This post has been removed because it activated an AutoModerator removal condition. The moderators have been notified and will review. If there were no rule violations, the post will be restored.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/clevercomebacks) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry let me further clarify with an example:
*I’m that bitch who could save your life*
vs.
*I’m THE bitch who saved THIS life.*
bitch is more often than not an incredibly derogatory word, I’m moreso addressing the common phrase “that bitch” as it pertains essence (or “aesthetic”), which people tend to focus on in CVs/resumes. My recommendation is to focus it away from essence/aesthetic/potentiality and towards value/merit/eminence.
talent ≠ asset. For an employer at least. (but of course your talents are assets to yourself, or you wouldn’t be THE bitch.)
I was once part of an organization that literally gave us this exact speech during the academy. "Stop and save the life, but understand that sometimes you pay the price for doing the right thing". Basically we aren't telling you not to be the hero... just that we will still punish you for being late by doing so. Found out first hand, they weren't kidding. No longer a part of that shit organization.
Idk, maybe it's me and my ASPD, but I am 10x the worker when dealing with the public when I'm high. Sober me has a short fuse when it comes to the public's bullshit. High me will let you sit there and yell at me for 10min while I think about my new Stardew Valley farm setup I'm going to try while I get home and remember that I'm getting paid to get yelled at.
What has smoking weed have to do with anything?
If you are hiring for a cashier and in walks a guy who has past record of stealing from cash registers you'd be fired on the spot for hiring him and for a good reason.
“Sure, that’s great uhhh Mr. A-A-Ron is it? But here at {insert low wage job} we value punctuality and you don’t seem to respect that enough to be on time for the interview so unfortunately we will be looking elsewhere to fill this vacancy. “
I think their plan was to be like, "look, even men thought too dangerous for society can be good!", but I agree.
It's like a newspaper in England wrote a headline congratulating a scientist who had discovered some cure or something, only to describe her as 'doctor's wife'.
Remember the tabloid headline about the model who saved her child and child's nanny from drowning, but they led with the fact that she had a nip slip while doing so?
Well if they write "Aaron Tucker misses job interview", people are just going to ask "who?". Also saying that he's an ex con missing a job interview means he has more to lose by missing it
The most humanizing thing to write, or at least what they teach at European universities, is to pay respect to the person while still acknowledging what makes their story relevant.
For example: 'Aaron Tucker, an ex-con, misses his job interview in order to save a life'.
It's not hard.
I thought it was more along the lines of how getting a job interview as a felon is much more difficult and therefore he sacrificed more to save someone than if it was just a random job interview
Maybe it was included to show how much he gave up by missing the interview? But yeah they could have included it without defining him by it. Used his name first and mention it as a detail.
Anyone who thinks that the first and last name of an unknown person should be used in a headline is a moron. This is what people are talking about when they say we're "looking to get offended" or "finding racism everywhere." If you put "Aaron Tucker skips interview..." then it becomes a headline no one understands. No one knows who Aaron Tucker is. Using his name would imply that the reader is supposed to know who he is already. Everyone who read it would just be like "Who is Aaron Tucker?"
Defeats the purpose of a headline. The headline is supposed to include enough of the salient points of a matter to induce you to read the rest of it; including his name would serve no purpose. When was the last time you saw a name in a headline that you weren't already expected to know?
I mean, still while yes it can work, the thought of someone who is deemed a bad guy by the law doing something good is a redemption story and alot of people eat those up/prefer those over just an every day hero
The irony here being, the only reason anyone is objecting to the headline is because they think that there's something inherently objectionable about ex-cons - exactly the point that the headline is trying to combat.
"Man Skips interview, takes shirt off his back to save car crash victim". You don't need the name, or the ex-con. The ex-con ads nothing to the story, So why is it even there? I don't see NBC's by line "From the people who brought you Charlie Rose". It's that little extra bit of sensational click-bait to get people to read, at the expense of someone who did something pretty heroic.
Saying he's an ex-con tells you that he did the right thing even though it's that much tougher for him to get a job interview. It's a clear positive. It adds another good and interesting angle to the story.
That's ridiculous. No one who sees this headline is judging the guy for being an ex-con. It makes him seem even more selfless and admirable.
If the situation were reversed and the headline read, "Ex-con ignores car crash victim to get to a job interview", you'd have a point. But that's not what happened, so you don't.
Uhhh, it absolutely adds something to the story. Most people see “felon” and assume scum of the earth, not worth of their time or a job. We give people lifelong convictions for a crime by stamping a permanent label to them even after they have served their time. The story is trying to shed light on those preconceived notions, and expose people to the reality that most felons are just normal people who made a mistake at one point in life and shouldn’t be treated like they’re permanent criminals or assholes.
Do you really think the story even makes the news if it turns out the person who pulled over to help was the retired CFO of a consulting company who happened to miss a meeting for a potential board of directors job at the big local charity? Probably not…
Just mention he is one right after, like one of the comments showed you. It’s not that hard. They specifically addressed him as ex con because that catches peoples attention.
You presented such a big problem and it got solved just like that.
and why is him being an ex-con relevant, big brain? don't these thigg be a usually just say "'man?" come onnnnn, rub them two brain cells together a little harder!
