Singapore has conducted its first execution of a woman in 19 years and its second hanging this week for drug trafficking.

Singapore conducted its first execution of a woman in 19 years on Friday and its second hanging this week for drug trafficking despite calls for the city-state to cease capital punishment for drug-related crimes.

  • wahming@kbin.social
    1047·
    1 year ago

    Biased title. Why should gender matter in law? This is a blatant attempt to tug at emotions. And they try to focus on ‘31 grams’ instead of ‘a year’s supply’. Take that clickbait back to reddit.

    Edit since a lot of people think I’m discussing the sentencing. I’m not, I’m discussing the article itself. My reasoning:

    Why I find the headline objectionable:

    1. Emphasis on gender. Why does it matter that she’s female, or how long is it’s been since the last woman was executed? Is it any more or less significant / objectionable than a man being sentenced to the same thing? It’s not trying to make some sort of analysis about gender trends, so I can only assume it’s a device to invoke emotions.
    2. Choice of wording about the quantity. ‘A year’s supply’ would have made it very obvious to anybody browsing that this was not a casual user. Instead they went with the less accessible amount in grams, which makes it seem to those unfamiliar with drugs like it was a tiny bust.

    Combined, the headline seems to be pushing a specific agenda, which I find deplorable (the covertness, not the agenda).

    • Ktheone@lemmy.world
      309·
      1 year ago

      Are you an incel by any means? Because clearly if its a women, the title will obviously be that. If it was a man, it wouldve been that. Keep your incelish shit somewhere else man.

      • wahming@kbin.social
        723·
        1 year ago

        It’s incelish to point out a headline is exploiting gender politics for clicks? Ok.

        I’m not sure you know what an incel is, BTW. Here’s the definition for your reference: “a member of an online community of young men who consider themselves unable to attract women sexually, typically associated with views that are hostile towards women and men who are sexually active.”

        Now tell me which part of my statement is hostile towards women, or in any way at all related to sexuality. You’re merely using the term as a hammer against viewpoints you disagree with.

    • Hank@kbin.social
      23·
      1 year ago

      Yeah the message should boil down to state kills person. That’s barbaric as it is.

      • wahming@kbin.social
        19·
        1 year ago

        Perhaps so. I’m not discussing the morality of death sentences, just the BS clickbait here

          • wahming@kbin.social
            17·
            1 year ago

            Does the source matter when I’ve already pointed out what’s wrong with the headline?

            • LexiconDexicon@lemmy.world
              6·
              1 year ago

              It’s Associated Press, there’s an actual news article in the link that you can read that tells the story, plus the headline isn’t even clickbait, it’s literally telling you what happened. I’m confused as to why you would think saying what happened is clickbait? Could you elaborate?

              • wahming@kbin.social
                16·
                1 year ago

                My original comment contains details from the article, so I’m not sure why you think I haven’t read it.

                Why I find the headline objectionable:

                1. Emphasis on gender. Why does it matter that she’s female, or how long is it’s been since the last woman was executed? Is it any more or less significant / objectionable than a man being sentenced to the same thing? It’s not trying to make some sort of analysis about gender trends, so I can only assume it’s a device to invoke emotions.
                2. Choice of wording about the quantity. ‘A year’s supply’ would have made it very obvious to anybody browsing that this was not a casual user. Instead they went with the less accessible amount in grams, which makes it seem to those unfamiliar with drugs like it was a tiny bust.

                Combined, the headline seems to be pushing a specific agenda, which I find deplorable (the covertness, not the agenda).

                • LexiconDexicon@lemmy.world
                  4·
                  1 year ago

                  1. The emphasis on gender is simply a state of fact; most women are trafficked into this kind of work against their will, so she literally is a victim here and being executed for it. We all have emotions, unless you’re a zombie you will feel for something in this world. You can not enact the “emotions” excuse for any article that tells a deeply troubling or terrible story or describes a terrible event happening that shouldn’t happen.

                  2. No one is arguing here she’s the user, she’s the victim of trafficking. The quantity described comes from the backwards organization doing the executions to begin with, so it’s irrelevant what the quantity is, it could be 50000 millenia worth of heroin, she has no choice to do this work. Basic human rights is an agenda we can all get behind, and I would certainly hope we push more of it into countries like Singapore to get them to stop abusing fundamental human rights

                  • wahming@kbin.social
                    11·
                    1 year ago

                    That’s fair. If that were the case here, or if she had made any such claim, I’d agree the title would then be fitting. However, since it’s not mentioned, I’ll point out that you’re making assumptions based solely on the headline, and hence proving my point about the wording influencing people in specific ways.