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.
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 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.
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.