this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2024
1048 points (97.0% liked)

Microblog Memes

10199 readers
3784 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

RULES:

  1. Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
  2. Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
  3. You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
  4. Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
  5. Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If a post is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
  6. Be nice. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements to private messages.
  7. No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

(FYI - the article that the guy is replying to is misinformation. Two commenters have provided snopes links for anyone curious.)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Its a difference in rhetoric. Yours is antagonistic and the others is measured and fair.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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."

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I said literally nothing about their intent in my comment whatsoever.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yes its implied, evidenced by the people down voting you. Thats how rhetoric works. Same message, different delivery.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think you dont know what objective means.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you just say "I disagree" while having absolutely no grounds for that disagreement then you're objectively wrong.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I dont think you know what objective means.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think you're asserting something with no basis again, making you objectively wrong about that too lmao.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago

Well as long as you are getting something out of this then thats a win in my books.