The news report seems to imply his death was not an accident.
This means the implied object of the person A’s vagueing is person B, as opposed to person B being the outright stated, directly specified object.
This means when they are indirectly talking about person B without directly mentioning them, they are implying that they are talking about person B, they’re just doing so in a manner that allows for plausible deniability if actually directly asked who they are talking about.
Posting or talking about drama without naming the specific details.
“Lindsay just tweeted ‘no tears left to cry over you b’”
“OMG no way, she’s totally vagueing about Connor”
The entire point of vagueing / vagueposting is to passive aggressively complain about a person / event whilst also setting up a plausible deniability defense, so that the vagueposter can gaslight anyone who wants to clarify what the object of their vaguepost was.
Linguistically, ‘vagueing about’ is itself a less active voiced and less direct way of saying ‘implying’.
Its akin to ‘the cop shot the dog’ vs ‘the dog was killed by gunfire from the cop’.
The entire construction makes the person who did the implying, did the vagueing, less directly connected to the object they were making implications, or vagueing, about.
In that sense, vagueing is an even more vague amd indorect term to use than implying.
…
Bottom line:
Ableism Accuser is implying Tumblr Poster is ableist by vagueing about Tumblr Poster.
They are indirectly complaining about and accusing them, by not specifically directing the complaint and accusation at Tumblr Poster by name.
Vagueing / vagueposting is always, necessarily, also implying, always involves implying… because all these terms refer to speaking about a specific person, action, event, thing… indirectly, without full detail.
That wouldn’t be vaguing if that was the case, it would be specifically implying.
So, are you telling me that the author used vagueing incorrectly?
Or are you telling me that my translation, which did correctly translate what the author wrote, is incorrect?
Doesn’t really matter, you’d be incorrect either way.
A way that person A can imply something about person B, is to describe person B, or something person B did, without directly naming person B.
Whenever person A ‘does a vagueing’ about person B, they are intentionally referencing person B, but in an indirect manner.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imply
This means the implied object of the person A’s vagueing is person B, as opposed to person B being the outright stated, directly specified object.
This means when they are indirectly talking about person B without directly mentioning them, they are implying that they are talking about person B, they’re just doing so in a manner that allows for plausible deniability if actually directly asked who they are talking about.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Vagueing
The entire point of vagueing / vagueposting is to passive aggressively complain about a person / event whilst also setting up a plausible deniability defense, so that the vagueposter can gaslight anyone who wants to clarify what the object of their vaguepost was.
Linguistically, ‘vagueing about’ is itself a less active voiced and less direct way of saying ‘implying’.
Its akin to ‘the cop shot the dog’ vs ‘the dog was killed by gunfire from the cop’.
The entire construction makes the person who did the implying, did the vagueing, less directly connected to the object they were making implications, or vagueing, about.
In that sense, vagueing is an even more vague amd indorect term to use than implying.
…
Bottom line:
Ableism Accuser is implying Tumblr Poster is ableist by vagueing about Tumblr Poster.
They are indirectly complaining about and accusing them, by not specifically directing the complaint and accusation at Tumblr Poster by name.
Vagueing / vagueposting is always, necessarily, also implying, always involves implying… because all these terms refer to speaking about a specific person, action, event, thing… indirectly, without full detail.