• GreenTeaRedFlag [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    9 months ago

    You’re just wrong. Although the obvious assumption is that someone did it, and you’re almost certainly correct in that assumption, until you can point out who or why you don’t know that for sure. The best way to communicate the case efficiently is to put up the facts. Then you ask the questions who and why in the article. People complain about passive voice too much here. Cops get the same treatment as others by passive voice because “13 dead, 6 injured in school shooting” is just as common as “man killed by cop.” The phrasing on cops usually separated then more or makes the victim seem less sympathetic, which is the issue, but the passive voice alone is not the problem. In this case, they are not removing a single bit of blame, just presenting what is known as clearly and precisely as possible.

      • GreenTeaRedFlag [any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Read the article, talking in the abstract. For the specifics, they can’t prove they forgot/stole the brain yet, and saying it with qualifiers sounds weak as hell.

        Precision and efficiency seem not to be your strong suit. You could have just responded to my comment, much faster than copy paste the whole thing. Your argument is not strengthened by putting the whole thing.