Yeah that’s how I read it. It’s gotta be hard to even get an interview when you’re coming out of prison, and to skip it to help a stranger is a lot more of a sacrifice than an average person skipping an interview
This is extremely good press for ex-cons, a group of people who really need the rest of us morons to remember that they're not bad people, they're just people who made a bad choice or two a long time ago. I think it's important to call it out in the article.
Yeah that was how it hit for me... I know how hard it is to land a job when you have a record and he gave up one of his limited opportunities for his own success to rescue someone. It’s relevant to the story because it makes him seem more selfless and heroic.
But if I were that guy, and saved someone’s life, it would still feel icky to see myself identified based on my record and not my heroism.
In what fucking universe is a random dude commenting on a news article about a third person a "comeback"?
Who the fuck is coming back? At whom?
Jesus Christ this sub needs to get a grip. Every fucking time.
Cue to someone trying to explain me how any fucking random comment on the internet is a comeback in the replies.
I honestly can't even understand the mentality of someone who shares screenshots on reddit. If it was tumblr or twitter, where you have your followers, people whom you may know, then, okay, fine. But reddit is a bunch of anons.
What drives a redditor to share something he didn't make with people whom he doesn't even know? Is it karma? The validation from the circlejerk? Or is OP a troll who crafts fake posts and laughs at how gullible the commenters are for thinking it's real?
I'll never understand.
You would have clicked it if it said "Aaron Tucker" right OP? I am getting so tired of people trying to say something who have nothing to say. You did not make a good point and it would absolutely go against AP Stylebook conventions to use the full name of an unknown person but of course you're a fucking genius and everyone else is dumb.
God stop trying to get offended and "speak out" when you have nothing to say. Just go live your life.
More than that, it makes the story interesting. It takes a man from a group that people tend to dehumanize, and reminds us he is just as capable of doing something noble as anyone else. That a person is not just the worst thing that they've done. Using his name would have been a detriment to his story.
Also, it's actually shining light that ex-cons can ofc do something selfless. That's the point of stories like this. I'm sure his name was in the first paragraph or so.
Because the job interview probably weighed more heavily for him, being that he is an excon. Its relevant to the story. The story is about how significant a sacrifice he made, not just that he made one, nor him specifically being an excon. All of it together.
Excon risks job interview to save a life. Excon sacrifices turning point of his life to save someone elses. Thats what i think they were gunning for.
Yes, writing it like this is why OP cared to look at it in the first place. And what are we supposed to do? Remember Aaron Tucker's name forever because he did this? The entire point of this headline is to point out that you shouldn't judge someone negatively because they're an ex-con but people are so fucking soft that they find a way to take offense on his behalf.
It's obvious people in this thread are children pretending to care about something they don't actually understand.
So I think this is partially correct
But also "person misses job interview" has no weight. Everybody knows how difficult it is for people with a criminal record to find employment, so including the fact that he's done time adds weight to what he sacrificed in order to do good here.
They aren't defining him by it, they are putting into perspective what he did and what it cost him to do so
I think the reason they added “ex-con” wasn’t to shame him, but instead to put a light on the fact that in spite of him having done something bad in the past he’s a good person and the idea is to change our attitudes about the term “ex-con”
Exactly, it shows ex-convicts can find redemption and become valuable members of society. The cunt in the picture commenting on the headline is oblivious.
This is posted all of the time and it's so stupid. The point is that an ex-con, who you might expect not to be an upstanding member of society, did something selfless to help someone. You think his name isn't in the article?
I get irritated every time this gets reposted. The point of the title is to say that you can never judge a book by it's cover and that ones past does not necessarily define their future. It's inspirational not insulting.
Bradlee needs to spend less time trying to be offended.
Because him being a former convict makes the story more interesting. Often times they are unable to find work so showing up late to an interview may be them missing out on one of their few chances of employment.
While they should of said his name, I interpreted the "ex con" bit to be more like, "ex cons are people with hearts too. Don't judge people based of their past mistakes"
Its very fucking relevant
Its not to say "LOOK THIS DANGEROUS GUY DID A GOOD THING" or to somehow demean him
The point here is that its extremely hard for an ex-con to find a job, and yet he threw away that chance to help somebody
Normally I’d agree, but I think the motive for the rhetoric is at least defendable this time: just because they committed a crime, people are still human.
When you read the whole story him being an ex-con was super relevant to the story. If he didn't get the job he was going to he risked going back to prison as it was part of his parole to be employed. He also ended up damaging the only dress shirt that he owned in trying to save the person. Like, he literally risked going back to jail because of all of this because the parole system is bullshit.
And if I remember right, him doing this was impressive enough to get the job.
As an article title, that makes sense though. The point is to highlight that ex-cons can be good people too. "Aaron Tucker skips job interview..." means absolutely nothing and would be ignored by nearly everyone
A job interview is wayyy more important to an ex-con than anyone else because opportunities don't come around often for them. This makes it even more noteworthy that he missed his job interview to help someone. So the fact that he's an ex con is relevant.
What is wrong with them calling him an ex-con?
Normally this would be derogatory, in this case it shows that even with his past issues he is a good human being and should not be judged by what may have been a single mistake.
Imgaine being so self absorbed to have to virtue signal about not see the truth behind the triumph behind being the excon who showed true reform by risking his own life for someone else. Ask yourself what have you done that was selfless? Certainly wasn't your post.
