Tuesday, August 8, 2017

Discerning Deception in Text Messages

Screen Shot 2017-08-04 at 6.32.31 AM
Screen Shot 2017-08-04 at 6.32.36 AM
Screen Shot 2017-08-04 at 6.32.44 AM
Screen Shot 2017-08-04 at 6.32.51 AM
Did this really happen?

Within the context of Text Messages, what stands out to you in the wording?

Can we know if this happened or if it is "fake hate"? 


General P. Malaise said...

Not going to call out the airline who delayed cuz shit happens BUT I did just overhear 2 @AmericanAir attendants having a transphobic talk.
She/it is not going to call out the airline she/it is traveling on. No pronoun “I”, distancing but with twitter many things are dropped, still she/it does use the pronoun I regularly in the rest of the tweet(s).
She/it capitalizes “BUT” doubly highlighting the importance of the following sentence. Doubly sensitive to her/it.
She/it “just” heard. This is a comparative word and minimizes or reduces the event. Signaling possible deception.
She/it is using passive language, no gender to attendants and no specific on the actual speech/words.

At this moment in history we should be teaching our employees about love and inclusivity @AmericanAir. That was the worst part of this night.

She/it begin sermonizing to the airline.
She/it has a mouse in her/it’s pocket or used the wrong pronoun “we” as she/it is not a part of the airline.
She/it blunders on with “our”, again it isn’t her company nor is she/it an employee (they probably have weight and floor loading restrictions anyhow).
She/it only allows for her definition of inclusivity since to be inclusive would require the allowance of phobic individuals.
“this” moment becomes “that” in next sentence. From near to far.
“that” distancing language, is she/it distancing from the words themselves??
“…the worst part…” again a comparative statement. So it was a bad night but the private conversation of 2 people was the worst. CHIMOSA !! PINCHE!!

The desired affect happened an hour and a half later when American responds to the sad persecuted overweight pseudo actor. (they may have responded earlier but said sad persecuted overweight pseudo actor only provided these screenshots)

Hi! I heard 2 female attendants walking talking about how trans kids are a trend they’d never accept a trans child and transness is gross. I think it reflects badly on uniformed employees of your company to have that kind of dialogue going on.
Now she/it is labelling the attendants as female, how dare she / it make a judgement on their gender status just by their appearance!
Funny “gross” is the word that pops into my mind too when someone mentions the sad persecuted overweight pseudo actor.
What if a trans teen was walking behind them?
What if Lena was walking behind them? That is the bigger question.
Awareness starts at home but jobs can set the standard of progress.
She/it mentions “home” is there issues with Lena at home. Me thinks so !
“but” butts it’s way into the statement again. So “jobs” takes a higher point than “home” …for said sad persecuted overweight pseudo actor. Me thinks there is problems at work for her/it that may eclipse those at “home”
Why the word “jobs” (well besides the above reference) why not “company” the airline is not a “job” it is a company, a business.
Thanks for your consideration.
Well the SJW is happy (for a fleeting moment until reality raises its ugly head again).

I wasn’t flying American! This was at JFK …And I was in a terminal with American attendants.
Obviously she was in a terminal. This is very sensitive to her/it. It is unnecessary language.
She/it was now “with” American attendants where as earlier they were walking talking.

American asks: “Do you know what gate this was at?”
She/it responds: “I was in the arrivals hall coming from gate B30 to baggage.
By the Hudson news across from the wine bar”

Why is she/it in arrivals hall?? She/it didn’t say her/its flight was cancelled only delayed.
Does the “wine” figure into this?

Sermonizing, initial passive language. Strange language. The only thing specific is the agenda.

Trigger said...

Ms. Dunham's texts read like a flimsy childish accusation.

It is important to her that she name the specific airline company "American Air" and the specific topic of two anonymous female employees which was "transphobic", but avoids the question about the specific gate location.

When asked about the specific gate where this conversation supposedly happened, she goes down a rabbit trail of ambiguity to avoid the question of the gate location.

Her comments read like a staged script.

Deception indicated

Frannie said...

Lena is a known liar.This is is made up. She made up a rape and almost ruined a mans life. She wrote about sexually abusing her little sister. She needs attention. She is a very unstable, tragic person.

Malene said...

I don't know what to look for specifically in context of text messaging. So this is more of a general attempt at analysis.

