- cross-posted to:
- news
- cross-posted to:
- news
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/25961823
It’s probably time we admit cars that are a bit too useful as weapons to continue affording them the vast uncritical access they currently enjoy in our built environments.
You must log in or register to comment.
It’s probably time we admit cars that are a bit too useful as weapons to continue affording them the vast uncritical access they currently enjoy in our built environments.
Cars in Germany are pretty much exactly as regulated as guns:
You need a license which costs €€€€, you need insurance which costs €€€/year, you need to pay yearly taxes, you need to register it in your name, you are subject to regular inspections, and when you don’t follow the rules, you lose your license and potentially your car.Source: I am a German gun owner and used to own a car.
@GissaMittJobb it’s buried in the article but there was a driver involved (not just the car.) No mention of the traffic Engineer or other responsible parties.
I agree with you - the title is the way it is because I purposefully never editorialize the titles of news articles I post and use whatever is the title of the article at the time of posting.
You are welcome to modify the title to make it more accurate and less exonerative if you’ like.
I’d be alright with it standing as an illustrative example of how the media perpetuates vehicular violence with their choice of terminology, if you don’t mind.
You are welcome to modify the title to make it more accurate and less exonerative if you’ like.
I’m for one quite impressed that you stood your ground here and went with the non-editorialized title.
We’ve had it for years in /r/Android and has worked very well. +1 u
could you expand a bit more on that? I’d like to learn more about how they’re perpetuating that violence?
It’s the wording. Commonly:
- The use of the passive voice
- Placing emphasis on the car instead of the actual perpetrator in the driver (as seen in this case)
- Using words like ‘accident’ (implies chance, no culpable party, no necessary remediations) instead of more accurate words like collision or crash
All of these help exonerate the whole system of cars and the damage they inflict.
for point 2, I guess they might’ve worded it that way to try and avoid a race riot? you’re right it does sound passive in that way, but whenever car attacks happen, the hate speech shoots up in Germany.
by accident do you mean how the media frames car injuries in general or in this article? I don’t see accident mentioned anywhere
In general.
The passive voice was not used here, nor was this a matter of an accident - those were examples of other cases where media covers for cars.
I think it’s perfectly possible to mention that a driver was the perpetrator without bringing in their race into the headlines. This is also how they always write these things, so I doubt this time was anything special.