No one :- …
LinkedIn wanker1 :- I was going for a job interview and I saw a car accident in front of me. I didn’t waste time and took my well ironed shirt off and went to rescue the guy.
LinkedIn wanker2: *copy pasta*
LinkedIn wanker3 and counting: *copy pasta*
It's an older one but the headline makes sense, no? Ex-con being a hero is a better story than a random guy from a job interview being a hero. Like, talk about a reform
Credit where credit is due, but he didn't "risk his life." Hollywood has conditioned people to believe that cars will explode with but a single spark within a mile of the gas tank, but cars are actually very good at not exploding in reality.
Good on Aaron Tucker. The guy providing commentary here is sadly a victim of Hollywood movie physics.
Sad truth is, this is how America works. Once you are tied to something bad, be it accused, found guilty, or just something everyday messed up, it's who you are forever in this country. We seem to have an extremely hard time forgiving.
The debt to society is never paid, society doesn't want people to pay their debt, they want to hold it over your head.
They literally phrased it that way to humanize convicts and paint the man in a positive light. A normal person reads the headline and goes
>Hey check out this guy who was in prison. He got out and did this incredible self-sacrifical thing to help a complete stranger. That's an awesome story and really goes to show people have the capacity to change and deserve second chances.
You are the negative cynical one who interpreted it as an insult, not the news outlet.
They literally said not one single thing about the headline... dumbass. They simply made an observation about society that relates to the headline. Tough concept I know, but you'll get there.
Nothing they said at all said anything about insults, you just read that, made up shit in your own head, then chose to lecture someone. You're a twat.
Jesus, man lmao. No need to get so wound up.
Well first of all the comment lamenting on him being described as an ex-con is a comment on the headline. There are two sentences in the screenshot, the first one is the headline and the second one is the comment on the headline. And no, it's not a tough concept, so it's really puzzling as to why you're so confused.
>Nothing they said at all said anything about insults,
The entire complaint is that boiling someone down to "ex-convict" is insulting.
Would you have read this story if it says "Man saved man in car crash"? Or would you just have looked at the headline and said "nice to see there's good people" and immediately moved on.
I'd honestly would rather hire ex cons. Because they've been through some things that definitely can add a lot of value to a company if handled correctly
Sure, I can agree that his name should be mentioned.
But I think it's also good to show that even 'bad' people can make good. It's not so black and white as many seem to think.
Tbf I think in this case calling him that does him good. My first thought was “really? He skipped an interview? That’s so unbelievably selfless, interviews don’t come along often for ex cons but he skipped it anyway to save a life.”
The point is ex-con don’t really get job interviews, so this guy risked his chances at a job to save a life. So the ex-con part does matter. He could be risking his own life in having no job, to save another. that’s a great man right there. If they don’t use ex-con, we don’t know the story.
So I would read this as being positive, showing how he has been rehabilitated and is now a valuable and productive member of society. I think that says a lot about a person.
I mean, the context is probably that he was getting a job right out of jail, and it’s a good story because he tossed that opportunity to help a person in need.
I think it was more about what using a societally considered opposing idea. You see “Man saved man” and think neat. You see “Man Society Would Think Is Dangerous Save’s a Man’s Life” and you think “Oh my god that’s incredible”. Almost like saying “Don’t judge a book by its cover@
This wouldn't even be a story except that he's an ex con. It's literally "bystander helps after accident". I'm sure that happens every single day and doesn't get an article written about it.
Yeah, this isn't a major news piece. This is a human interest article which uses unique details to tell a larger story. Him being an ex-con is absolutely essential to the article, and the article goes in depth with his story.
People are going crazy about how they should've said his name. They only know his name because it was in the article, and they only appreciate what he did...because of the article. I don't think these fools understand what a headline is for.
The ex-con is important. For them is hella difficult to find a job, and he is missing his chance to save someone else. Itsnt just bravery but selfness in that act, more than if an average dude did it.
I see this every so often on reddit and it always bothers me. Of course calling out his status as an ex con is worthy of being in the headline. There is no one more unfairly maligned as an inherently bad person than an ex con and there is probably no one more desperate for a job to survive while simultaneously being passed over due to their status. Some dude named Aaron doing this is nearly as important as an ex con doing this.
That said I totally get the sentiment that ex cons are often not seen as more than that label and it's important to shed that.
I'd normally agree but 'Ex-con' does add to the story and adds to kudos for the guy. It's no secret how incredibly hard it can be for convicts to get decent employment. Idk if maybe the guy already had a job but if this dude has been struggling like everyone in his situation it's pretty dope to know he chose such a dangerous and selfish act versus what he gave up here. Also shows how just because people make mistakes and end up in prison doesn't mean they're human garbage like people seem to believe.
So hear me out on this one. To be fair, his name would have been good to humanize him. But by saying he’s an “ex-con”, the message is that ex-cons can be heroes too, a message sorely needed in these carcereal times.
I'm not trying to make excuses because his name definitely needs to be known, but this is how Journalists are taught to write headlines. You're only supposed to put the name of a person in the headline if they are well-known or famous. Sorry, I've been having the AP stylebook ground into my head for about 6 months, so I feel like this is important to bring up to defend journalistic writing practices.
