Tesla terrorist unmasked as lipstick-wearing arsonist who left key clues at crime scenes
Tesla terrorist unmasked as lipstick-wearing arsonist
Very interesting to see how these articles are written. All it took was two words to take it from an unbiased report to a biased one: "lipstick-wearing".
Does anyone know if there is there a name for this technique?
Does anyone know if there is there a name for this technique?
I think it's called "yellow journalism."
But in this case, I don’t think it’s biased to mention the guy was wearing lipstick. Context matters. If someone’s doing something unusual, especially something that's still culturally rare, and also committing a crime to make a political statement, the unusual detail becomes part of the story.
Same way you’d mention a guy with a skull-face tattoo or a clown costume. It’s not about shaming someone for self-expression. It’s about describing something that stood out during a public incident.
Right now, yeah, it is still uncommon for balding, hairy dudes to wear lipstick. That’s just a fact. And people who do that often do it to stand out or express something. So when someone like that goes out and burns cars, that standout appearance gets noted.
If you choose to look different, that's your right. But if you commit a public crime, your appearance is going to be part of the public record, especially if it’s tied to the statement you're trying to make.
Bottom line: don’t want your look highlighted in crime reports? Don’t commit crimes if you like to walk around dressed to attract attention. Better yet: Don't commit crimes. Simple as that. Welcome to the real world, Lemmy.
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.
No one is making fun of the LGBQT community because of him.
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.
A lipstick wearing arsonist. Sounds like your typical demokrat. (toadlick2)
Another Trans-Terrorist...that'll by the twit 40 Years in Jail. Good, throw away the key. (Pennsyltuckian)
This is what your typical Democrat looks like. (europa2832)
Look at this poster child of the liberal left.. these liberals are the most violent, the most bigoted and the greatest threat to our country.. they say they are for peace.. NO !!! They are not!!! Do u see Conservatives doing this?? Dont Give me that BS of January 6!!! (rockaway1)
This is the face of the left. And they are endorsing it. Nanny P and Schumer and all the crazies in that parties are endorsing violence. (Zee Chen)
I picked out the ones that are most explicit, but just about every comment is saying the same thing.
Promoting fear, and the idea that they are all dangerous.
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.