Tweet 1
"Not gonna call out the airline who delayed cuz shit happens"

She begins her statement telling us what she isn't going to state - by stating it. "who delayed" tells us she is putting the responsibility on them, as opposed to "my flight was delayed". And she tells us it's "shit", even if it is in context of an expression used to shrug off a bad experience. It suggests she wants us to know, she does not want to blame the airline for things that just "happen" (while placing responsibility for it). As this is the first thing she mentions, using her max character limitation on it, it must be a priority to her.

"BUT I did just overhear 2 @AmericanAir attendants having a transphobic talk"

"BUT" minimises her previous message, that she wasn't going to call the airline out on a delay, suggesting the following is something she does want to call them out on, suggesting she believes this is something the airline is in control of or is expected to prevent.

"I did just overhear 2 @AmericanAir attendants"
The pronoun I wasn't present in the beginning, but it appears now. She is placing herself in the situation, which is good. She puts emphasis on "did", which is odd. The shorter (therefore better) sentence would be "I just overheard". "overhear" is present tense, but it's anchored in the past ("did"), so it is not indicative of deception. Her need to stress that she "did" overhear something is what makes it odd. It sounds like she has asked herself the question: "Did I just hear that? - Yes, I did". This suggests that she has doubts about what she did or did not overhear.

"just" could be comparing two thoughts, which would support the previous find that she may not be entirely sure of what she heard. It could also simply be a time reference as in "he just left the office".

"having a transphobic talk."

The talk itself has become an object. It is not "saying transphobic things", the talk is a thing of its own. This suggests a political agenda.

Malene said...

Tweet 2
"At this moment in history"

This is a moral lecture which presupposes an awareness of this moment in it's contrast to previous moments. She does not explain why this moment in history should be a better moment to have this awareness, than the moment preceding it. This suggests she is communicating to an audience that have already accepted her view of this moment in history and how it relates to the following moral lecture.

"we should be teaching our employees about love and inclusivity @AmericanAir."
"we" and "our" indicates she is putting herself at the same level, or higher, as the owners/leaders of the company, she is addressing in her statement. She unites with them and lectures them at the same time. She takes ownership over the employees of a company in which she is a customer. She does not relate to the attendants, rather she places herself above them. She wants the employees to learn about love and inclusivity. I cautiously suggest that this is her motive for writing these tweets. She has a need to raise herself above the employees who, in her reality, need to learn how to love and include.

"That was worst part of this night"
"That" is distancing language, she is distancing herself from what she tells us is the worst part of this night. But she doesn't tell us what she is referring to specifically. Is it the transphobic talk or the notion that the attendants have not learned to love? Or that we are at a moment in time, where this should be expected? We do not know, what the worst part of this night was and she leaves it for us to interpret. This suggests, perhaps it wasn't so bad after all.

It also suggests something bad happened prior to the talk she overheard. Was it the delayed flight? Or did something else happen, perhaps causing her to want to place herself above the airline employees?

Malene said...

Text message 1
"Hi! I heard 2 female attendants walking talking about how trans kids are a trend they'd never accept a trans child and transness is gross."

There appear to be a couple of words missing from this sentence. She is ending on sentence with the same words as she is beginning the next. "trans kids are a trend they'd never accept a trans child" it is difficult to know, if the attendants allegedly should have said that they'd never accept the trend or the "trans child".

There is a change in language, from "trans kids" to "trans child", suggesting a change in reality. It could indicate deception, in which the one part is true and the other is deceptive.
But we also need to consider that this is a reference to a conversation between two people. So it could be that the one person she overheard referred to it as a "kid" and the other referred to it as a "child".

The conversation, as referred to, appears scattered and slightly out of context. The first part "how trans kids are a trend" appears within context. The next to sentences "they'd never accept a trans child and transness is gross" seems out of place. The first sentence is a reference to a specific uttering. The next part of the sentence appears to be a unanimous opinion, using "they" as if the two attendants were saying the same thing at the same time. It appears constructed and therefore deceptive.

The last part "and transness is gross" does not refer back to either of them. It appears there is a "that" missing; "and that transness is gross". Her way of structuring this sentence suggests, she (the subject) herself is of the opinion that transness is gross. Because of her previous statements we know that this is not what she wants to communicate. This last part of the sentence appears to be constructed and therefore deceptive.

"I think it reflects badly on uniformed employees of your company to have that kind of dialogue going on"
"I think" weakens her statement. On twitter she had no problem taking like a president. But in the context of writing directly to the airline, she weakens it.