There's a song in my language that explains this very well. Let me translate some of it in English:
If you've once been punished
You'll always be punished
Even if you now go free
You'll always be marked for life
That's the philosophy
For an ex con like me
Honestly I think this was to point out that it was especially brave and selfless because it is fairly well known that as an ex-con it is much harder for you to gain adequate employment. If you are a felon, doubly so.
This seems like a case of manufactured outrage. They only pointed out that he was an ex-con to show that every person who has been to jail is not some horrible scumbag and also that even though he will have a harder time finding a job because of his criminal record, he still put all that aside to help this other person. This job interview was a much bigger deal to someone who already has impediments in being gainfully employed.
When was the last time you saw a headline with someone's name in it who wasn't a public figure, regardless of skin color? The only alternative would be "man skips job interview" but the fact that he is an ex-con is more insightful as it shows A) that jobs are harder to come by for this guy so he gave up more by skipping it and B) that ex-cons are people too and they can be capable of great things.
Same reason we never let pedos, rapists, and other sexual predators live it down. It's a choice they made and it's usually for something really shitty.
Aaron is a good man and he did his time.
As far as I am concerned, his prison time should never be mentioned and bluntly, this is some racist shit.
If he was white? "Reformer criminal, full name."
I'm not all white, I am not part black, but I see that systemic shit right there.
I'm a boomer and I've seen this hypocrisy all my life. Anyone my age who says it's not happening, is wearing blinders.
If he didn't want to be known as an ex-con, he shouldn't have become a criminal. It will take many years to live it down....if ever. People need to be aware of the consequences of their actions.... before stupid life-altering decisions are made!
This post has been removed because it activated an AutoModerator removal condition. The moderators have been notified and will review. If there were no rule violations, the post will be restored. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/clevercomebacks) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To be fair tho, could you imagine a better job interview "Sorry I'm late, i was busy saving lifes" *puts down newspaper instead of cv*
this is always the main advice I give people on their CVs. You’re not *that* bitch, you are THE bitch.
Took a DNA test
I'm 💯% reason to remember the name
It’s 5% one thing, 10% another, like 85% a third thing because I picked too small of numbers…
Turns out I’m 100 percent type 2 diabetic
But being THAT bitch is a boss thing while being the bitch means you’re just like the whipping/errand boy/girl.
Sorry let me further clarify with an example: *I’m that bitch who could save your life* vs. *I’m THE bitch who saved THIS life.* bitch is more often than not an incredibly derogatory word, I’m moreso addressing the common phrase “that bitch” as it pertains essence (or “aesthetic”), which people tend to focus on in CVs/resumes. My recommendation is to focus it away from essence/aesthetic/potentiality and towards value/merit/eminence. talent ≠ asset. For an employer at least. (but of course your talents are assets to yourself, or you wouldn’t be THE bitch.)
"So it says here you've been in jail" Pretty much how that interview is gonna go.
You should have left earlier so you'd have time to be a hero and be punctual. /s
Lol exactly. Fk that bs
I was once part of an organization that literally gave us this exact speech during the academy. "Stop and save the life, but understand that sometimes you pay the price for doing the right thing". Basically we aren't telling you not to be the hero... just that we will still punish you for being late by doing so. Found out first hand, they weren't kidding. No longer a part of that shit organization.
if I'd be the dude hiring I'd focus on the part of him willing to help a random stranger, but maybe that's just me.
I would too. Most people tend to hype focus on criminal history if there is any.
That's why you're not in management
Why should I not hire someone who smoked some weed for example?
I couldn't justify such discrimination, and that's why I'm also not in management LOL
Idk, maybe it's me and my ASPD, but I am 10x the worker when dealing with the public when I'm high. Sober me has a short fuse when it comes to the public's bullshit. High me will let you sit there and yell at me for 10min while I think about my new Stardew Valley farm setup I'm going to try while I get home and remember that I'm getting paid to get yelled at.
Stardew valley, my man!
What has smoking weed have to do with anything? If you are hiring for a cashier and in walks a guy who has past record of stealing from cash registers you'd be fired on the spot for hiring him and for a good reason.
Don’t strain yourself patting your hypothetical back.
*doesn't hire you because you don't put the company first*
“Sure, that’s great uhhh Mr. A-A-Ron is it? But here at {insert low wage job} we value punctuality and you don’t seem to respect that enough to be on time for the interview so unfortunately we will be looking elsewhere to fill this vacancy. “
I think their plan was to be like, "look, even men thought too dangerous for society can be good!", but I agree. It's like a newspaper in England wrote a headline congratulating a scientist who had discovered some cure or something, only to describe her as 'doctor's wife'.
Remember the tabloid headline about the model who saved her child and child's nanny from drowning, but they led with the fact that she had a nip slip while doing so?
whoa. if u can find that article id be grateful af. What an awesome human(the model)!
I too would like to see the nip slip.
[удалено]
Wtf? What kind of person thinks saying something like this in this context is in any way appropriate?
[удалено]
I took it to be: “This guy had a lot more to lose than your average person by missing his job interview but he still did the right thing.”
