Instead of being a matter of “trust”, the article states she asked for it.
The young woman, who aspired to become a physical education teacher, had asked to be launched from the bridge airplane-style, with two instructors hoisting her above their shoulders as she spread out her arms.
Rather than the cord being “left” on the ground, the article states
The instructors are wearing harnesses that appear to be attached to a security rope.
To the contrary that no one said anything until after, the article states
an onlooker screams at the instructors to attach her to a cord.
Edited to add, if someone wants to explain to me what social faux pas I have committed I’d appreciate it, because I’m out of the loop here.
I didn’t write the article, I’m just commenting on what it says.
Edited to add, if someone wants to explain to me what social faux pas I have committed I’d appreciate it, because I’m out of the loop here.
Eh, I wouldn’t worry about your imaginary internet points and the opinions of lemmy users that much.
Probably just haters gonna hate and I’d have to watch the video to see if you’re right/wrong, I don’t think it matters though so I’m not going to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I’m not particularly interested in watching a video of a woman being thrown to her death.
I just read the article, then read the comments, and noticed differences. I thought it was worth mentioning cause I found that they kinda directly conflicted. I don’t really know where the hostility is coming from here.
Edited to add, if someone wants to explain to me what social faux pas I have committed I’d appreciate it, because I’m out of the loop here.
Regarding the social faux pas, the tone of your comment could be taken as condescending. The formal phrasing and use of quotation marks.
That, combined with the fact that you were apparently wrong according to the video (I don’t know, I’m not watching it either), seems to have turned the crowd against you.
Thanks for trying to explain but I’m still confused tbh. I wasn’t making claims of what did or didn’t happen, I was making claims of what the article said. Which was true. So I don’t know how I can be said to be wrong. But I recognize this is probably a me thing, given the downvotes.
I will take your word from it and continue to refrain from watching a video of a woman being plunged to her death. Nothing about that sounds like worth watching, the article alone was hard enough to read.
I would say it is less a social faux pas and more so a case of not applying scientific method/using the internet wrong.
You have an article of some sort, you also have a video that shows the ocurrance from three different viewpoints (I.e. recordings of ppl.).
However, you didn’t verify the article, blindly trusted it, and used it right away to criticise somebody else’s statements.
You don’t have to watch the video if you don’t want, but then you shouldn’t either make statements you cannot be entirely sure of.
This also does not only apply to this case, but generally. Everyone can write a book, Wikipedia article, article, etc. Best case is either checking the base source or multiple sources to see if they agree or something that has been reviewed by multiple ppl./experts. Otherwise, never trust it fully. Also don’t trust any LLM unless you do the same. Latter is a side note.
Edit: also, I am not saying you are entirely wrong with your statements, as I cannot verify them myself; I don’t speak Portuguese. Alas, most of the people think you are (also by itself not entirely reliable) and it does indeed from the video seem like both the article and you are wrong.
I didn’t blindly trust the article or intend to criticize anyone. I read an article, then the comments of that article, and saw things that conflicted. I thought those things were pretty key details to the story of how things unfolded, so I thought they were worth bringing up for discussion.
How can I do that in the future without coming across as criticizing?
For this case specifically? I would have not commented without watching the video as well. And, again, if you don’t want to, completely fine, but then you are missing vital information in this case. Not having done so, and only having relied on the article as your only source, does mean you did 100% and thus blindly trust it, though, by definition.
That aside, pointing out differences is, generally, fine as you did it - I think. Also remember that on the internet sometimes you get downvoted randomly and even for saying true things. Has happend to me, believe me.
Edit: in my opinion it is always best to take everything, also people tell you with a grain of salt. Especially if you hear contrary information. Don’t go, “I read it like this in an article and they said this, they must be wrong”, but approach it more like “oh, maybe I haven’t got the full picture or I am wrong, or they are wrong, but I don’t know yet.”
I really wish you would not keep saying I blindly trusted the article. In another comment chain I flat out said the article may be wrong. The point of me bringing up the differences was to discuss them. It’s very frustrating to be told what I do and do not believe.
Anyway, the downvotes aren’t the part that bothered me as I know they generally get piled on. I was more bothered by the strange aggression I perceived.
Thank you for taking the time to try and explain at least.
I am not telling you what to believe and that was not my intention, if that seemed to be the case then I am sorry. Although, regardless of what you believe, it seemed like you 100 % believed the article and argued for it (and against other commenters). Your approach was too direct then I guess, I also misunderstood your intention.
In comments/writing it is/can be really hard to be nuanced. As seen from our above misunderstanding even. I guess starting of your comment with something alike “The article seems to contradict your statement in these points… What do you make of this?” Would have made your openness to discuss clear right away. Otherwise it came of as directly opposing.
I did not know that she asked for it; I was working off several comments like this:
That type of “jump” uses a swinging action rather than elastic rope to break your fall but is still heavily dependent on the idiots working the attraction to tie it to you.
Done correctly, you need to be carrying forward momentum so they toss you rather than trust you to jump outwards enough.
It was invented by rock climbers. Different from bungee.
While I’m going off just the way things sound (because I don’t speak Portuguese) that video does not appear to have anyone particularly concerned until just after she was thrown [I admit I stopped watching just after they threw her off, when the camera focused on the rope on the ground and it was apparent what had happened).
I’m not sure how the fact that the instructors are wearing harnesses is relevant? The woman’s harness/rope/whatever was still clearly not connected to her, and is still on the ground in the video.
I have not seen the video. I am just remarking on what the article says compared to your comment. Perhaps the rope in the video that you see is the one attached to the instructors mentioned in the article. Or, the article is wrong. Again, just remarking on differences between your account and the article’s reporting.
