Because nothing says “accident” like leaving a prisoner in the middle of a railroad crossing!

  • snooggums@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You know, I agree with your point after reading it but sure don’t read statements about trains hitting things that way.

    A train is a huge and heavy thing that takes forever to slow down, so putting someone in front of a train or being hit by a train is read as the person who created the situation causing the harm, not the train. Almost like a force of nature, trains don’t hit things by choice so it is the fault of whoever put the thing in front of it that always take the blame.

    Obviously other people must read it the way you pointed out. Just noting that some people see it in a way that cannot possibly blame the train due to the properties of trains.

    • over_clox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Read the above comment again, towards the end of the first paragraph…

      “Yet somehow it’s the train’s fault?”

      I do believe that is implied sarcasm, they’re well aware it’s not the train’s fault.

    • pqdinfo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You know on a conscious level that the train couldn’t have done anything. But on a subconscious level the author is telling you the train, not the “person that caused something to be in the way of the train” was the cause of the accident. Had there been no pesky train just existing, there’d have been no accident regardless of how avoidable the accident was.

      That’s my problem with the language. Just as you know an officer-involved-shooting actually involved the officer shooting someone, but the language is so weak that on some level your subconscious assumes it can’t be a big deal if that kind of vague, woolly, wording is appropriate.

      And as I mentioned, it appears to be an intentional word choice. People don’t talk about rivers (non-sentient object) asphyxiating people, they talk about people drowning in rivers. A threshing machine (non-sentient) doesn’t thresh a minion (!), the minion falls into a threshing machine. But a train (non-sentient) hits people, rather than vice-versa. To be fair you occasionally see this language with cars, but cars are driven by people, it’s usually the case the car driver is actually the decision maker that caused a death.

      Does that make sense?

      • snooggums@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        “Flooding kill X people” is a regular headline though, as the default is to be based on the person/thing that is acting. So flooding kills people, but people who fall into the river while boating put themselves into the situation and therefore drowned.

        Things like trains that are controlled by people fall into the thing you are talking about, where there is a possibility that either person’s actions could have led to the outcome. In that case they tend to default the action based on avoiding blame in headlines. An “officer involved shooting” tries to avoid blaming either person, but as you note tends to be read as excusing the officer by default which is more of a blame the victim thing. It also avoids the possibility that the officer was present but never shot their weapon as a CYA default.

        For trains though, it is treated like someone who stepped in front if a car in a way that couldn’t be avoided. They were struck by the car even though the impact was not caused by the car or the driver. That is because the car is the larger object that impacted a smaller object.

        So I am agreeing with you that the language can imply something, but explaining that it is not always malicious intent that results in the wording we see every day. In fact, I would prefer if shootings involving police were worded as “police shot X” instead of officer involved shooting, and that vehicles/people were described as not getting out of the way of trains. But that just isn’t how attempts at neutral language work.

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        An officer-adjacent multisystem traffic event and subsequent cessation of suspect vitality.

        Soft, passive language where the events are technically communicated but the impact of them is lessened to the point of outright denial and absolutely no one is in any way responsible for their actions.