1051
Missing a slam-dunk headline
(lemmy.world)
(FYI - the article that the guy is replying to is misinformation. Two commenters have provided snopes links for anyone curious.)
Oops, this is some misinformation, friend. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rfk-wellness-farms/
Exaggerated claims designed to provoke a reaction, even in humorous contexts like this, make it harder for us to perceive and react to actual dangerous threats that might come our way. And we're definitely going to need to have an accurate and truthful view of the world in the coming days.
It's a good joke, it's a great joke even, but even so, we shouldn't spread misinformation.
Tfw you say something and everyone hates it and then someone else comes by and says the same thing in a slightly different way and everyone likes it 😑
Its a difference in rhetoric. Yours is antagonistic and the others is measured and fair.
If it's fake news (and it is) then I have every right to say, "Get this fucking bullshit off my feed" (my actual response was quite a bit more measured than that). I shouldn't have to be like, "Haha! Oh that's so funny, you're really smart and clever! Oh, but, fyi, that's kinda misinformation, just so you know!"
Would you rather listen to the blunt truth or to a friendly lie? If it's the latter, then that ought to be called out as well as the original point - falling for a fake news story is entirely excusable, but being unwilling to listen to criticism unless it's phrased nicely and defanged is not.
Shit like this is part of why I use term "Blue MAGA," because you'll find the exact same mentality over there. The facts don't matter, if you don't demonstrate you're one of us, we'll write you off anything you say. Critical thought means listening to criticism, even if it's, "antagonistic."
Well I was trying to be simplistic but since you typed so much, the reason your message isnt received well is because you assume Ill intent by the OP, while the one getting up votes makes no assumptions about intent.
Technically theirs is more accurate because they are acknowledging they can't know the original intent, while you are arguing that its obvious what their intent is.
I said literally nothing about their intent in my comment whatsoever.
Yes its implied, evidenced by the people down voting you. Thats how rhetoric works. Same message, different delivery.
No, I implied nothing. The other person went out of their way to assuage people that just because they were calling out misinformation didn't mean they're not on their side - I just stated facts without making any indication about what I thought of OP's intent. Loyalty and tribalism come before truth. People posting false information have to be reassured that you think they're great before you correct them. It's ridiculous.
Okay I disagree.
Well, there's nothing you can point to in what I wrote that implies anything about intent so I'd say your disagreement is pretty objectively wrong.
I think you dont know what objective means.
If you just say "I disagree" while having absolutely no grounds for that disagreement then you're objectively wrong.
I dont think you know what objective means.
I think you're asserting something with no basis again, making you objectively wrong about that too lmao.
Well as long as you are getting something out of this then thats a win in my books.
That's on you, the .ml in your name means that everything you say is wrong even when you say the truth.
Learn how to lemmy /s
I was posting more for the funny reply, rather than to share the original article, but I can put a note in the post body that the pictured quoted article is misinformation.
Thanks for adding the note! :)
What an absolute asshole of a journalist you have to be to twist someone's words like that.
Idk, I'm sure that many politicians aren't advocating for LGBTQ youth to be "sent" to conversation camps.
This comment won't age well.
"No no bro, it's going to be totally voluntary, trust me, just watch as we offer it as an alternative to prison, and then criminalize things like 'taking adderall'."
So your prediction is that the Trump administration is going to be rounding up people on adderall and sending them to camps.
Yes or no — is this what you believe?
The Trump administration's intention is to criminalize certain behavior with plausible deniability that amounts to nothing more than an excuse to put specific people on psychiatric meds whom they want to put in these proposed work camps, in work camps. While 'labor' or 'profit' might be involved, the essential function will be, if seen through successfully, simply to hurt those who they think they can, like all fascists.
Okay so I’ll rephrase my question. I would appreciate a YES or a NO response here.
Do you think the Trump administration is going to create work camps and pick people to send there against their will?
Yes, I certainly think they're going to try, considering they've literally and explicitly stated they're going to create work camps, the flurry of promises of revenge, of unlawful deportation, and their history with shipping US citizens off without regard for silly things like 'law', 'precedent', or 'rights'.
Do you think they're not going to try literally exactly what they've said they're going to do?
As well as the average American.