309
Elon Musk keeps tweeting the 'R-word.' Disability advocates say he needs to stop.
(www.usatoday.com)
this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2025
309 points (93.3% liked)
News
36491 readers
2113 users here now
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.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The edit to my comment merely added the second paragraph, which explicitly spells out what should have been obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills, or failing those, at least a modicum of simple human kindness.
In retrospect, with the added context, I can see what you originally meant. But without it, your post very much was just another person using the word as though it was fine to say and weird that people wouldn't say it. And with it being at -5 when I posted, I wasn't the only one that read it that way. You even felt you needed to correct it after I left.
No, that's something that came entirely from you. My comment merely pointed out a failure of the article to say what it was talking about.
It's important to be careful when communicating with others about issues that feed strong emotions in us. It's all too easy to project meaning that isn't there, and mistakenly vilify someone based on our own biases.
Yes, and at least some of that was surely due to the influence of your comment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect
That's faulty reasoning. What I added was not a correction, but an explicit statement of what should have been obvious to a reader who wasn't looking for a quarrel. In other words, I went the extra mile to do the reader's job for them. My addendum doesn't imply fault in the original.
I did this only because I'm familiar with the way misguided replies can lead to toxic snowballs on web forums, and I noticed that your comment had the potential to start one.
A simple "I'm sorry for mistakenly chiding you" would have sufficed here. Good day.
I can't make it be -5 before I posted based on what I posted. Your edit obviously clarified what it meant for most people and turned around your negative. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I am literally defending myself from you.
Whether you knew what your post should have meant or not, it was obviously not clear, I wasn't the only person who read it the way I did. Why did you feel the need to edit it?
This isn't actually a big deal. I'm ok that it happened. Don't worry about it.
Edit: I will add that there is a reason it's a common practice to put "edit:" in front of any edit that might change the context of a post, especially if there are already replies to it at the time that will change their meaning with that edit.