• The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    Why have we accepted the standard of misleading headlines? “Oh well you didn’t read the article, I guess you and 90% of eyeballs get to be fundamentally misinformed” is an unhinged take.

    • protist@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      I never said a misleading headline was acceptable. I said the publication is not misleading and that it covers the criticisms dude up above was leveling.

      • aidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        It is misleading, for someone to be misleading they must mislead, and the headline misleads.

      • No_
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        You didn’t say it, but when someone else did you became extremely pedantic, “corrected them” to maintain your perceived moral high ground, and straight up invented a strawman to not have to discuss it.

        So you basically did say it.

          • No_
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            Your entire comment is about correcting OP. None of it addresses the headline. That’s a strawman.

            • protist@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              but the publications are grossly misleading

              I think you’re only referencing the headline, the article itself clearly states what you said

              This one? Where I say the publication is not misleading, only the headline? You don’t understand what a strawman is.

              Your comment history indicates you’re pervasively angry about little things like this. What’s up with that?

              • No_
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                When you think looking at someone’s comment history is valid as an argument lmao. Just add ad hominem to the list. Or are you going to climb on a second high horse and say I don’t know what that is either? You’re a clown.