321
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2024
321 points (97.6% liked)
World News
39112 readers
1201 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What in cracker fucking hell. You know you could just fucking lie about your motives, right?
The summary mentions this detail and completely omits the rest of that section:
So it appears to be an extended exercise in mocking the asshole, which I wholeheartedly approve of.
Honestly the summary could've omitted the origins, or given it that crucial context. Giving the first sentence and not the rest is like the worst way to summarise that and it's a big issue to just leave out. I would've included all of that because frankly it's hilarious.
Damn they should've lead with that. That's actually hilarious. Fuck that guy.
Yup, and there's definitely people in this thread that really want to say "ackshually it's not racist" but then are working really hard to give the impression that the race is simply neutral about the man himself. It's almost like those people don't want to admit that it's actually anti-racist and based as fuck.
EDIT: I don't want to vague-post about this. This is what the person in question actually said:
That's fucked up, right? If they knew... how did they so specifically avoid explaining what the race is actually about?
Yup, not sure why I got attacked and downvoted for this, it's pretty fucking clear that the summary tells a different story than the article. But hey it's par for the course on here, where outrage is performative, and real rage is frown upon.
I've also noticed an interesting trend from way back on Reddit, but there's always some reactionary who uses one of the GBU bombs as their nickname.
Give a reactionary even the slightest chance to "well ackshually" away racism and they'll jump on it. They're not generally correct about things, so if they have a chance to be technically correct it's like catnip. It's fascinating how easy it would have been to explain the situation but this GBU person wanted them to be all "no comment" about it, as if that would have been an acceptable answer. It's almost like they didn't want to acknowledge the actual anti-racist motivations.
And yeah, I thought the GBU thing was familiar. I can't find anything about it being a dogwhistle though, it's not an easy thing to google.
EDIT: Maybe it's not a dogwhistle, it could easily refer to guided bombs. Maybe it's just one person with way too much time on their hands.
Well said! Yes it's a reference to the guided bomb, that's what I'm saying. He's not the only one I've seen back in the Reddit days.
Do you feel the obligation to be outraged by the most pointless things or does it come naturally?
Reading only the excerpt and knowing nothing else about the race, yeah I think it's pretty fucking normal to be outraged. If it didn't raise an eyebrow for you I find that very fucking suspicious.
The race and it's organizers have nothing to do with, and make no comment on the motivation or the reason for imprisonment of the person.
It's just about the escape, and the terrain covered, specifically. The point is he didn't make it far on that terrain and the competitors do so much more.
They have willingly associated themselves with it after the fact, and to make no comment on what is an extremely dark chapter of American history seems pretty irresponsible. It would take absolutely no effort at all to say, "we are not valorising this man", so not doing it is quite telling.
If that is true and you have it from the organisers, then they have made some comment on the man himself. Could you share how you know about this?
Go read about the race, it's literally to mock the dude, the organizer said that could run more, as a burn
Okay, reading the article itself and not just the summary:
So it's just that the summary leaves out this information, which if they're going to mention the origins of the race is a pretty crucial detail to omit.
I have to say though, when you say they "make no comment on the motivation or the reason for imprisonment of the person" it really does create the impression they're being neutral in the matter, which they obviously aren't. I'm glad you explained more.
Well they don't describe the crime, or emit a stance on it, which makes sense, it's a trail race not a political or social justice platform.
Look, the issue here is clearly that the race appeared crypto-racist on that summary, and instead of clearly explaining the issue, you stated exactly the things that the race organisers are neutral on, which seems to almost surgically sidestep the clearly anti-racist motivations. You weren't technically wrong, but you can walk up to literally anyone on the street and say "you're going to die" and you're not wrong, but they'd want know why you were saying it.
This is about framing. There are infinite details in the universe, the trick with communication is to filter down to the important, salient details.
Most folks would just say "my bad, I didn't read the article"
Cool talk, thanks, glad you took on board what I was saying.
You can see from my comments how easy it is to clarify this issue in a straightforward way once you have read the article, but if you don't know how to do that I understand.
Oh I do, I just hope you take this instance to mind the next time you decide whether to comment based on the article or the auto generated summary.
I was commenting based on the comment I was replying to, which on reflection seemed to be intentionally avoiding answering the question. I can't think of another reason why someone who knew anything about this would have been as circumspect as they were.
Look, man, if you didn't read the article and were misled by the auto generated summary, do not blame someone else for not spelling it out for you.
Maaaybe, step 2 of that miscommunication might've been them not explicitly spelling everything out for you, but what was step 1?
It was you commenting without having read the article at hand.
Guess which one of these two is within YOUR control to prevent future misunderstandings?
Things might be different if this comment thread wasn't centered around a single article, but it is, so the reasonable assumption is that participants in the conversation have read the article.
EDIT: Don't get me wrong, you get props for going back in the article and recognizing that it provides a very different context from the auto generated summary, but I just don't think chastising someone else without acknowledging that you messed up by not reading the article is the play.
Okay, I didn't read it and should have. Usually I would, but I was commenting on a conversation. It's been dealt with now so we can drop it, right?
But on that issue, are you putting the other person on blast for not sharing the info? Because the moment I had it I clarified the issue very easily. I wonder what they were doing saying shit like:
Because that's so wrong that if they did know the actual story then it amounts to a lie of omission. It's so weirdly worded to avoid the truth it almost has to be deliberate. Any thoughts on that or is this like a team sport sort of situation?
No, because it's in the article being discussed at hand. It's already been shared, some folks have ignored it.