The article contests some of your details.
Instead of being a matter of “trust”, the article states she asked for it.
Rather than the cord being “left” on the ground, the article states
To the contrary that no one said anything until after, the article states
Edited to add, if someone wants to explain to me what social faux pas I have committed I’d appreciate it, because I’m out of the loop here.
I didn’t write the article, I’m just commenting on what it says.
Eh, I wouldn’t worry about your imaginary internet points and the opinions of lemmy users that much.
Probably just haters gonna hate and I’d have to watch the video to see if you’re right/wrong, I don’t think it matters though so I’m not going to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It’s not that. It’s just a basic lack of reading comprehension on your part.
I watched the video.
Whoever is reporting that is wrong, and you’re wrong in turn for repeating it.
Go on. Watch the video. See how wrong you are.
I’m not particularly interested in watching a video of a woman being thrown to her death.
I just read the article, then read the comments, and noticed differences. I thought it was worth mentioning cause I found that they kinda directly conflicted. I don’t really know where the hostility is coming from here.
Edited to add, if someone wants to explain to me what social faux pas I have committed I’d appreciate it, because I’m out of the loop here.
Regarding the social faux pas, the tone of your comment could be taken as condescending. The formal phrasing and use of quotation marks.
That, combined with the fact that you were apparently wrong according to the video (I don’t know, I’m not watching it either), seems to have turned the crowd against you.
Thanks for trying to explain but I’m still confused tbh. I wasn’t making claims of what did or didn’t happen, I was making claims of what the article said. Which was true. So I don’t know how I can be said to be wrong. But I recognize this is probably a me thing, given the downvotes.
It’s not unreasonable for someone to assume you are making claims about what happened via citing the article.
It’s really not that difficult a watch. Not as bad as the ones where the person is walking on the edge of a skyscraper and slips.
I will take your word from it and continue to refrain from watching a video of a woman being plunged to her death. Nothing about that sounds like worth watching, the article alone was hard enough to read.
I would say it is less a social faux pas and more so a case of not applying scientific method/using the internet wrong.
You have an article of some sort, you also have a video that shows the ocurrance from three different viewpoints (I.e. recordings of ppl.).
However, you didn’t verify the article, blindly trusted it, and used it right away to criticise somebody else’s statements.
You don’t have to watch the video if you don’t want, but then you shouldn’t either make statements you cannot be entirely sure of.
This also does not only apply to this case, but generally. Everyone can write a book, Wikipedia article, article, etc. Best case is either checking the base source or multiple sources to see if they agree or something that has been reviewed by multiple ppl./experts. Otherwise, never trust it fully. Also don’t trust any LLM unless you do the same. Latter is a side note.
Edit: also, I am not saying you are entirely wrong with your statements, as I cannot verify them myself; I don’t speak Portuguese. Alas, most of the people think you are (also by itself not entirely reliable) and it does indeed from the video seem like both the article and you are wrong.
I didn’t blindly trust the article or intend to criticize anyone. I read an article, then the comments of that article, and saw things that conflicted. I thought those things were pretty key details to the story of how things unfolded, so I thought they were worth bringing up for discussion.
How can I do that in the future without coming across as criticizing?
For this case specifically? I would have not commented without watching the video as well. And, again, if you don’t want to, completely fine, but then you are missing vital information in this case. Not having done so, and only having relied on the article as your only source, does mean you did 100% and thus blindly trust it, though, by definition.
That aside, pointing out differences is, generally, fine as you did it - I think. Also remember that on the internet sometimes you get downvoted randomly and even for saying true things. Has happend to me, believe me.
Edit: in my opinion it is always best to take everything, also people tell you with a grain of salt. Especially if you hear contrary information. Don’t go, “I read it like this in an article and they said this, they must be wrong”, but approach it more like “oh, maybe I haven’t got the full picture or I am wrong, or they are wrong, but I don’t know yet.”
I really wish you would not keep saying I blindly trusted the article. In another comment chain I flat out said the article may be wrong. The point of me bringing up the differences was to discuss them. It’s very frustrating to be told what I do and do not believe.
Anyway, the downvotes aren’t the part that bothered me as I know they generally get piled on. I was more bothered by the strange aggression I perceived.
Thank you for taking the time to try and explain at least.
I am not telling you what to believe and that was not my intention, if that seemed to be the case then I am sorry. Although, regardless of what you believe, it seemed like you 100 % believed the article and argued for it (and against other commenters). Your approach was too direct then I guess, I also misunderstood your intention.
In comments/writing it is/can be really hard to be nuanced. As seen from our above misunderstanding even. I guess starting of your comment with something alike “The article seems to contradict your statement in these points… What do you make of this?” Would have made your openness to discuss clear right away. Otherwise it came of as directly opposing.
I did not know that she asked for it; I was working off several comments like this:
While I’m going off just the way things sound (because I don’t speak Portuguese) that video does not appear to have anyone particularly concerned until just after she was thrown [I admit I stopped watching just after they threw her off, when the camera focused on the rope on the ground and it was apparent what had happened).
I’m not sure how the fact that the instructors are wearing harnesses is relevant? The woman’s harness/rope/whatever was still clearly not connected to her, and is still on the ground in the video.
I have not seen the video. I am just remarking on what the article says compared to your comment. Perhaps the rope in the video that you see is the one attached to the instructors mentioned in the article. Or, the article is wrong. Again, just remarking on differences between your account and the article’s reporting.
The rope in the video (available in the comment link above) is very clearly not linked to one of the instructors.