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

  • Rekorse
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

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

    • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        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.

          • Rekorse
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

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

            • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              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.

                • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  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
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    I think you dont know what objective means.