wahming @ wahming @kbin.social

Posts

1

Comments

43

Joined

2 yr. ago

That's fair. If that were the case here, or if she had made any such claim, I'd agree the title would then be fitting. However, since it's not mentioned, I'll point out that you're making assumptions based solely on the headline, and hence proving my point about the wording influencing people in specific ways.

I'm not discussing the morality of the punishment. I'll refer you to my other comment here:
https://kbin.social/m/news@lemmy.world/t/262280/Singapore-hangs-first-woman-in-19-years-after-she-was#entry-comment-1186793

I'm not discussing the morality of the punishment. I'll refer you to my other comment here:
https://kbin.social/m/news@lemmy.world/t/262280/Singapore-hangs-first-woman-in-19-years-after-she-was#entry-comment-1186793

My original comment contains details from the article, so I'm not sure why you think I haven't read it.

Why I find the headline objectionable:

1. Emphasis on gender. Why does it matter that she's female, or how long is it's been since the last woman was executed? Is it any more or less significant / objectionable than a man being sentenced to the same thing? It's not trying to make some sort of analysis about gender trends, so I can only assume it's a device to invoke emotions.
2. Choice of wording about the quantity. 'A year's supply' would have made it very obvious to anybody browsing that this was not a casual user. Instead they went with the less accessible amount in grams, which makes it seem to those unfamiliar with drugs like it was a tiny bust.

Combined, the headline seems to be pushing a specific agenda, which I find deplorable (the covertness, not the agenda).

Does the source matter when I've already pointed out what's wrong with the headline?

What's the difference between lemmy and kbin, as far as Sync is concerned? I don't mean APIs, but in terms of user experience, what would change for me coming over from kbin?

Perhaps so. I'm not discussing the morality of death sentences, just the BS clickbait here

It's incelish to point out a headline is exploiting gender politics for clicks? Ok.

I'm not sure you know what an incel is, BTW. Here's the definition for your reference: "a member of an online community of young men who consider themselves unable to attract women sexually, typically associated with views that are hostile towards women and men who are sexually active."

Now tell me which part of my statement is hostile towards women, or in any way at all related to sexuality. You're merely using the term as a hammer against viewpoints you disagree with.

Biased title. Why should gender matter in law? This is a blatant attempt to tug at emotions. And they try to focus on '31 grams' instead of 'a year's supply'. Take that clickbait back to reddit.

Edit since a lot of people think I'm discussing the sentencing. I'm not, I'm discussing the article itself. My reasoning:

Why I find the headline objectionable:

1. Emphasis on gender. Why does it matter that she's female, or how long is it's been since the last woman was executed? Is it any more or less significant / objectionable than a man being sentenced to the same thing? It's not trying to make some sort of analysis about gender trends, so I can only assume it's a device to invoke emotions.
2. Choice of wording about the quantity. 'A year's supply' would have made it very obvious to anybody browsing that this was not a casual user. Instead they went with the less accessible amount in grams, which makes it seem to those unfamiliar with drugs like it was a tiny bust.

Combined, the headline seems to be pushing a specific agenda, which I find deplorable (the covertness, not the agenda).

The biggest obstacle to a YouTube competitor is that YouTube themselves can barely turn a profit. The operating costs are ginormous, beyond what most people realise.

This needed a study? It was obvious to anybody who wasn't blinded by said politics.

Except... google play sub's cut would presumably go to... google

Malaysian here.

The clowns are the ones in our government. Just slightly less clownish than the previous govt, that's all

And to further adress the “but what if I believe in My Little Pony would that count”, I mean… the spirit of the law does matter to the judges, you’d have to make a very strong case as to why you and your three friends should count as a protected “group” and why dismembering My Little Pony figurines is necessarily incitement against your group. I’m 99% sure no prosecutor would take you seriously. But I don’t know, I am not a legal practitioner. It’s up to the prosecutors to decide if a case seems to have merit, and then it’s up to the court to try what should and shouldn’t count as incitement under the law.

That's the issue. You now have a very vague law that is entirely up to interpretation by the judge on a case to case basis. Three people might not a religion make, but what about 300? 3000? Those numbers are easy to reach if you have any sort of decent organiser behind a cause. It's just extremely open to abuse. There is no reason why religions should be granted any sort of protected status under the law.

Define religion. Because everything and anything can be claimed to be protected under religion, i.e. the satanic temple. There is no reason 'traditional' religions should get special treatment

Reddit has been shit, but let's be honest. That sub was filled to the brim with illegal offers for money. Lawsuits waiting to happen.

Yes, they just made up the repeated race riots in France...

Given the prevalence of bots and attempts to pass off fake data as real though, is there still any way to reliably differentiate good data from bad?

Oh god no, keep him distracted and far far away from SpaceX

Guess it's about time for Google to kill the project, then.