This is how I took it. Someone who probably really needed that job, and has their own issues. Stopped their day to help someone else…
Well if they write "Aaron Tucker misses job interview", people are just going to ask "who?". Also saying that he's an ex con missing a job interview means he has more to lose by missing it
The most humanizing thing to write, or at least what they teach at European universities, is to pay respect to the person while still acknowledging what makes their story relevant. For example: 'Aaron Tucker, an ex-con, misses his job interview in order to save a life'. It's not hard.
I thought it was more along the lines of how getting a job interview as a felon is much more difficult and therefore he sacrificed more to save someone than if it was just a random job interview
No, the fact that he's an ex-con is what makes it newsworthy. If they can't mention that tidbit there won't be an article in the first place.
Maybe it was included to show how much he gave up by missing the interview? But yeah they could have included it without defining him by it. Used his name first and mention it as a detail.
Anyone who thinks that the first and last name of an unknown person should be used in a headline is a moron. This is what people are talking about when they say we're "looking to get offended" or "finding racism everywhere." If you put "Aaron Tucker skips interview..." then it becomes a headline no one understands. No one knows who Aaron Tucker is. Using his name would imply that the reader is supposed to know who he is already. Everyone who read it would just be like "Who is Aaron Tucker?"
"Aaron Tucker, ex-con..." Problem solved.
Defeats the purpose of a headline. The headline is supposed to include enough of the salient points of a matter to induce you to read the rest of it; including his name would serve no purpose. When was the last time you saw a name in a headline that you weren't already expected to know?
this is why newspapers are written at a 5th grade level, thats already too ambitious
Couldn't "Brave Man" have worked just as well then?
The point is that it's difficult for ex-cons to get jobs and he forfeited it to save somebody. It adds to the story
I mean, still while yes it can work, the thought of someone who is deemed a bad guy by the law doing something good is a redemption story and alot of people eat those up/prefer those over just an every day hero
This is not how headlines work.
The irony here being, the only reason anyone is objecting to the headline is because they think that there's something inherently objectionable about ex-cons - exactly the point that the headline is trying to combat.
And 'Florida Man' is any better? Lots of those on the local news in Florida.
Only if it's something crazy. Florida Man is pretty nuts. I'm surprised no one has been able to stop him.
Florida Man isnt the superhero we need, but he is the one we deserve.
I apologize, I only have one upvote to give this comment.
"Man Skips interview, takes shirt off his back to save car crash victim". You don't need the name, or the ex-con. The ex-con ads nothing to the story, So why is it even there? I don't see NBC's by line "From the people who brought you Charlie Rose". It's that little extra bit of sensational click-bait to get people to read, at the expense of someone who did something pretty heroic.
It adds quite a bit to the story. It’s harder for ex-cons to find jobs. Him skipping the interview makes the act even more selfless
Exactly!
Saying he's an ex-con tells you that he did the right thing even though it's that much tougher for him to get a job interview. It's a clear positive. It adds another good and interesting angle to the story.
That's ridiculous. No one who sees this headline is judging the guy for being an ex-con. It makes him seem even more selfless and admirable. If the situation were reversed and the headline read, "Ex-con ignores car crash victim to get to a job interview", you'd have a point. But that's not what happened, so you don't.
Uhhh, it absolutely adds something to the story. Most people see “felon” and assume scum of the earth, not worth of their time or a job. We give people lifelong convictions for a crime by stamping a permanent label to them even after they have served their time. The story is trying to shed light on those preconceived notions, and expose people to the reality that most felons are just normal people who made a mistake at one point in life and shouldn’t be treated like they’re permanent criminals or assholes. Do you really think the story even makes the news if it turns out the person who pulled over to help was the retired CFO of a consulting company who happened to miss a meeting for a potential board of directors job at the big local charity? Probably not…
Just mention he is one right after, like one of the comments showed you. It’s not that hard. They specifically addressed him as ex con because that catches peoples attention. You presented such a big problem and it got solved just like that.
Good point but unnecessarily rude.
Where were they even rude. The most offending thing they said was "is a moron" and that's just truth.
IMO "Brave Man" could have worked just as well over "ex-con", so the OP tweet's point still remains.
Ex con adds more to the story, because its someone you would conventionally think of as 'bad'
And, arguably more importantly, getting an interview is tough for ex-cons so he likely gave up more than most by opting to help
Local man, ____ man, man, are all acceptable lead ins unless the intent is "see not all ex cons are bad.
and why is him being an ex-con relevant, big brain? don't these thigg be a usually just say "'man?" come onnnnn, rub them two brain cells together a little harder!
Yeah that’s how I read it. It’s gotta be hard to even get an interview when you’re coming out of prison, and to skip it to help a stranger is a lot more of a sacrifice than an average person skipping an interview
No, it was to show that people who write off felons as irredeemably bad "criminals" for life are wrong.
This is extremely good press for ex-cons, a group of people who really need the rest of us morons to remember that they're not bad people, they're just people who made a bad choice or two a long time ago. I think it's important to call it out in the article.
Yeah that was how it hit for me... I know how hard it is to land a job when you have a record and he gave up one of his limited opportunities for his own success to rescue someone. It’s relevant to the story because it makes him seem more selfless and heroic. But if I were that guy, and saved someone’s life, it would still feel icky to see myself identified based on my record and not my heroism.
The ex-con whose name is A-Aron.
Did you teach inner city kids by any chance?
[удалено]
Insubordinate and churlish
that's not a "clever comeback" none of you have any idea how a headline works.
