly what they went looking for.
It’s almost ironic how some people can’t even on the day of their Savior's resurrection manage to stop acting in direct opposition to everything he actually taught, choosing instead to spread intolerance rather than love ☕
Let’s just hope God has a special place reserved for those who are nothing more than a hollow facade ☕
steelharbor9 said:Just you wait, they keep cranking up the intensity until the very end. 🤣
I started watching Money Heist. I'm 5 episodes in, and it’s not bad, but I don't know if all the hype is totally justified. It feels a bit like a weaker version of the first season of Prison Break, maybe? 🤷
In the end, it’s just a full-speed collision with a brick wall. 🙏🙏
I suppose I should weigh in on Money Heist as well; I’ve managed to get through three seasons, and while it isn't exactly bad, I wouldn't call it anything approaching great. Besides, there is something about watching people rob a decent King that sits poorly with me, especially since I feel like I deal with enough of those types of situations in my own life. ☕
The Great Leader means absolutely nothing to this guy; instead, he’s busy walking up to the Secretary of Health to explain how ventilators actually work, saying things like, 🙏 "Look, Rasim," 🙏 🙏 . The man is traveling from city to city, personally delivering aid himself.
It’s either one extreme or the other: you’re either some self-proclaimed genius skeptic who thinks they know everything (🙏), or you’re just someone blindly swallowing whatever the news anchors at ESPN tell you.
There really isn't any middle ground, is there? 🙏
By the way, when was the last time we saw people being hauled off to mass graves in places like Central Park because of the flu? Or are we just going to keep ignoring international headlines unless they happen to be coming out of Sweden?
By all means, let’s send those brave grandfathers, grandmothers, and parents—the ones who apparently aren't worried about their own safety—to staff the grocery stores, hospitals, and all those other essential services. And here is our brilliant solution.
As for this whole procession business, it’s an absolute disgrace; I truly wonder if any other group would be granted permission right now to gather hundreds of people for a demonstration that does absolutely nothing to keep the system running.
In the States and Bulgaria, things are arguably even more absurd regarding this issue, as nobody seems to care whether you get sick, die, or whatever else happens... A Bulgarian pop star even claimed it was impossible to catch anything from a priest 🙏 In Mexico, until very recently, everyone was sharing communion from the exact same vessel, though I suppose I don't know if they've finally done away with that 🙏 Good grief, what fools 🙏
And I’m sure everyone will just stay tucked away at home, waiting for divine intervention if they happen to catch something.
