News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
When did I ever say she was lying about her jobs? I said the timeline presented by the article didn't make sense because it didn't.
A writer in need of an editor is different than an interviewee telling lies.
And it’s the only part of the entire story that you felt was worthy of discussing.
This entire speculating thread just looks like ways to discredit the victim.
You jumped to insulting people's reading skills when they questioned something that was unclear in the article ("Oh you don’t understand paragraphs, I see.")
I responded because my numbers autism said "ah, I see. Velma doesn't get how the math doesn't math, let's make that clear so the world is less confusing."
If you'd just said "huh, yeah, the reporter could have worded that better" then this thread would have ended. Instead I think that you don't care that the math doesn't math and you're viewing attempts to figure out what the reporter meant the convey as attempts to call the interviewee a liar. I hadn't even considered that the interviewee might have been wrong about her life experience until you suggested it--it seems more likely that the reporter's article was unclear, especially since the "15 years" bit wasn't a direct quote.
I didn't comment on anything else in the article because I didn't think I had much to contribute on anything else. My stance is so obvious that what would I say on that that hasn't already been said? Here: "yeah, that's fucked up. I'm glad she's no longer incarcerated. The USAian system has problems. This happened before the overturn of Roe v Wade‽ I can imagine how much worse a similar situation would be handled now".
You misread the article and immediately jumped to conclusions about her work history.
I'm allowed to feel annoyed that a group of men decided it was more important to nitpick a woman's story than to feel sympathy or outrage at her mistreatment.
It's not an obvious stance and it's laughable when men assert this. If it was an obvious stance, we'd be working harder to eliminate these types of egregious and horrific treatments of women.
Instead there's more comments about the odd pacing of a brief retelling of the victim's work history.
Shame.
I don't see how I misread the article. I believe the article is unclear and the bit about the taxi job is open to interpretation. I did not jump to conclusions about the interviewee's work history. I stated how I interpreted what the article says about her work history. The article may or may not accurately reflect reality and may or may not accurately reflect the interviewee's telling of her work history.
I never said you weren't allowed to feel a certain way. I stated what you did and how that affected the thread's trajectory. Do you think I said you weren't allowed to feel a certain way? I don't get why you're bringing it up.
And pardon me for assuming that the stance of most of the people who responded to this post was the obvious stance.
Clarification: are you more upset because you think I'm a man? I have been on the internet since the 90s and, as we all know {joke} there were no girls on the internet in the 90s.
I read that section of the article and wasn’t confused about her general retelling of her work history and favorite jobs. The idea that only people above 18 work is preposterous. Especially when the article detailed that she was already a skilled laborer by the age of 14.
No, I was simply stating how I felt about it because I think it’s a damn shame that the real story here got obfuscated by a hyper focus on a small detail.
Apologies on the assumption, Lemmy is so overwhelmingly male and misogynistic that it’s easy to miss the rare woman here.
Fair.
I was really only confused about the "Her favorite job was working as a taxi driver for 15 years." Everything else made sense, that just felt like a bad phrasing on the reporter's part. Other jobs, I was replacing shingles on my family's buildings at 15, folding boxes under the table for a local bakery before then.
No hard feelings? TBH, I should have disengaged sooner because I felt myself going down the "maybe if I overexplain my stance they'll agree with me and everyone'll be happy" rabbit hole, when I should have figured out that we were talking past each other. Like, it felt so... yeah, no, the events in the article are messed up. Clearly if I feel that so strongly everyone else can read my mind and knows that without me saying anything [spoiler alert: people can't read my mind]. Then I fixated on the detail of the date and you maybe thought that was all anyone in the thread was taking away from the article, which didn't help anything.
No hard feelings. Thank you for taking the time to see where I am coming from.