Not The Onion

12314 readers

423 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

749

Woman Enters MRI Machine With a Gun, Gets Shot in Butt (gizmodo.com)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

218 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] [email protected] -8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I read the chain, and it's 2 comments long, and that one person randomly brought up healthcare systems as a total non-sequitor.

The original comment is about her damaging the machine. It stands to reason this person thought she was on the hook for the damages, which is never discussed in the article, nor is damage confirmed.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

She should be garneshed

"Should" being the operative word here. The top level comment using should "in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency."

The next poster says that this is "not a good response" because it would destroy her life.

They are disagreeing over what should happen, not what is happening.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Right but then also this

The problem of healthcare in the USA is way more severe than a destroyed MRI machine.

I'm just not sure how people aren't getting why someone might be confused by this entire exchange

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I agree that part was a non-sequitur. I even thought so myself when I first passed over it.

But the other part of the exchange is not confusing at all and there's zero indication that anyone thought she is actually on the hook for any damages. I'm more-so confused how you could not pick up the meaning even after a re-read.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Dude until your above comment I was confused as fuck.

Maybe I need more coffee.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

lol It happens. To your credit, most people wouldn't admit it.