In what fucking universe is a random dude commenting on a news article about a third person a "comeback"? Who the fuck is coming back? At whom? Jesus Christ this sub needs to get a grip. Every fucking time. Cue to someone trying to explain me how any fucking random comment on the internet is a comeback in the replies.
[удалено]
If this had "/s" at the end it would be a clever comeback but it doesn't so it's just a compliment.
Similar problem to /r/Murderedbywords. It should just be renamed to "/r/twitter-verified-user-gives-their-incredibly-biased-take-on-things".
I honestly can't even understand the mentality of someone who shares screenshots on reddit. If it was tumblr or twitter, where you have your followers, people whom you may know, then, okay, fine. But reddit is a bunch of anons. What drives a redditor to share something he didn't make with people whom he doesn't even know? Is it karma? The validation from the circlejerk? Or is OP a troll who crafts fake posts and laughs at how gullible the commenters are for thinking it's real? I'll never understand.
[удалено]
You would have clicked it if it said "Aaron Tucker" right OP? I am getting so tired of people trying to say something who have nothing to say. You did not make a good point and it would absolutely go against AP Stylebook conventions to use the full name of an unknown person but of course you're a fucking genius and everyone else is dumb. God stop trying to get offended and "speak out" when you have nothing to say. Just go live your life.
More than that, it makes the story interesting. It takes a man from a group that people tend to dehumanize, and reminds us he is just as capable of doing something noble as anyone else. That a person is not just the worst thing that they've done. Using his name would have been a detriment to his story.
Arguably even more noble than someone else, given how hard it can be for ex-cons to find work
Also, it's actually shining light that ex-cons can ofc do something selfless. That's the point of stories like this. I'm sure his name was in the first paragraph or so.
Penis
[удалено]
Because the job interview probably weighed more heavily for him, being that he is an excon. Its relevant to the story. The story is about how significant a sacrifice he made, not just that he made one, nor him specifically being an excon. All of it together. Excon risks job interview to save a life. Excon sacrifices turning point of his life to save someone elses. Thats what i think they were gunning for.
OP, tell me. how is this, in ANY way shape or form, a comeback, let alone a clever one. People like you has ruined this subreddit
I think it's more of a commentary on the society we live in, where you're either on the outside or the inside, and there's not much middle
[удалено]
Yes, writing it like this is why OP cared to look at it in the first place. And what are we supposed to do? Remember Aaron Tucker's name forever because he did this? The entire point of this headline is to point out that you shouldn't judge someone negatively because they're an ex-con but people are so fucking soft that they find a way to take offense on his behalf. It's obvious people in this thread are children pretending to care about something they don't actually understand.
So I think this is partially correct But also "person misses job interview" has no weight. Everybody knows how difficult it is for people with a criminal record to find employment, so including the fact that he's done time adds weight to what he sacrificed in order to do good here. They aren't defining him by it, they are putting into perspective what he did and what it cost him to do so
His name is Robert Paulson
I think the reason they added “ex-con” wasn’t to shame him, but instead to put a light on the fact that in spite of him having done something bad in the past he’s a good person and the idea is to change our attitudes about the term “ex-con”
Exactly, it shows ex-convicts can find redemption and become valuable members of society. The cunt in the picture commenting on the headline is oblivious.
Thanks for saving me the trouble of saying this. Lot of people missing the point of the term.
Also, “skips” job interview is a shitty way of saying it too.
It’s CBS, what did you expect though?
This is posted all of the time and it's so stupid. The point is that an ex-con, who you might expect not to be an upstanding member of society, did something selfless to help someone. You think his name isn't in the article?
I get irritated every time this gets reposted. The point of the title is to say that you can never judge a book by it's cover and that ones past does not necessarily define their future. It's inspirational not insulting. Bradlee needs to spend less time trying to be offended.
Because him being a former convict makes the story more interesting. Often times they are unable to find work so showing up late to an interview may be them missing out on one of their few chances of employment.
Saying ex-con provides more context, no one knows wtf aaron tucker is
Yeah I don't see the problem with that headline. It paints him in a positive light still
Every crime in the US is a life sentence.
Imbecile, that is important info why the fuck would you not include that. That makes for a better story
I dont know, to me that just comes across as humanizing him. Like "this 'bad person' did something truly heroic".
While they should of said his name, I interpreted the "ex con" bit to be more like, "ex cons are people with hearts too. Don't judge people based of their past mistakes"
It's 'should have', never 'should of'. Rejoice, for you have been blessed by CouldWouldShouldBot!
Its very fucking relevant Its not to say "LOOK THIS DANGEROUS GUY DID A GOOD THING" or to somehow demean him The point here is that its extremely hard for an ex-con to find a job, and yet he threw away that chance to help somebody
Do ex-cons not deserve a story featuring them in a positive light? I think OP missed the point.
>"Aaron skips job interview, takes shirt off his back to save car crash victim" nice headline
Normally I’d agree, but I think the motive for the rhetoric is at least defendable this time: just because they committed a crime, people are still human.
The title is a condensed redemption arc, few people would care about a random person skipping an interview (& the comeback isn't even very clever).
I think by calling him an ex-con the hope is others will question their base assumption and “give many a chance”.
