• flip@lemmy.nbsp.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah, it is more complex. Hence do not put social media in the title. I read the article. It is superficial and scratches the surface.

    I reay do not understand what you are trying to tell me buddy, you have added nothing to the discourse ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    • Umbrias@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      So you want every article on any subject to cover the entire issue holistically? Don’t put the focus of the article in the title? Your response doesn’t make any sense.

      • flip@lemmy.nbsp.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I do not, and you know that. We do not even disagree on the core issue. But here you are, trying to put yourself on a pedestal by reminding everyone to acknowledge the nuances. This is how core issues get diluted, and I am not interested in that. See you on the next thread where you defend “How mouse farts could contribute to climate change”.

        • Umbrias@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes I know that because it’s absurd. But here you and others are arguing that the article needs to be comprehensive.

          “I want to see studies on how substantial of an impact this has” is a reasonable critique.

          “The author didn’t address every possible contributing factor and so I’m going to ignore any possible thoughts the article presents immediately” not so much.

          “How mouse farts contribute to climate change” is a hilarious article idea. There are lots of fun directions it could go from serious discussion of how to analyze climate impact from different animals and industries to the mocking of green washing.