>because you are just echo'ing what the instamedia
>news sources are reporting. That said, are *you*
>personally comfortable with drawing the conclusions
>you have drawn, based on the information sources
>that gave you that info?

i honestly just googled a clip and saw that story

>To me, one of the biggest issues of this era
>of news consumption and social media commentary
>is that people are outright judging people's
>entire character based on hearsay, or a half-side
>of a story, or a hyperbolic TMZ report designed
>to shock and draw as many views as possible.

i don't THINK you're referring to me, but i definitely wasn't judging his entire character. i was however, evaluating his decision making.


>Notice in this post, and in much of the social
>media sphere - people are speaking as if they know
>Foster, saying 'ah i knew it! he's just a pseudo
>philosopher who thinks he knows it all. This proves it!'
but that happens on everything on here man. the line on how we "know" someone factoring in our commentary on them has long since been blurred.


>Does what we know (which is very little)
>about the situation really prove anything?
i would say the case that is filed is more insightful then cameras chasing down people.

btw, i didn't click on the links that people are commenting on about cameras getting up in dude's face. that is and always will be inappropriate.


i don't have a "judgment" on Foster or the woman's character, so we can throw a "IF THIS IS TRUE" on all of it. I honestly am too focused on what I need to do for my life to concern myself deeply with the problems/situations of others. that's what this MAINLY boils down to. if people spent more time focusing on their lives, the hawks would have less of a market to service.