Comment on Former Moderator Sues Chaturbate for 'Psychological Trauma'

• Saffire@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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?

  source

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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.

    source

    • Saffire@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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.

      source

      • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        No, it wasn’t clickbait because the article title isn’t clickbait. I just happened to have an opinion on a section that wasn’t in direct support of the title. I can call out a lack of proper attribution to the problem without the thrust of the article being inaccurate or deceptive. I can see why you take umbrage with it, but I think you’re chasing something that isn’t there. I just commented on a farcical take.

        source

        • -> View More Comments