If you read the second paragraph of their comment, it further goes on to say it's just about the terrain. That second paragraph then reframes the first paragraph, because that first paragraph just states that organizers didn't comment on the crime, and the second paragraph says what the organizers actually focused on instead.
Sure, quoting the first sentence out of context makes it seem so deliberately precise that it could be misleading, but the second sentence provides the context that shows why they were so absolute in that statement.
They were simply claiming that the race organizers weren't being political when they founded the race - they just saw challenging terrain and figured they'd be able to give it a go and get do much better.
He said "it's literally to mock the dude", but to pretend like that is devoid of politics is to ignore what politics is. That's the problem here.
Great. Now that you have a more well thought argument, take it up with them, although I wouldn't be surprised if they just ignore you.
You're one of the people pretending this isn't political.
Did I say that, or are you conflating the cognitive dissonance of me discouraging you from blindly trusting autogenerated summaries with me generally disagreeing with you on everything?
You can say you were just paraphrasing, but "simply claiming" implies you saw nothing wrong with what they were saying.
EDIT: And I actually said that "to pretend like that is devoid of politics" was a problem, I never said you were saying it. But apparently you're happy to just repeat it as if it's a fine thing to say.
Oh, well when I said , "simply claiming", I was implying that most folks don't have an issue understanding what they meant, because it's simple when you take both paragraphs into consideration.
It seems like just as you chose to interpret things in an adversarial manner then, you are choosing to do so now.
EDIT: sigh, to address your edit:
It's pretty clear that you were asserting it's one of my beliefs here:
Sorry, you're right about the edit, I lost track of that when I was reading back.
Yeah idk what app you're using but in sync, once conversations have this many exchanges, it becomes completely unreadable as entire comments are compressed into a single column of 1 letter wide rows. Given this UI issue I'm not sure we can really continue the conversation if we wanted to.
I hope you have a good day - I appreciate the good faith and earnestness from everyone.
Read the article, self serve a little bit before branding a whole situation racist
Edit In this case they filtered down the important details...right in the article...the core vehicle of communication.
And the fact you couldn't just say that in your comment is either because you don't know how to just say what you mean, or you hadn't read the article yourself at that point. Which is it?
And I didn't brand the whole situation racist, that was conditional on the information you were giving me. If you wanted to say it wasn't racist, you could have done that if you had the information.
Lmgtfy
Step 2 of being outraged by an auto generated summary would ideally be to read the actual article to get more context before expressing that outrage.
I don't think the issue being raised here is that you were outraged by the excerpt, it's that the excerpt was trusted at face value enough to mislead folks, and it seems people just double down after being misled by the auto generated excerpt.
The best way to remember an assassin is to make fun of how actually inept they are.
Keep reading bud
“We thought hey, what better an idea than paying homage to the escape of the guy who killed MLK?”
Some people…
It is not a homage, it's a mockery. It does retrace part of his escape, but goes 10x as far over much, much more brutal terrain. The race started as a joke about what a wimp the guy was to only cover 12 miles in 50hrs of running.
There is a documentary about the race called "the race that eats its young" that is excellent if you want to learn more.
I dunno, Cantrell seems kinda gleefully obtuse about the inspiration in the trailer. Now, I don't think he's intending to say anything nice about Ray, but there's just something offputting about how casual he is about it, like he thinks the main cultural legacy of James Earl Ray is being bad at cross-country running. I guess not the end of the world, but... tacky.
Well, just from a media literacy stance, watching 90 seconds of a movie trailer and then deciding the blatantly irreverent presenter of a grueling triathlon/art piece that invites global participation is secretly a supporter of a racist murderer, is probably not rock solid analysis.
I can tell you as someone who watched the documentary in it entirely, dug deeper into the history afterwards, and has an ultra marathoner friend i've discussed it with, that I did not come to the same conclusion.
The fact of the matter is that the race has basically nothing to do with that piece of shit murderer. His sad ass escape may have been the inspiration 45 years ago for a joke that became an art piece that became a grueling ultra marathon, but now it is very much about the race. At no point do they venerate or even wink at the shithead. The closest they get i nthe documentary is that part of the race in 2014 involved wading through a stream that goes under the abandoned prison, but even that is just designed to plunge the runners and their many wounds into ice cold water over and over again as they lap the course over 60 insane hours.
You can read more about the man and the some times madcap race criteria here. they average 1000 applicants/yr now, but only accept 40.
As an example of the irreverence, of the 40 runners allowed each year, 1 runner who is deemed unqualified is allowed entry as the "human sacrifice." They are given bib #1.
There is often a race fee of "a clean pair of socks" or tshirts, which he wears during the race. He demands "$1.60 and a license plate from your home country or state" as the entry fee.
Glad to hear it, and I hope was pretty explicit in stating I didn’t think he actually supported James Earl Ray. He comes off more as somebody who’s up his own ass than a crypto-racist.
Again, not the end of the world, just a bit tone deaf.
Again, 90 seconds of trailer isn't exactly a great amount of source material for your conclusion, but okay then.
Dudes only "up his own ass" in the sense that he runs a brutal series of marathons in a whimsical fashion. He "keeps austin weird" basically, even if it is in Tennessee.
In the article they explain that by naming a 100 mile ultramarathon after him, they’re mocking Ray because he only made it 12 miles.
Point of clarification - the race is NOT named after the shooter, instead it was named after the organizers friend.
Oh. Well, uh, we are talking about him again, so. Maybe attaching a race to him in any way is . . . not optimal.
I hope the extensive list of articles, documentary links, and general feedback is enough to inspire a tasteful edit of something like "wow, I learned and that guy is great at making fun of the guy who shot MLK."