But it is from the article and therefore relevant.
Comment on Former Moderator Sues Chaturbate for 'Psychological Trauma'
SheeEttin@lemmy.zip 4 weeks ago
The case you’ve quoted is not the same one as the focus of the article.
some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 4 weeks ago
Saffire@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
It might be slightly relevant but that doesn’t mean that the way you posted it wasn’t disingenuous. How does it being causally mentioned in the article make it relevant enough that it somehow became the entirety of the main body of your post?
some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 3 weeks ago
The fuck it was disingenuous. It’s the part of the article on which I had commentary. That it wasn’t the main focus does not say anything about my motivation to criticize people having the wrong take / solution.
Saffire@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Hmm, you’re right. I suppose disingenuous was the wrong word for me to use and for that I apologize. It just seems a little strange to me to title your post about one thing, but then in the body all you reference is an off handed mention the article makes about something that is barely tangentially related to the article. I don’t know what to call it, but I guess technically you weren’t disingenuous.
SammyJK@programming.dev 4 weeks ago
Not only that, most of the article is behind a paywall
HailSeitan@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
This is literally the one site whose journalism every Lemming should support