1607
Slightly different approaches
(startrek.website)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2024
1607 points (97.2% liked)
Microblog Memes
5135 readers
1882 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:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
Related communities:
- !whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works
- !best_of_mastodon@sh.itjust.works
- !curatedtwitter@sh.itjust.works
- !curatedtumblr@sh.itjust.works
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Not specifically. They just picked a random idea out of a hat. One that is currently working fine with no issue. To signify that is the type of stuff they go after.
Which takes us back to my first comment.
Are you suggesting that Finland is offering free ice cream?
Just in case you're sincerely confused, no I'm not suggesting that.
Let me break down the original post for you, since you're refusing to understand it for some reason. Free ice cream is a ridiculous thing that would never happen, but would be amazing if it did, and countries like Finland seem to often be in the news for doing amazing things. Banning wheelchair ramps is a ridiculous thing that would never happen, but would be terrible if it did, and the USA seems to often be in the news for doing terrible things. You understand the meaning of a hyperbole - you're just being obtuse.
It's just a troll.
Why exactly?
Because free ice cream is good? I remember a local bank would give out free ice cream one day a year during a promotion, and it brought the whole town out. Musicians would come and play for everyone, and we'd all just sit and enjoy the day with some ice cream. Sounds like a much more amazing change for a government to make than taking away yet another established right from their population.
So, what does this OP actually mean?
That Americans are evil people? That America is a terrible place? That nothing America does is ever good?
You're making this out to be some kind of deep constructive criticism. So that's the part I need explained.
It's saying that it's really bad that America has fallen so far lately.
Abortion rights are gone, voting rights are being messed with, a racist misogynistic president has a significant chance of winning the next election, gay rights are in peril. America isn't bad, but it's actively getting worse, so when a news article comes about about it, it's generally noting that downward trend. The news specifically talks about changes in things, not their current state. It also talks about big-ticket items, so smaller good things that happen don't get on the news when there's a bigger bad one going on. And there are a lot of big bad ones going on right now.
Americans aren't America. I'm an American, and I staunchly oppose just about all major changes that have happened to my country in the last decade. I understand that I am not my country, and the actions of my country are not my own. I love my country in the same way that I love my drug addict cousin; he makes me very uncomfortable and embarrassed right now, but I really hope he comes around eventually, because I have great memories of who he used to be. I'm doing my best to help him change, but it's not been enough.
The constructive criticism is that America should try to be less of a country where someone expects to hear bad news, and more of a country where someone expects to hear good news.
...would be welcome. As I said originally, of all the things you can criticize the US for, wheelchair accessibility isn't one of them. And it's not likely to become one of them any time soon.
My objection is that OP is not constructive. It could have been--plenty to criticize as I said--but it's not. At best it's ignorant; at worst it's vindictive.
It's not criticizing disability rights. They way hyperboles work is that they need to be over the top. If you want to use a hyperbole for terrible news about America, you need something terrible that specifically wouldn't happen, even in America right now. That's why they used disability rights - because they're NOT in danger. If they had said something like "America revokes gay rights" it wouldn't be a hyperbole, because that's a real risk at the moment.
I know. It's criticizing Americans.
Might want to check with some of the other lovely commenters on that one. I'm told that it's an imminent danger.
Again, Americans aren't America. It's criticizing the actions of the governmental body, not your average person who has no more control over that government than any of his 300,000,000+ constituents. And honestly, while there are many bigger issues on the table, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the president who has shown complete disdain for the disabled decided to go after their rights as well. But for now there's bigger fish to fry.
People can't think, or read between the lines, for you.
Don't be a sea lion.
I did read between the lines. I'm asking if my interpretation is somehow wrong.