Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

2SP00KY4ME t1_iqnokji wrote

Trash headline. 'Convoy' makes it sound like soldiers got hit evacuating. Even if they clarify in the sub-heading, so many people just look at headlines. They hit a line of civilian cars and killed 24 civilians.

170

Dalisca t1_iqnpliw wrote

I assumed it was civilians with the word "evacuation". I think soldiers would've been a troop withdrawal convoy.

95

2SP00KY4ME t1_iqnpvda wrote

Maybe, still, I want the civilian stuff to be painted as absolutely clearly as possible to reach maximum eyeballs.

9

username_unnamed t1_iqnvvn6 wrote

Not maybe lol convoy is literally just a group of vehicles traveling together. Funeral convoy. Presidential convoy. You would say military convoy.

20

2SP00KY4ME t1_iqoqkqy wrote

"Maybe for you the association is strongest to assuming civilians." I'm not arguing whether a convoy can mean either, that'd be a ridiculous waste of time lol

−7

AshleyNeku t1_iqpknkx wrote

Or he's associating the word with its definition, instead of preconceived notions about how convoy sounds "soldiery." Crazy thought.

6

2SP00KY4ME t1_iqpo9cn wrote

Firstly, if you actually look up the definition, it explicitly includes the phrase 'typically accompanied by armed troops or warships.' So.

Secondly, convoy can mean either. It can be civilians OR military. It's not a proper reflection of the news event, because a bunch of soldiers vs a group of civilians being massacred are totally different events. So even if you ignored the literal definition being soldiery, it's like calling a school shooting a 'building shooting'. Everyone knows that a double digit percent of people only read headlines, things like that should be explicit.

−1

kciuq1 t1_iqosu66 wrote

>Convoy' makes it sound like soldiers got hit evacuating.

Convoy can also mean just a group of people moving together. There is no implication that soldiers are involved, an evacuation convoy sounds like a group of people evacuating.

14

Brtsasqa t1_iqp1sta wrote

A convoy is literally just a group of vehicles travelling together. Don't project your illiteracy onto others...

8

2SP00KY4ME t1_iqp6iq1 wrote

What? I'm agreeing. I'm not going to argue the dictionary definition of a word you can look up in five seconds, it'd be a waste of time. I guess I worded that confusingly. A convoy can be civilian or military, it's pretty much just any traveling group.

2

Brtsasqa t1_iqpcotm wrote

>A convoy can be civilian or military, it's pretty much just any traveling group.

Exactly. Meaning a headline calling a group of civilian vehicles a 'convoy' is neither incorrect nor confusing - and as such, the exact opposite of a 'trash headline' for anybody who knows what 'convoy' means. Which brings me back to your clearly incorrect initial comment and my response to it...

> Trash headline. 'Convoy' makes it sound like soldiers got hit evacuating.

Just because you don't know what convoy means, doesn't mean that the rest of the world doesn't know what convoy means.

Don't project your illiteracy onto others...

11

2SP00KY4ME t1_iqpkdks wrote

The point is they should explicitly use the word 'civilian'. The distinction that these were completely innocent victims is a central enough part of the story to have been part of the title.

Just calling it a 'convoy' is to say the distinction isn't worth adding to the headline. It's like calling a school shooting a 'building shooting' or a torture chamber a 'detainment camp'. The shockingness of the event is not being reflected in the word choice.

And don't say this isn't shocking anymore. It may not be surprising or unexpected that the Russian military is so openly massacring civilians, but it is still as real as the first time they did it.

5

Brtsasqa t1_iqqduz9 wrote

I mean, stick to newsweek if you want a clickbait title like "Russia brutally murdered civilians once again" with no article to speak of so there's no additional information that's not already in the title. To each their own and all that. But I'm going to go ahead and say that aljazeera's reporting is 100x more fitting of the term "quality journalism" than whatever you seem to be expecting of your newspaper titles/articles.

0

2SP00KY4ME t1_iqrpz28 wrote

I wanted the word "civilian" added to convoy. That's not clickbait. But if that's the level you need to exaggerate to feel like you can have an argument against me, you do you.

3

Brtsasqa t1_iqrvjiq wrote

You literally called it a trash headline in your first sentence. If you want to blame people for exaggerating, start by looking at yourself.

−1

2SP00KY4ME t1_iqs2frw wrote

It is a trash headline because it doesn't specify that this happened to civilians, which is to imply the delineation isn't worth making. Wanting that word added does not make the title clickbait, I'm sorry.

