That one line from the article... that one line sums it up: "The justices held that it was unconstitutionally excessive for Seattle to impound a homeless man’s truck and require him to reimburse the city nearly $550 in towing and storage costs."
The fucking audacity of that reporter to write it in such a way!
The whole story would have sounded differently if he would have said:
"The justices held that it was unconstitutionally excessive for Seattle to impound a homeless man’s truck home and require him to reimburse the city nearly $550 in towing and storage costs."
....see how nuance can be used to influence the reader's perception?
That one line from the article... that one line sums it up:
*"The justices held that it was unconstitutionally excessive for Seattle to impound a homeless man’s truck and require him to reimburse the city nearly $550 in towing and storage costs."*
The fucking audacity of that reporter to write it in such a way!
The whole story would have sounded differently if he would have said:
*"The justices held that it was unconstitutionally excessive for Seattle to impound a ~~homeless~~ man’s ~~truck~~ home and require him to reimburse the city nearly $550 in towing and storage costs."*
....see how nuance can be used to influence the reader's perception?
(post is archived)