this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2024
1053 points (97.0% liked)

Microblog Memes

6037 readers
3174 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. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
ReadyUser31@lemmy.world
aeronmelon@lemmy.world
1053
Missing a slam-dunk headline (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) by The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world to c/microblogmemes@lemmy.world
159 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

(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 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks 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 4 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works -1 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks 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 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks 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 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Okay I disagree.

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

I think you dont know what objective means.

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

I dont think you know what objective means.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 weeks 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 3 weeks ago

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