• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    I don’t think it is implied. You can do that in your back yard towards a group of neighbors in the next yard who are pissing you off with a party.

    Doing it with a single other person involved is a specific situation and specifying the gender just makes the copy easier to scan.

    • sphericth0r@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      You’re right about the backyard but that would involve a person or people. If the discharge is aggravated, by definition it implies that people are involved. Adding the gender of the person that is implied is done for an emotional response from certain groups by not providing context that is useful. We fill in the blank with our biases.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yes. Either a person or multiple people. This shows that it was just one person. And the gender is just for easier-to-read copy.

        • sphericth0r@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          I’m not sure why you take issue with the facts that the word aggravated in this context means that the people are implied, or that adding words is not easier to read. It’s okay that you didn’t know what aggravated means, but it still doesn’t change the fact that this is redundant information. Redundant information is harder to read, and the specific gender of the victim does not add anything to the context for the headline, a de facto harder to read title. It’s possible that this was done on purpose, or that the author was also unaware that aggravated means people are involved and felt they needed to add words.