• LesserAbe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Thanks for taking time to reply. I did read the article, my argument wasn’t that the information isn’t there. It’s that a headline of this type indicates the article isn’t worth reading. If the intention was to convey information, the headline wouldn’t be obfuscating important details. It’s meant to drive clicks.

    About my first sentence, please feel welcome to read it more broadly, I mostly wanted to highlight I’m not here to defend America’s involvement.

    • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I see. I guess I was confused. Thanks for clarifying you read the article, at least. I thought you were just making a low effort comment hating on a random title you disliked from an article you didn’t even care to read

      I personally thought it was a decent article and provided worthwhile context, however can we totally disagree on that

      That said, I still see your first statement as a bit silly, kinda like saying a corporation should be ashamed of its behavior, and not it’s board of directors, or even shareholders or something (they’re at least capable of feeling shame)