RQ.
December 9, 2021 2:50 pm Leave your thoughts
Can you RQ a “Writer’s group?”
The answer is a very definite yes.
I Rage Quit a fucking joke of a Facebook page. I’ve never been interested in the hack groups on social media, but as previously mentioned, I like to torture myself with morbid curiousity. I let a lot of stuff slide and scroll on. I don’t call out the bullshit or go after someone else, because each to their own etc, etc *rolls eyes*
Some people don’t hold themselves to the standard others do though, or they don’t know there is one. I believe in elevating the industries we are in, and elevating each other. I like the fact anyone can call themselves a “writer” and write whatever they want, but there’s a line between uninformed/misinformed opinion and the facts. Maybe it annoys me this much because I’ve been so careful to be fair and transparent in my journalistic works and general output.
If you choose to write about someone in the public eye, it requires as much research as you can do, and if it’s an opinion piece or you don’t know all the facts – make that fucking clear. Otherwise it’s slander. And people will (rightfully) sue your ass.
So,
Dear Writer (of the “article” on the left side of this text,) this would be my Write Advice.
If I was going to comment on any of these highly-controversial, extremely publicised trials, I’d at least watch them before I made comments on the outcome. I’d possibly contact a defense attorney’s office to get someone to explain terms and procedures I didn’t understand.
When your favourite biased rag publishes or televises snippets from trials, it’s usually a 3 second soundbite taken from about 5 hours of cross-examination and testimony that you could have read-between-the-lines or picked apart yourself, instead of relying on third-hand information and a confirmation bias pushed my the MSM and possibly your own victim mentality.
Intuition, nuance, non-verbal cues etc all become apparent when you watch someone in motion and real life. 2D pictures are not a great source of information, and neither is someone else’s soundbites, paid by the MSM to say what they need to generate outrage, clicks, and more people tuning in to them to keep up with “the news.”
I know very little about Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman. I’ve seen short news clips of their trials, maybe even a documentary somewhere (Netflix?) but I don’t remember very much so I wouldn’t make specific comments on either of them. If I had to make a comment, I’d refrain from forming my opinion from the first Google result or Twitter post I saw. I’d spend a few hours acquainting myself with the people involved, the crimes themselves, the trial, outcome, public opinion – before, during and after, what I took away from their testimonies on the stand, the victims names and their lifestyle. 
I managed to catch every second of the televised Kyle Rittenhouse trial. After, I chose to write about the main facts and my opinion on those. I tagged the post with relevant information eg: opinion, op Ed, my observations. When I wrote about it, it was based in fact and my own opinion based on witnessing the actual proceedings, live. Anything I don’t know or has not been shown as evidence is conjecture/speculation, opinion, my own possible bias (we’re all human.)
What does that mean?
It means you don’t write it like it’s all fact when you only have shockingly bad takes on minimal information and laughable bias. Check yourself.
You can write the way you perceive a situation, possibly even sound like you’re an authority on it too, but mark it as OP ED. Please. Take some responsibility and stand behind the parts of your work that you can. A rant is good, opinions are fine, even if people don’t agree with you, but to write like it’s fact, leave out actual facts – if you’re going to defame/slander someone be fair and out the pasts of the people you’re now celebrating, (in this case a 5-time child r*pist was documented as just a down-on-his-luck type and a “victim” that was shot after and left out the part where he assaulted someone with a skateboard and aimed a gun at their head. BTW did you know you can kill someone with a skateboard?)
If someone is going to write a piece and have the confidence to not only write it, but to spam it in a writer’s group and expect people to agree or respect their strange excuse for a news(?) article…that is not the group for me.
Iron sharpens iron. I can’t get sharp off a fucking wet tissue,
so while I’d love to stay and play in the group, I’m going to head out to the adult’s table. We’ve got alcohol.
TLDR:
*If you’re going to write about people in the public eye – get your facts correct.
*Your opinion might be shit, you’re still entitled to it, but make sure the readers KNOW it’s an Op Ed-type piece!
* Have some standards and integrity before you publish that tripe.
*RAGEEEE!!! I’m not even writing about (for eg) Kyle Rittenhouse in any sort of in-depth way and even I did my research because I wanted to know the facts about such a publicised case.
*I’m okay now. I had icecream. ‘
*Previous Kyle-ish post here
https://www.freekyleusa.org/faq <—- <3
www.facebook.com/everedenauthor
www.Instagram.com/Everedenauthor
EVER EDEN on ODYSEE
EVEREDENAUTHOR ON TELEGRAM and RUMBLE
All content is no copyright infringement intended. All posts are opinion only and are subject to change due to experience, kicking ass and learning how to adult more effectively. If you don’t like it, don’t let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya. Elements of original content may be reproduced with expressed permission from Ever Eden
Tags: alcohol, bias, Casey Anthony, conjecture, controversial, court case, Dear "Writer", GEorge Zimmerman, integrity, joke, jury, Kyle Rittenhouse, lawsuit, medium, murder, Odysee, OP ed, opinion, research, self-defense, slander, social media, standards, verdict, vocal.media, write advice, writer, writers group, writing standards