LotsRegret
1yr ago
It is the job of the production team to educate the relevant actors on proper gun-handling procedures and ensure the safety of the gun.
Of which, Baldwin, having worked on many movies where guns were used were well aware of.
A big issue in the Baldwin situation is that in the scene that was being shot, Baldwin was meant to be quickly drawing the gun. He was not meant to be firing it. If you look at the filming right before the incident happened, his finger is clearly inside the trigger guard and likely near or on the trigger itself. So the revolver should have never of been fired in the first place. It was his negligence by pulling the trigger. If he was in a scene wherein he was intended to "shoot" the gun, and that is when the negligent discharge happened I would have more empathy towards Baldwin's innocence. This is not the case, so the armorer failed by allowing live ammunition onto the set and Baldwin failed by negligently pulling the trigger of the revolver when the scene did not call for it. Both made critical errors, leading to the death of one and another injured, and both are justifiably going to be charged.
LotsRegret
1yr ago
The incentives are aligned to favor clickbait, which is why the media tends to be so bad.
I'm not entirely sure the incentives of clickbait explain this as well as is theorized. Let's look at NPR which is funded by the government and donations. They don't have the same incentives, but I think NPR is even worse than many or even most MSM outlets when it comes to political slants. So while clickbait incentives may be driving part of the problem I don't think it is sufficient or even a necessary element for why the news media is so bad.
LotsRegret
1yr ago
"Historically Marginalized" is and will be useful to refuse AA to white men (or whites and men) when they are drastically underrepresented in academia and work sectors that are seen as important by those in power. Men are already moderately underrepresented in university attendance, yet very few are giving men AA, as they are not "historically marginalized". So all the current is against them, despite them already being underrepresented.
It may be powerful, but is it a power which results in a stronger, healthier, and better nation?
I personally much prefer a nation which organizes along a shared ethic, not ethnic line.
More options
Context Copy link