The article clarifies, but you know people don’t read articles. Posters read headlines and then go right to the comments section. All I was doing was taking the information in the article and posting it in the comments section.
And it’s not like I’m fucking welcome in my own home lol
But it’s not important to create an argument against something just because you dislike the title of the article. It just makes you sound like you’re in favor of locking them up.
Even if you allow for the special focus it still implies China is targeting gay erotica, as opposed to gay erotica. Those are very different stories. Plus, this forum doesn’t have a focus on any specific groups for which the publication’s bias should be accounted.
And so that’s what I did. I clarified what was missing in the title. That’s all.
The article clarifies, but you know people don’t read articles. Posters read headlines and then go right to the comments section. All I was doing was taking the information in the article and posting it in the comments section.
And it’s not like I’m fucking welcome in my own home lol
But it’s not important to create an argument against something just because you dislike the title of the article. It just makes you sound like you’re in favor of locking them up.
It’s important for discussions to be based in reality and not a misleading title.
It’s not misleading. It’s just focused on a specific group, because that’s the publication. You’re asking a lot from “journalists” ;)
Even if you allow for the special focus it still implies China is targeting gay erotica, as opposed to gay erotica. Those are very different stories. Plus, this forum doesn’t have a focus on any specific groups for which the publication’s bias should be accounted.
And so that’s what I did. I clarified what was missing in the title. That’s all.
Just did your job eh?
I do this for fun. Not everyone is a paid shill out to get you.
You sure don’t seem to be having fun on here