Oh, another news about "who said what" on a social site crammed into 10 posts with 2 sentences each?
Back in the day they would have straight up banned you from most forums for that.
this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
-30 points (27.9% liked)
Not The Onion
12299 readers
1043 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
There's nothing more ironic than this, and it reads like an onion post. Why should I be "banned" from "most forums" for this?
I was talking about the twitter post the article references? Its almost like my first sentence has something to do with the second.
Okay, I was confused because you said:
Back in the day they would have straight up banned you from most forums for that.
That is a pretty standard to phrase it that way. I cant make you invest more brainpower into reading my stupid comments but I cant downgrade my phrasing any more than this.
Is this rudeness really called for? I'm just asking you to explain what you mean by this clearly ambiguous sentence. I'm not trying to imply anything, just trying to understand what you're saying.
They aren't calling you stupid, they are calling themselves stupid.
And "you" is very common to use in English to mean "people in general".
If you are a non-native speaker, it might be misinterpreted.
Thanks, even though I'm a non-native speaker with a degree in English and another in a linguistics-related field, I don't think this was the case. Sentences can be ambiguous, all they had to do was explain that instead of being rude. They said "banned you from most forums" and I'm somehow supposed to guess they meant news rooms or journalist forums? And also somehow supposed to guess that "banned" refers to banning a journalist or from Twitter or something?
I asked my partner who's a native speaker and they agreed that it sounded off and was unclear. They also didn't think it made sense. So I doubt it has anything to do with my level of English /:
PS: coupled with the fact that this perfectly Not The Onion post is being downvoted to hell plus that sentence made it more confusing. When I write shit online, I try to avoid using "you" when giving examples because I know how easily it can be misinterpreted. It's not being a "non-native", it's just being a good writer. Sorry not sorry.
I don't have a degree in English, and I'm not a native speaker, but I understand and speak at a native level having lived in America for a while and I was married to an American for years.
I understood given the context and idiomatic use of "you" that they meant people in general. Clear as day.
Maybe having a degree isn't a factor in this case, given you don't seem to realize "sorry not sorry" makes you come off pretty obnoxious. Maybe being a native speaker, namely your partner, doesn't have to be a factor either. Some people can't read clues like that. People with Asperger's and such. It's common. These people read the words separately and piece them together, rather than a coherent unit of information.
Point is, they weren't trying to be rude. Trust me.
Maybe it was an ambiguous sentence? Have you heard of those? Maybe it was a sentence capable of being read in several ways, but your speculation was instead about my English level?
But no no, it must be that I'm not that good at English and that my partner has Asperger’s! This is hilarious because he is literally a writer. What would you like to speculate about diagnosing us with next?
I'm sure you meant well but what you wrote came off the way this here is coming off now.
PS: I doubt Asperger’s is even that common, and I doubt it gives people reading comprehension issues.
It is technically ambiguous, yes. But given the context, it was not, and people have proven it to you by telling you they got it, and you did not. Simple as that. I added emphasis here to help you as well. 👌
I'm not saying you or anyone else has Asperger's or any other diagnosis, I'm just saying. There's a spectrum. Some people can't read tone very well in writing. And I'm not saying you were bad at English. Just that you didn't pick up on the tone, or assign the right meaning to the word given the context. You do seem to interpret things out of proportion, I can't lie. 🤨 This seems to be a sensitive topic for you, like understanding English and language sort of defines you in some way. Probably given your education and academic success. Sorry to say you weren't able to perform in this situation, but it is what it is.
You can doubt all you want, but do research of you want the truth. I don't know the truth myself here, so... I do have a feeling it's pretty common to be somewhere along the spectrum, even if it's just a little tiny bit.
For the record, I was very aware of how what I wrote came off.
Have a good day.
I think this poster is probably hurt that you didn’t carefully read what they wrote, and are making them repeat themselves.
Some might even class it as rude to engage in a conversation without reading carefully. If you had read carefully, you would not be in any danger of thinking that you are being accused of doing something worthy of that ban.
It is clear that the one who’d get banned is the author of the Jerusalem Post article.
Again, you were rude first but failing to read carefully, and the continuing to belabor the point after having it explained to you.
I read carefully. I asked another person. I then asked OP what they mean, in a clear way that shows where I was confused. Then I explained again what my confusion was.
Your point is not convincing.
You could say "they would have banned someone" 🤷♂️
I don’t get how this was downvoted. The ambiguity of “minimizes” along with an article literally minimizing civilian casualties is 100% the onion. Maybe it’s too depressing to be funny. I certainly can’t laugh at it, it’s more that it makes me feel even more cynical about the world, but it does feel like the onion to me.
That's what I thought too. The claim is over the roof... "THAN ANYONE IN HISTORY!"
In all of history? Give me a break, JPost lol
The ambiguity of minimizes? What’s ambiguous about using that word here?
Either they’ve reduced the quantity of them, or they’ve downplayed them
Would be nice if they had more than once source. This is basically just copy paste of Twitter posts with additional ra ra ra fluff