371
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2024
371 points (97.7% liked)
politics
18883 readers
2447 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It is not indicated in the article who the people from the popularized thumbs up photo are in relation to the family complaining. The article indicates the family was unhappy their family's gravesite was included in the photo. I was curious if those in the photo were intimidated or coerced into posing, or if ANOTHER family is discussing ANOTHER gravestone, which is what I asked for clarity on. Getting a one word "no" is not useful, so I followed up.
Edit also this is a discussion forum, and my comment could also indicate I didn't understand something. It's not unreasonable to ask people to clarify.
Your reply is toxic, and assumes the worst of others.
The first paragraph:
Strongly implies it's not the family in the picture.
If we continue reading:
It's all very clear from the article if you tried reading it in the first place before asking others to explain it to you.
As I said, I did read it. I'm not taking a test here, I'm not held to academic rigor. I didn't get it. I wasn't satisfied with the implied conclusion you mentioned. I asked. This is an appropriate place to ask, and no one is obligated to respond.
There is nothing in your quoted text that definitely clarifies the following question: " was the pictured family the family that did not want the gravesite pictured? If so, were they coerced into taking that photo?" If not then we can assume the gravesite of the family in question is in the background and my question would have also been solved.
You are displaying very negative behavior, you could just not be involved, but have chosen to do so.
Edit for clarity: none of your responses have clarified who the family in the popularized photo is, that's all I cared about, to see if that family was forced into that photo, which would be terrible
Your first comment was:
Clearly from reading the article they are not.
When you didn't bother to read the article in the first place before making comments on it people are going to assume you also haven't bothered to find the information of "who the family in the photo was" on your own before asking others to find out for you.
You asked why you were receiving downvotes. I explained.
You responded that the article was not clear, I quoted relevant sections.
Don't ask questions you don't want answers to. If you don't want to interact with me you could not reply, but have chosen to do so.
It is not clear! It is implied at best and it didn't satisfied my understanding.
Edit my whole premise was that I was unclear from the article who the pictured family was. I was not satisfied that they were, or weren't the family who was unhappy. My conclusion I wanted to circle was if they WERE that family, the fact.they were drawn into the photo is another layer of egregious disrespect.
You assumed I didn't read and continue to do so, I dispelled that assumption. Asking for clarification even if you didn't read it not grounds for rudeness. Remember: someone may not have understood what they read! Which was my situation.
I don't know how it could be more clear.
And if it was so unclear then your question of "why did they agree to do this and smile?" is inappropriate because there is nothing indicating they are the family in the photo and you assumed it to be true.
Removed, civility.
It isn't in the words, it's implied, so finding it would indeed be hard.
Edit Beyond that, it is apparently hard for this group to just say
"My read is that the family form the article isn't the one in the picture. "