1043
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.)
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.