The transportation department has unveiled a first crash test dummy in the US modeled specifically on female anatomy, a move officials say is meant to close decades of safety gaps in vehicle testing.
Sean Duffy, the US transportation secretary, unveiled the THOR-05F, an advanced female design for a crash-test dummy with upgraded technical specifications. According to the transportation department, the dummy will be incorporated into federal vehicle crash testing once a final rule is published.
Although men make up the majority of annual car-crash victims, women are more likely to die in collisions of comparable severity. Women are also 73% more likely than men to sustain serious injuries in a crash, according to studies. In addition, they face a higher risk of specific trauma, including pelvis and liver injuries.
You are using quotes, but what are you quoting? Because it’s not from the article that I can see.
Are you quoting yourself?
I agree with the observation, but it’s kind of misleading to post it as a quote.
Hey Buffalox, coming in later and seeing all the downvotes, I’m sorry, you don’t deserve them. I was deliberately using phrasing that English or American people would recognize from certain kinds of public instruction short films or nature shows, and also in comic parodies of those films. Specifically, “And here we see…” as the opener. As a Dane, that might not be familiar to you. And I used quotation marks to indicate I was doing the (usually rather pompous) voice of that kind of narrator.
But I probably should have prefaced it.
Oddly, you’ll notice in my history my prefacing actual quotes with
From the article:
followed by the quote and then
From me:
for my comment.
Thanks, I must admit I find it strange why my post is so controversial?
It seems some people tend to forget that people come here from all over the world, despite the name of the server is lemmy.world.
They were using quotes to write in the voice of a hypothetical character. The tone signaled that to me pretty much immediately and I’d be a bit surprised to find any significant number of people took this as an actual quote.
In that case the normal thing to do is to lead with
Narrator: …
Not to make a false quote.
Pretty moronic that I’m downvoted for pointing out it’s not actually a quote of the article.
It doesn’t matter if it’s obvious to the majority, it’s the ones it’s NOT obvious to that count.
I hear you and basically agree*~. Tone can be tough to manage on either end.
I think the downvotes are also a tonal thing. People are taking you as being overly-critical, though Im pretty youre genuinely trying to be helpful. People, am I right?
Edit: had a half-thought or so more on the topic. Felt like sharing.
*~ We have tools that help us distinguish tone and meaning, but they are only helpful when people actually understand and use them appropriately. I am of the camp that language, syntax, and the like are all as mercurial as the creatures dealing in them. This means that definitions and use-cases will inevitably change over time, sometimes in ways that are useful and sometimes in ways that are not. I am the type inclined toward embracing this change as it simply seems too inevitable to deny, though I do sincerely agree that it adds fresh layers of potential confusion with each new iteration and off-shoot.
Im not trying to say anyone should give up on upholding literary standards, but I do feel strongly that this is a losing battle in almost all ways. Especially so after the advent of new media. Language and culture grow in their distinction and breadth at an almost equal rate, so having long-distance communication splinter culture so thoroughly has and will continue to alter how we use language at a similar pace. It has been said by some people more well informed than myself that we are not ready for the changes our modern innovations are ushering in, and with that thought I can not find any good reason to disagree.
The tone made it very obvious it was not a real quote.
Nothing else was needed.
Tone is not something that everyone can pick up equally. If you have an option to make it clearer, why are you people so determined that it mustn’t be changed?
That presumes people have read the article, and can see the difference in tone.
As a Dane there would be nothing wrong in having a similar tone in an article here. The same goes for many other countries.
Not everything is USA or Anglo-style body shame double standards, where saying boop makes things 21+.
And requires parental warnings more than showing people killing each other.
Could as easily have been a tongue in cheek comment.