Notice the phrasing. If this were any other subject in which users were duped into downloading a fake app, the writer wouldn’t have used negative words connoting blame and ascribing it to the user. Any blame would have centered entirely around the app publisher.
The writer also would not have used a knowingly divisive (and from the left’s perspective, derisive) label like “MAGA types” in close proximity to the connotations of blame.
Here we have: “MAGA types” (divisive label) who failed (blame) to realize the distinction.
TRUTH is an inclusive (in the actual sense, not the libtard sense) free speech platform spearheaded by Trump, that’s seeking to eventually overthrow its competitors.
The very notion that it is only for “MAGA types” is slander to them.
If this were, say, a marketplace app for disenfranchised minorities, I promise you this statement would be written more like:
“An apparently fraudulent version of {x} app, racking up {y} downloads in its attempt to intentionally confuse minorities looking to support their community”
That revised tone shifts the onus from the user to the app publisher, uses neutral or protective terminology to label the users, and conveys a tone of the writer trying to right an injustice rather than laughing at the situation from afar.
If you’re saying this is not one of those Buzzfeed “ha ha look at the uneducated anti vaccers” articles, then sure, but that’s not how most media portrayals work. Some are subtler than this, some are more brazen, but I promise you that you are unlikely to find even the subtle language ever skew in favor of the Trumpers.
Mkay I'm not going to use "What they would have done if xyz" as evidence of anything, since we're talking about what actually happened. I don't see anything that blames the user or says anything negative. They were duped by a phishing app. It happens all the time to everyone.
It's not blaming anyone. I think you're being a bit sensitive.
If you're that insulted by something so minor I think you need to toughen up a bit.
Lol, “evidence”. You asked how they should have phrased it and you gave a ridiculous example, and I was just answering your question with something more realistic that matches the tone of hundreds of leftist articles that we could all relate to.
Honestly I was just jokingly pointing out that the article was exactly as I expected it to be.
After years of being slandered by the media in all forms, working alongside people every day who form their hostile opinion of me from all of these negative cues (subtle and otherwise) in the media that they see all day, every day - I can assure you, this article is the least of the things insulting me right now. I just find it funny how consistently these things are written and how well I can predict them.
If you don’t see how this same tone would come across mockingly if written about something you identified with, then I’m glad. You’ve probably never met the consequences of people who hate you based on constant barrages of this kind of stuff, but I’m happy for you.
If this is your idea of fighting misinformation - telling people how they should feel after reading something - and this makes you feel like you’re fighting the good fight, then you do you.
But honestly it sounds like you’re just mad that we know the game. 😆
I was just answering your question with something more realistic that matches the tone of hundreds of leftist articles that we could all relate to.
You honestly weren't. Instead, you gave a "what if" scenario.
It didn't seem as much as you expected it to me, based on what you wrote. It's not like they're insulting people and calling them idiots for getting scammed. People get scammed all the time, and articles are written about it the same way. The scam affects people who were duped by it. That's all there is to it.
I'm not affronted at your suggestion, I just disagree.
???
They failed to realize the distinction between a legitimate app and an illegitimate one. That's what happened. How else should they have phrased it?
"causing confusion by MAGA types who have a lot of other really great qualities they just made a mistake this one time"?
Notice the phrasing. If this were any other subject in which users were duped into downloading a fake app, the writer wouldn’t have used negative words connoting blame and ascribing it to the user. Any blame would have centered entirely around the app publisher.
The writer also would not have used a knowingly divisive (and from the left’s perspective, derisive) label like “MAGA types” in close proximity to the connotations of blame.
Here we have: “MAGA types” (divisive label) who failed (blame) to realize the distinction.
TRUTH is an inclusive (in the actual sense, not the libtard sense) free speech platform spearheaded by Trump, that’s seeking to eventually overthrow its competitors.
The very notion that it is only for “MAGA types” is slander to them.
If this were, say, a marketplace app for disenfranchised minorities, I promise you this statement would be written more like:
“An apparently fraudulent version of {x} app, racking up {y} downloads in its attempt to intentionally confuse minorities looking to support their community”
That revised tone shifts the onus from the user to the app publisher, uses neutral or protective terminology to label the users, and conveys a tone of the writer trying to right an injustice rather than laughing at the situation from afar.
If you’re saying this is not one of those Buzzfeed “ha ha look at the uneducated anti vaccers” articles, then sure, but that’s not how most media portrayals work. Some are subtler than this, some are more brazen, but I promise you that you are unlikely to find even the subtle language ever skew in favor of the Trumpers.
Mkay I'm not going to use "What they would have done if xyz" as evidence of anything, since we're talking about what actually happened. I don't see anything that blames the user or says anything negative. They were duped by a phishing app. It happens all the time to everyone.
It's not blaming anyone. I think you're being a bit sensitive.
If you're that insulted by something so minor I think you need to toughen up a bit.
Lol, “evidence”. You asked how they should have phrased it and you gave a ridiculous example, and I was just answering your question with something more realistic that matches the tone of hundreds of leftist articles that we could all relate to.
Honestly I was just jokingly pointing out that the article was exactly as I expected it to be.
After years of being slandered by the media in all forms, working alongside people every day who form their hostile opinion of me from all of these negative cues (subtle and otherwise) in the media that they see all day, every day - I can assure you, this article is the least of the things insulting me right now. I just find it funny how consistently these things are written and how well I can predict them.
If you don’t see how this same tone would come across mockingly if written about something you identified with, then I’m glad. You’ve probably never met the consequences of people who hate you based on constant barrages of this kind of stuff, but I’m happy for you.
If this is your idea of fighting misinformation - telling people how they should feel after reading something - and this makes you feel like you’re fighting the good fight, then you do you.
But honestly it sounds like you’re just mad that we know the game. 😆
You honestly weren't. Instead, you gave a "what if" scenario.
It didn't seem as much as you expected it to me, based on what you wrote. It's not like they're insulting people and calling them idiots for getting scammed. People get scammed all the time, and articles are written about it the same way. The scam affects people who were duped by it. That's all there is to it.
I'm not affronted at your suggestion, I just disagree.