The poster said it was a click bait headline because it should have said they threw soup at plastic. There’s nothing pedantic about pointing out, as you agree, that the whole point was the shock factor of throwing it at the painting.
Shifting the debate to some more nebulous “what the article is trying to do” is moving the goal posts because you can’t just admit that you realize I’m right.
relying on the media going for the shock factor
Yeah, the shock factor of targeting the painting which is why a headline that says they threw soup at the painting is not click bait. It’s literally exactly what they explicitly and intentionally did. You recognize that, so why argue the opposite?
Yet the law
I said nothing about the law. We are talking about a headline. I absolutely agree that, because they knew they wouldn’t destroy the piece so there was no real intent to destroy it, jail time makes no sense.
Way to miss the point and insult me and my reasoning in the process.
If anyone missed the point, it’s you. If you are arguing that they intentionally argued targeted the painting for shock value, but at the same time it’s misleading the say that they threw soup at the painting, then that requires abandoning logic. This is not an attack on you, but an attack on the argument.
There is a kid on my son’s soccer team (East Coast) who is from Cali. I asked him why his family moved here. Unfased he said some forest fire burned his home down and then when they found a place to live again another forest fire burned it down. I guess is parents were like “fuck this.”
No. But I don’t believe this is even remotely an accurate analogy.
Let me try this way. If it’s no different than throwing soup against a plastic sheet…why didn’t they just hang up a plastic sheet in their home and do it there?
The whole point of this act was to target a famous painting to draw attention. They even say this was their intent.
You literally have to ignore what they said, abandon all reason, and undermine their goal in the process to hold the position that the more accurate description is to say they were just throwing soup at a sheet of plastic.
Is this a joke? They literally threw soup at the painting, but the painting was protected. And you’re calling this click bait and propaganda? I’ve seen some pretty ridiculous whining about click bait, but this might now take the top spot.
That’s the joke, but worse.
I can’t tell if you are actually this clueless or just disingenuous.
You asked me what I was implying, I told you nothing, then pointed to my explicit point.
It doesn’t. It’s almost like you are wilfully ignorant about thinking critically.
Nothing, I explicitly said “we should be as skeptical of that which supports our beliefs as we are of that which contradicts it.” I don’t know how I could have made it more clear.
And I never said they did.
I live in a small suburb right outside of a major us city.
To the nearest convenience store: .6 km To the nearest chain supermarket: .9 km To the bus stop: .3km To the nearest park: 1.0km To the nearest big supermarket: .9km To the nearest library: 1.2km To the nearest train station: .6km Straight-line distance to big Ben: 5708 km
You certainly got me on big Ben distance.
But this is why the question is kind of silly. America is a huge, diverse place. When I lived in NYC, I was probably closer to everything than you. Where I grew up in an almost rural area, the closest thing was over 5km away. And this isn’t even all that bad because I had a friend who grew up in an unincorporated area where she had to drive 30min just to get her mail.
The only issue that really matters to me is climate change. Or maybe plastic.
But this is the same as the picture of the statue of liberty that is used to “debunk” sea level rise by showing the level at the same height, despite being taken 100 years apart. Were they taken at the same tide? Same time of year? Is there any other factor at play here?
This is a “shoe is on the other foot” moment, and we should be as skeptical of that which supports our beliefs as we are of that which contradicts it. Maybe especially so because confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.
What caused you to wake up?
You can rest assured that, without fail, whenever there is a story about another Western country doing something bad, someone in the comments section is going to unnecessarily shit on the US. Bonus points for this one because it’s basically blaming the US for “teaching” them this.
You were able to leave your job for a month, come back and continue like nothing happened, then were able to resign a month after that…and you are saying you weren’t treated like a human?
You’re clearly arguing that tiktok is arguing in court that all Chinese apps steal your data.
This is patently false to anyone who has read the article. But, of course, it’s much easier to find something to be outraged over when you don’t really know what’s going on.
Simply reading the article would reveal how ludicrously incorrect your argument is.
Your position hinges on the survey not being anonymous. I clicked through and found nothing that claims it was not anonymous, and these things are normally done anonymously for exactly the reason you point out: less honesty.
Do you have anything to back this up or is it simply that holding this belief helps confirm what you already believe to be true?
Lol go back and read my first post and then tell me how I’m moving the goal posts. Don’t worry, at this point, I don’t actually expect you to.
It was hardly an assumption. It’s pretty typical behavior for people to not want to admit they are wrong. And you’re kind of proving I hit the nail on the head by completely abandoning actually defending your position and throwing out the equivalent of “I know you are but what am I?”