-30
Tesla terrorist unmasked as lipstick-wearing arsonist who left key clues at crime scenes
(www.dailymail.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2025
-30 points (5.9% liked)
Conservative and Conservative2
140 readers
1 users here now
This is a pro-LGBTQIA+ community.
A community for some conservative points of view. Including general news. We support equal rights here. Just because you don't like it or it doesn't align with your views, doesn't mean it's not true.
Warning: I have reported, and will keep reporting, extreme posts on Lemmy to the FBI. This is the webpage used to report federal crimes and submit tips regarding violence against elected officials, and domestic terrorism activity. https://tips.fbi.gov/home
Rule 0: Serial downvoters will be banned.
🍃🌻 Rule 1: Kindly be empathetic and kind to others. Trolling and spamming will not be tolerated.
Rule 2: Keep it Civil - It’s NOT OK to say another USER is a (pejorative) or a paid (pejorative).
Making the community a friendly & supportive place is our goal.
All of us are here for a short lifetime. Let’s have a nice time here and avoid negativity. :)
Please be respectful, even if you don't agree.
Don't personally attack people. Don't call them names.
Be grown-ups.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I looked up "yellow journalism". It seems to describe sensational articles, which this is, but that's very broad. I was wondering more about the exact placement of those two words to achieve that sensational effect.
What makes it biased isn't the truthfulness of the literal words, but what it communicates to the reader. There are ways to say that the perpetrator was wearing lipstick such that the reader understand either "transsexuals and crossdressers are violent people" or "this person happens to dress funny and their behaviour has no bearing on anyone else who does the same." Based on the reactions in the article's comment section, this is clearly an instance of the former.
So to summarize, it's not a problem that looks are being highlighted. The problem is that it's done in a way that puts a target on innocent people.
No, the problem is that some fuckwit decided to set out to destroy other people's property for a fun political stunt. And he happens to wear lipstick while looking like a homeless hairy dude. He purposely makes himself stand out by how he dresses and acts.
No one would be writing about his lipstick if he didn't commit a fucking crime.
Why don't you just be upset at him for giving “transsexuals and crossdressers" a bad image, rather than the people who write articles about him.
He's a fucking lowlife criminal dipshit. He deserves his appearance being made fun of. No one is making fun of the LGBQT community because of him. You are projecting. They are making fun of him directly. Because he's an idiot.
Be mad at him for making your cause look bad. Why aren't you pissed at him?
I'm talking about the problem with the article, not problems with society or the world or anything else. No one's stopping you from being upset at multiple problems at once. Unfortunately, I don't have the means of reaching the arsonist nor the author of the article to make my complaints, nor the means to experience anger (alexithymia), but I can communicate with the people of Lemmy and encourage people to actually think about what they read. It's also just a fun exercise to see how biased articles are written in the first place.
Not making fun of. Promoting fear, and the idea that they are all dangerous. Rereading the comments, it's actually more an attack on anyone who supports the LGBTQ community than on LGBTQs. I'll quote some of them below for you.
I picked out the ones that are most explicit, but just about every comment is saying the same thing.
Again, no one is doing that. Those people would have said the exact same things even without the current title of the article. The title of the article didn't cause any of them to think differently.
What makes you think it wouldn't? How do you inform yourself about the happenings of the world if not through the news? Or from people who read the news? And of those people, how often do you think they read past the headlines before jumping to a conclusion?
Hey, if you change your world outlook because of a headline, that's on you. Seems weak to me. I like to think for myself. But you do you.
If someone picks up a gun and accidentally shoots you in the foot, what are you going to say? "I'm not an idiot. I know gun safety. If you shoot me in the foot, that's your problem, not mine."
Seeing a fucking headline online and being shot in the foot are two different things. Again, if you are week enough to make your choices based on random headlines without doing your own research, that's on you.
Maybe people should toughen up and not be sheeple. :)
Yeah, they're two different things. The commonality is one person's actions negatively affecting other people. As the party that's being negatively affected, it makes no sense to say that it's not your problem just because you're not the cause of the problem. Being negatively affected by it makes it your problem.
Except you can choose not to be a sheep and blindly let a internet headline make your choices for you. LMAO
I can choose for myself. You can choose for yourself. We cannot choose for other people.
Correct. And those people can choose for themselves, just like you and I do. So you can't blame me or some article writer for what other people think. They can think for themselves without you having to hold their hand and shelter them from bad things.
We can agree that the reader is responsible for themselves, what they take in and how they respond to it. But why shouldn't the author also have responsibility? Or any of us for what we share on social media? Everyone has an impact on the world. Shouldn't we aim to minimize these impacts when they're negative?
Because the author was reporting the facts of the case. Regardless of whether or not you think they are important, they are facts. The guys appearance wouldn't be in the news if he hadn't committed a news-worthy crime. So get over it.
People need to toughen up, accept the world, and adapt. I have no desire to hold someone's hand and censor news that you think may offend a few people.
I'm not going to change how I post, what I post, or where I post from.
If you don't like that, please feel free to start your very own community on this instance or any instance, and mod that however you want to. Feel free to block me and/or this community if you are so offended that I post a link to a news article.
And you're totally free to write a strongly-worded letter to the editor of the news org. I'm sure that will really change things. lol
I never argued against the facts being reported. They are indeed important and should be included. What I'm criticizing is the way it's being presented.
I'm not arguing against offending people either. Offend all you want (tbh I've never understood what it even means to be offended, but that's besides the point). What I'm against is manipulating the minds of those you call "sheeps". The ones who don't read past headlines and still form strong opinions from them. Opinions that translate to actions and have negative consequences on other people. Blocking you isn't going to change any of that. Besides, I enjoy the exercise.
Writing to the editors isn't as interesting because i don't have my thoughts fully sorted out on this matter and I wouldn't expect a response, let alone a back and forth. It's discussions like these that help figure out what I really think about it, so I appreciated that you're willing to take the time to talk about it.
Dude, ya gotta just let it go. You're not going to change anyone's mind or anyone's policy. Sorry, man. That's just the way the world is.
But you can be the change you wanna see. You can write the articles. You can start the communities. But most people just won't take this as seriously as you are. And that's ok.
I don't understand what you mean here. I've already said my persuasive piece. If it convinces anyone to change their stance, then great. If not, then so be it. It is what it is. But I don't see any reason to go back and delete it just because I don't think anyone's going to be persuaded. That's extra work for no gains.
Do you not want to make the world a better place though? I'm assuming yes. How would it help to share misleading articles over another containing the exact same information but without being misleading?
The world is a better place. And I don't think the article is misleading. You think that, I don't.