Toronto Maple Leaf Square | 185.92m | 54s | Lanterra | KPMB

Not at all to diminish the responsibility of the young woman, but she wasn’t alone in the apartment. At the very least there was the person who filmed the episode and who obviously made no effort to stop the whole thing. More than likely that person and others egged her on. If so, they share responsibility IMO. Have any accomplices been charged?
 
Taking delight in the ramifications of one’s poor behaviour/decisions is pretty low. Instead of laughing at the girl, it might be more wise to hope that this will be an edifying experience for her.

P.S. Why does the headline refer to her as “Alleged chair tosser?” What is “alleged” about hard proof?

Don't get me wrong. I deeply hope that she'll learn from this, but I'm absolutely going to take solace in her schadenfreude.
 
Don't get me wrong. I deeply hope that she'll learn from this, but I'm absolutely going to take solace in her schadenfreude.
Deriving pleasure from the fallout she is experiencing, as a result of her actions, does nothing to make you look any better; and it undermines your first point, making it seem like a feigned gesture. If you truly hope that she will learn from her mistake, it would be best to wish that this will be a sobering experience for her, without getting a kick out of her misfortunes.
 
Last edited:
Yep. It's also the definition of schadenfreude.
Well...sort of but...also, not really. You wrote:

Don't get me wrong. I deeply hope that she'll learn from this, but I'm absolutely going to take solace in her schadenfreude.
It's not her schadenfreude. It's yours. She's the object of your schadenfreude. So I think you want to say that, in hoping that she'll learn from this, she'll be the one taking solace, not you.

Ugh, it's so tiring saving the world with pedantry one post at a time.
 
P.S. Why does the headline refer to her as “Alleged chair tosser?” What is “alleged” about hard proof?

It's been a long time since I was in school for journalism, but I do remember (somewhat) that it is against Canadian law for a journalist to directly connect a law broken with the name of the person.

Next time you read about a murder look at how they phrase everything. They will say the person's name with the word allegedly, then in the following sentence mention a non descript version of the person of interest when mentioning the charges/crimes. It's considered a form of slander I believe.

Canada has that law, the United States does not.
 
It's been a long time since I was in school for journalism, but I do remember (somewhat) that it is against Canadian law for a journalist to directly connect a law broken with the name of the person.

Next time you read about a murder look at how they phrase everything. They will say the person's name with the word allegedly, then in the following sentence mention a non descript version of the person of interest when mentioning the charges/crimes. It's considered a form of slander I believe.

Canada has that law, the United States does not.
I don’t see why she simply can’t be referred to as “chair tosser” with the omission of, “alleged.” That would be more accurate and it doesn’t require the use of her name. The inclusion of the term, “alleged,” gives the impression that there is no proof convicting her of said action. Anyway, not a big deal to me, I was just curious about the phrasing.
 
I don’t see why she simply can’t be referred to as “chair tosser” with the omission of, “alleged.” That would be more accurate and it doesn’t require the use of her name. The inclusion of the term, “alleged,” gives the impression that there is no proof convicting her of said action. Anyway, not a big deal to me, I was just curious about the phrasing.
It's because she's been charged with a crime, but not yet tried and convicted (or acquitted) in a court of law. Imagine that she was for some reason coerced to throw that chair, perhaps under duress or credible threat of physical harm. Certainly those would be mitigating circumstances. But our best (but still at times flawed) way of determining these facts is through a judicial proceeding--e.g., trying the facts in court.

So 'alleged' helps everyone in our society get due process.
 
The lighting feature on the pedestrian bridge to Scotiabank Arena is finally working again this morning. If I remember correctly, it used to be variable depending on the activity inside the bridge (ie, people walking). Maybe I'm wrong. The lighting is now independent of that, and just changes in a pre-determined fashion.
 
The lighting feature on the pedestrian bridge to Scotiabank Arena is finally working again this morning. If I remember correctly, it used to be variable depending on the activity inside the bridge (ie, people walking). Maybe I'm wrong. The lighting is now independent of that, and just changes in a pre-determined fashion.
Yes, it used to respond to people crossing it, but not in a particularly satisfying way as best as I recall. A program may be more interesting.

42
 
1671654482599.png
 

Back
Top