this post was submitted on 25 May 2024
174 points (87.8% liked)

Technology

59299 readers
4561 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Pretty much all of the misconceptions you listed could have been solved by simply reading the article, or even being slightly informed about the process of approval of experimental evidence.

Judging from a place of ignorance isn't really any better.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

See number 5. People really are going to people, but compounding that is also not any better.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

And when people are mindlessly and unfairly judging people, we shouldn't call them out? If I see someone being racist should I just throw up my hands and say "well people are going to people"?

And why aren't you following your own advice and allowing me to people without being challenged?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

People are naturally going to have the reactions they do to Elon Musk. If the news outlets didn't constantly put him in the spotlight more people would probably be willing to read the article and learn about the trial and the science. As it is I'm not surprised people didn't read the article.

I'm not particularly invested in either side of this which makes me a pretty unbiased third party simply pointing out that neither of you is making the community better with these kinds of comments. If you had quoted relevant parts from the article that would have been a better way to convey what you meant.

And mostly because you responded to me.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This is hilarious. You responded to me first, I only addressed you have you jumped in. You are also not "unbiased" because you didn't read the article either and defended the assumption, accusing me of assuming too. But not only that but making false assumptions about my position and then accusing me of being on a high horse. And you're trying to pretend youre some neutral party. Lol

Whatever, my man. You want to let ignorant judgments go unaddressed, be my guest, but I'm going to people over here and call it out like it should be.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

My comment had nothing to do with the article. So I didn't need to read the article.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

My comment had nothing to do with the article.

You were talking about how we (me and the top level commentor) were both fair in our assumption about what kind of person was that was willing to undergo the procedure. And the article is about people willing to undergo the procedure. So you were absolutely talking about the article. Not only that, but incorrectly claiming that my position was based on being equally as ignorant as you and the top level commentor, when my position was actually based on being knowledgeable by reading the comment.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Because you both made assumptions. Just because your assumptions were not about the article itself doesn't mean that you didn't make assumptions.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The assumption you claimed I made was in relation to a fact I stated that's in the article. Wtf are you on about, specifically?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No. The assumption was that the other person had the context you had from the article, and chose to call someone stupid. But I don't know why you're even bothering with this. You obviously don't agree and that's fine.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You're attempting to change what you accused me of assuming. But in your attempt to be not wrong, you made yourself even more wrong.

I made no assumption that they read the article. I was actually pretty sure they didn't, in typical Lemmy fashion.

So it's not actually you assuming. Lol

And why do you keep on acting like I'm the only one keeping this conversation going? You've responded to me as much as I've responded to you.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don’t know why you’re even bothering with this

Should have known this was some sort of projection.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Buddy, just give it up. I don't care that much.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Your actions betray your words.