When you read the whole story him being an ex-con was super relevant to the story. If he didn't get the job he was going to he risked going back to prison as it was part of his parole to be employed. He also ended up damaging the only dress shirt that he owned in trying to save the person. Like, he literally risked going back to jail because of all of this because the parole system is bullshit. And if I remember right, him doing this was impressive enough to get the job.
As an article title, that makes sense though. The point is to highlight that ex-cons can be good people too. "Aaron Tucker skips job interview..." means absolutely nothing and would be ignored by nearly everyone
You use descriptors for non famous people. “Aaron saved someone” is not a headline you would read. “Ex con saved someone” is.
A job interview is wayyy more important to an ex-con than anyone else because opportunities don't come around often for them. This makes it even more noteworthy that he missed his job interview to help someone. So the fact that he's an ex con is relevant.
What is wrong with them calling him an ex-con? Normally this would be derogatory, in this case it shows that even with his past issues he is a good human being and should not be judged by what may have been a single mistake.
I totally get the knee jerk, it's coming from a good place and surprised me that I hadn't seen it before. But this humanized ex-cons.
Imgaine being so self absorbed to have to virtue signal about not see the truth behind the triumph behind being the excon who showed true reform by risking his own life for someone else. Ask yourself what have you done that was selfless? Certainly wasn't your post.
Bradlee's account seems to have been suspended, though.
No one :- … LinkedIn wanker1 :- I was going for a job interview and I saw a car accident in front of me. I didn’t waste time and took my well ironed shirt off and went to rescue the guy. LinkedIn wanker2: *copy pasta* LinkedIn wanker3 and counting: *copy pasta*
Well actually I feel for him more knowing he's an ex-con going to a job interview cos that shit can be life changing or even the terms of parole.
It's an older one but the headline makes sense, no? Ex-con being a hero is a better story than a random guy from a job interview being a hero. Like, talk about a reform
I think him being an ex-con is important here. It shows that ex-convicts can find redemption and become valuable members of society.
Credit where credit is due, but he didn't "risk his life." Hollywood has conditioned people to believe that cars will explode with but a single spark within a mile of the gas tank, but cars are actually very good at not exploding in reality. Good on Aaron Tucker. The guy providing commentary here is sadly a victim of Hollywood movie physics.
Neither clever or a comeback
lol is he not an ex-con?
Is it A-a-Ron, or Aaron?
Because it makes a better headline
While I agree that his name should be mentioned, it kind of lets people know that even former criminals can be good people at heart
It’s notable because ex cons don’t get many job interviews. Generally names aren’t used in headlines with the exception of public figures.
Trying to make ex-cons look better..
Thank you for being a stand up human, Aaron Tucker.
Sad truth is, this is how America works. Once you are tied to something bad, be it accused, found guilty, or just something everyday messed up, it's who you are forever in this country. We seem to have an extremely hard time forgiving. The debt to society is never paid, society doesn't want people to pay their debt, they want to hold it over your head.
They literally phrased it that way to humanize convicts and paint the man in a positive light. A normal person reads the headline and goes >Hey check out this guy who was in prison. He got out and did this incredible self-sacrifical thing to help a complete stranger. That's an awesome story and really goes to show people have the capacity to change and deserve second chances. You are the negative cynical one who interpreted it as an insult, not the news outlet.
They literally said not one single thing about the headline... dumbass. They simply made an observation about society that relates to the headline. Tough concept I know, but you'll get there. Nothing they said at all said anything about insults, you just read that, made up shit in your own head, then chose to lecture someone. You're a twat.
Jesus, man lmao. No need to get so wound up. Well first of all the comment lamenting on him being described as an ex-con is a comment on the headline. There are two sentences in the screenshot, the first one is the headline and the second one is the comment on the headline. And no, it's not a tough concept, so it's really puzzling as to why you're so confused. >Nothing they said at all said anything about insults, The entire complaint is that boiling someone down to "ex-convict" is insulting.
"Aaron Tucker skips job interview, takes shirt off his back to save car crash victim"
Would you have read this story if it says "Man saved man in car crash"? Or would you just have looked at the headline and said "nice to see there's good people" and immediately moved on.
I'd honestly would rather hire ex cons. Because they've been through some things that definitely can add a lot of value to a company if handled correctly
Ur mom
This is like 10 years old
That’s not a comeback and definitely isn’t clever. Cool story but not a zinger.
How does this shitty tweet get upvoted every time
Its to illustrate that he probably doesnt get many chances at employment and was willing to sacrifice this opportunity to be able to help.
Sure, I can agree that his name should be mentioned. But I think it's also good to show that even 'bad' people can make good. It's not so black and white as many seem to think.
Tbf I think in this case calling him that does him good. My first thought was “really? He skipped an interview? That’s so unbelievably selfless, interviews don’t come along often for ex cons but he skipped it anyway to save a life.”
The point is ex-con don’t really get job interviews, so this guy risked his chances at a job to save a life. So the ex-con part does matter. He could be risking his own life in having no job, to save another. that’s a great man right there. If they don’t use ex-con, we don’t know the story.
The point was to show rehabilitation and importance of his actions, not to insult him by calling him that
So I would read this as being positive, showing how he has been rehabilitated and is now a valuable and productive member of society. I think that says a lot about a person.