"uniformed employees of " is unnecessary, therefore important. Usually, when an employee in uniform does something bad, one would say "it reflects badly on the company". The subject feels a need to include the "uniformed employees" specifically as the ones it reflects on.

"to have that kind of dialogue going on". She doesn't refer to the specific dialogue, as experienced, rather she includes "that kind of" dialogue. We do not know what "kind" she refers to. I would want to know why she is straying away from her specific experience. It could be a political agenda, in which case we would expect her to be more specific about what "kind" she was thinking of, therefore it is unlikely a personal priority for her. Or it could be a way for her to avoid the specific claim about what she heard. By saying "that kind" she opens up to any politically incorrect dialogue she has yet to hear - and can do so without the need to stand by it.

Malene said...

Text message 2
"What if a trans teen was walking behind them?"
She is appealing to their emotions and empathy in order to emphasise the potential damage of the conversation. This suggests she thinks her statement needs help by offering a worse case scenario. We must also consider that this may not be the first time in her statement that she has added something to 'help' get her message across. This would support the previous suggestion that the last two parts of her reference to what she overheard, is constructed.

Text message 3
"Awareness starts at home but jobs can set standards for practice"
Again she is moralising with a presupposition that the receiver of her message is acceptant of the awareness she is referring to. She does not tell us (or the receiver, the airline) what she wants them to be aware of. She takes it for granted that they know this - while lecturing about how they should set a standard (towards their employees, if we are to understand it in context with her tweets). This suggests one of two things (or both),
1) She holds the company to a higher standard than their employees, while leveling herself above the employees again.
2) She is not actually writing to the airline, rather her intended receivers of her communication is her twitter followers who will also read what she wrote through screen dumps.

She did overhear two attendants talking about how trans kids is a trend. If she also heard the rest of what she claims to have heard is doubtful.
Although her statement appears to have a political agenda, she fails to put it forward, rather she assumes the receivers already have this awareness. This suggests it is not a high priority for her to spread awareness of the acceptance of the transgender community.
Twice she places herself above the employees of the airline, both morally (her awareness) and in entitlement (our employees).
Her message, both in tweet and text presupposes a specific awareness, suggesting she is writing for the same audience, even though they appear to be entirely different (her followers vs. the airline)

A cautious conclusion:
She had a bad experience with an employee or attendant in uniform earlier "this night". Her flight is delayed, which she initially wants to tweet a complaint about this. She overhears two attendants talking about how "trans kids are a tren". Seeking retribution for her bad experience previously, she tweets about the "transphobic talk", without being specific.
After getting respons on the tweet, she decides to write to the airline. In doing so she is forced to be more specific, but what she originally heard is not on its own equivalent of "transphobic talk", so she adds a little to help it along the way. She further seeks to strengthen her argument by making it into a political/moral crusade. But because this is not her actual position, she does not go into any specific details. She then takes a screen dump of her messages and posts them on twitter as well.

Motive: retributions for a bad experience
Reward: attention and support from her followers.

Ann said...

I agree with Malene,

The girl wants 'pity' and while drooping the moral narcissistic bomb on those who may dislike trans - regardless of the 'over heard' talk - she's sticking everyone in a shelf to be labeled as 'Hateful' if you have an opinion that is different. The only thing I agree with on that girl is the kind of 'talk' shouldn't be in public as it could get you in trouble with your job,particularly while your on the job.


Anonymous said...

Why are there so many people on here with bizarre writing idiosyncracies and odd misspellings?

Anonymous said...

Some commenters have reading comprehension problems.

She didn't name the airline she was flying on but she named American Airlines, whose attendants allegedly had the transphobic conversation.

She didn't know what gate the attendants flew into because the conversation took place adjacent to Hudson News.

The only thing that stands out to me is the we/our when it should have been you/your.

aNoNyMoUs said...

Can the word "just" refer to an element of time (as in 'just now') rather than always used as a comparison word ('just a little bit')?

Ann said...

^ Anon,I think it is also used in that way. There's a video of Mr.Mcclish talking about that word and how it's looked at in S.A..


Ann said...

Here's the full video of McClish's full segment www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTEdM5lKtg8

And here's another segment by a different guy named Rick www.youtu.be/u5H3iT9aGMs

These two along with Peter's Analysis on the McCann's with Richard D. Hall,I would at times re-listen on certain times as a 'refresher'so things 'stick' over the course of time. I highly recommend these two videos by these two gentlemen and the 3hr (?) one with Peter.

I hope i'm allowed to post links to these :) .