3

Brtsasqa t1_iqs8bml wrote

Your lack of literacy made you misunderstand a perfectly adequate headline, and instead of learning something from it, you decided that no, it must be the headline that's wrong.

The headline is accurate. It provides a short introduction into a topic that is further specified in the article. You could add any number of words to include more information in the headline - the number of cars, where it occurred, the fact that the shots have been fired from close range, Russia not acknowledging the event, some of the victims being children - but if you want anything readable, you have to leave some details for the article itself. Some illiterate dude making wrong assumptions about details that were not specifically mentioned in the title does not make a trash headline.

−1

2SP00KY4ME t1_iqsj20f wrote

Now you talk about making the title "unreadable", after I just specified to you the one word I want added. You're arguing against a made up person.

I know it's way easier for you to approach this like I'm an idiot calling for a complete title rework, but try actually responding to what I'm saying instead of coming up with your own strawmen and inserting them for an easier time. Again, the definition of a convoy has militaristic associations. Literally look up the definition. It can also mean either military or civilian. Thus, this title does not explicitly state that it happened to civilians. These are facts. You just have to deal with them.

That these were civilians is an absolutely integral part of the story and should be part of the title. The specific number of cars, the range, Russia's response are minute details, and you know that. The fact this happened to civilians is not, and you know that.

I can have a problem with the title not including one word that is completely integral to the context of the story. I know the insults are fun to throw around, but that doesn't make me illiterate, sorry.

2

Brtsasqa t1_iqt0vvy wrote

Stop playing dumb. You accidentally proclaimed your illiteracy by insulting a perfectly correct title. It happens. Learn from it and move on.

0

2SP00KY4ME t1_iqt3e6q wrote

My original comment said 'convoy' makes it sound militaristic. The dictionary definition of the word specifies militaristic associations, and can mean either civilian or military. Upon prompt, I explained the distinction that this event was civilian is an important enough one to make in the title.

I literally cannot explain this simpler to you, but at this point you're obviously laser focused on just trying to own a stranger, so I don't really feel the need to defend myself to you anymore. Hopefully you can find some better outlets for your energy. Have a good one!

2

ZongopBongo t1_iqpjnuq wrote

Its a shit headline because its imprecise and vague is their point. If it was civilians, being specific about it being a civilian convoy is a detail worth putting into the title

3

IamSauerKraut t1_iqp7rwp wrote

Nitpicking the headlines instead of commenting on the contents is ... weak.

−3

2SP00KY4ME t1_iqpa12k wrote

I've done more than enough commenting on the contents for a lifetime.

−1

letsridetheworld t1_iqnp25q wrote

Convoy or anything means nothing to Russia.

In 2014, Russia agreed to let Ukrainian army flee peacefully from a surrounded region but they ended slaughtered on the way.

Sht is insane.

151

IamSauerKraut t1_iqp7omm wrote

Children or adults means nothing to russians. Fucking butchers.

34

BuffaloKiller937 t1_iqnzhvh wrote

So the pussy ass Russians continue killing Ukrainian civilians because they are getting their shit rocked on the battlefield? What a bunch of sorry ass bitches

103

HappyPen1422 t1_iqoqvsi wrote

Another day, another war crime by the Russians.

47

the_sockpuppet_rebel t1_iqo852g wrote

And republicans continue to defend Russia. So appalling

33

chenjia1965 t1_iqpshcn wrote

Hold up, I’m waiting to see what the pro Russia people and boys say when they downvote me

9

Wotg33k t1_iqr2stg wrote

I know there are Russians in this sub. Where y'all at? Talk to me about how your leadership is murdering women and children daily and how that sits with you as a citizen of the nation. Is it okay with you because they're clearly Nazi children? Is that it?

3

[deleted] t1_iqq2i5d wrote

Sad, but expected. Couple days ago watched a reddit video of them with a machine gun next to a corner store just shooting civilian vehicles as they drove by on the road killing several and causing atleast half dozen to crash. I wonder when all this fighting is going to peak. Seems like every country wants to stimulate their failing economy with a war.

1

this_dudeagain t1_iqq3i2e wrote

Well Uncle Sam has money to burn now that they've pulled out of Afghanistan. Free R&D is also a huge plus. This conflict is about as modern as it gets.

−3