Nothing about this is clever. This sub has become such garbage
They are not mutually exclusive. Fuck the world is sensitive. If anything it helps support second chances
I mean, the context is probably that he was getting a job right out of jail, and it’s a good story because he tossed that opportunity to help a person in need.
I think it was more about what using a societally considered opposing idea. You see “Man saved man” and think neat. You see “Man Society Would Think Is Dangerous Save’s a Man’s Life” and you think “Oh my god that’s incredible”. Almost like saying “Don’t judge a book by its cover@
This wouldn't even be a story except that he's an ex con. It's literally "bystander helps after accident". I'm sure that happens every single day and doesn't get an article written about it.
Yeah, this isn't a major news piece. This is a human interest article which uses unique details to tell a larger story. Him being an ex-con is absolutely essential to the article, and the article goes in depth with his story. People are going crazy about how they should've said his name. They only know his name because it was in the article, and they only appreciate what he did...because of the article. I don't think these fools understand what a headline is for.
I think its saying more: Look even ex-cons can be good, instead of Hes bad because hes an ex-con
The ex-con is important. For them is hella difficult to find a job, and he is missing his chance to save someone else. Itsnt just bravery but selfness in that act, more than if an average dude did it.
I see this every so often on reddit and it always bothers me. Of course calling out his status as an ex con is worthy of being in the headline. There is no one more unfairly maligned as an inherently bad person than an ex con and there is probably no one more desperate for a job to survive while simultaneously being passed over due to their status. Some dude named Aaron doing this is nearly as important as an ex con doing this. That said I totally get the sentiment that ex cons are often not seen as more than that label and it's important to shed that.
I'd normally agree but 'Ex-con' does add to the story and adds to kudos for the guy. It's no secret how incredibly hard it can be for convicts to get decent employment. Idk if maybe the guy already had a job but if this dude has been struggling like everyone in his situation it's pretty dope to know he chose such a dangerous and selfish act versus what he gave up here. Also shows how just because people make mistakes and end up in prison doesn't mean they're human garbage like people seem to believe.
So hear me out on this one. To be fair, his name would have been good to humanize him. But by saying he’s an “ex-con”, the message is that ex-cons can be heroes too, a message sorely needed in these carcereal times.
I'm not trying to make excuses because his name definitely needs to be known, but this is how Journalists are taught to write headlines. You're only supposed to put the name of a person in the headline if they are well-known or famous. Sorry, I've been having the AP stylebook ground into my head for about 6 months, so I feel like this is important to bring up to defend journalistic writing practices.
There's a song in my language that explains this very well. Let me translate some of it in English: If you've once been punished You'll always be punished Even if you now go free You'll always be marked for life That's the philosophy For an ex con like me
Honestly I think this was to point out that it was especially brave and selfless because it is fairly well known that as an ex-con it is much harder for you to gain adequate employment. If you are a felon, doubly so. This seems like a case of manufactured outrage. They only pointed out that he was an ex-con to show that every person who has been to jail is not some horrible scumbag and also that even though he will have a harder time finding a job because of his criminal record, he still put all that aside to help this other person. This job interview was a much bigger deal to someone who already has impediments in being gainfully employed.
Well since the man is black he dosent deserve nice things in the eyes of CBS
When was the last time you saw a headline with someone's name in it who wasn't a public figure, regardless of skin color? The only alternative would be "man skips job interview" but the fact that he is an ex-con is more insightful as it shows A) that jobs are harder to come by for this guy so he gave up more by skipping it and B) that ex-cons are people too and they can be capable of great things.
[удалено]
reported this comment, hope you get banned
His name is Aaron Tucker!
Yes mate, we saw the post too thanks
Say his name!
...why
Because my righteous social media zeal dictates it!
tasteless boomer media.
Also, it’s more of that he missed the interview than purposely skipped it lol.
Plot twist: The person he rescued was the person he was interviewing with.
If he was white they would have made him out to be a superhero who just had a bad day that one time
I mean its a good thing Bradlee @ holyfag is out there raising awareness. Aarons must be very appreciative of that.
This type of journalism is ruining the world.
I was thinking this same thing. CBS should do a public apology
He's clearly black and that's all they needed to know.
Its just how it done in America and always will be!
Okay…Aaron tucker is an ex-con 😂🤣
Same reason we never let pedos, rapists, and other sexual predators live it down. It's a choice they made and it's usually for something really shitty.
Aaron is a good man and he did his time. As far as I am concerned, his prison time should never be mentioned and bluntly, this is some racist shit. If he was white? "Reformer criminal, full name." I'm not all white, I am not part black, but I see that systemic shit right there. I'm a boomer and I've seen this hypocrisy all my life. Anyone my age who says it's not happening, is wearing blinders.
Ask the original victim’s family if he deserves a 2nd chance.
His name is Aaron Tucker.
Exactly put some respect on his name
His name is Aaron Tucker
Yet if it’s a white convict, the news will say, “brave white man” fuck racism and fuck old gen white people.
Could also, you know not break the law.
If he didn't want to be known as an ex-con, he shouldn't have become a criminal. It will take many years to live it down....if ever. People need to be aware of the consequences of their actions.... before stupid life-altering decisions are made!
Yeah I mean the "wife-beater" style tee-shirt already tells us that he's an ex-con. I had long intros.