3 ms·
You could just admit you didn't read it that carefully and move on. This article appears here because of a larger political context, which is explicitly mentio
by beatpanda 10y ago
You could just admit you didn't read it that carefully and move on.
This article appears here because of a larger political context, which is explicitly mentioned in the article. My comment is relevant for this reason. I'm sorry you disagree. It would be great if you could respond to what I said instead of picking a nit about what percentage of the article would have to be related to my comment for it to be relevant to you.
- AnimalMuppet 10y agoI am responding to what you said. I'm saying that it's wrong, which you don't want to hear. Instead, you want to accuse me of not reading the article carefully. The context of that paragraph was that the author had visited the city before, in the context of a political campaign, and this time wasn't. Rather, this time the author was there to look into the change in culture caused by the decline in city centers in provincial cities. And that is the last mention of national politics in the article. There's a bit of discussion of city-level politics in the creation of shopping malls outside of the city center, but nothing more about national politics. So I've read the article carefully enough to be confident in my assertion - that you are projecting your perspective onto the article. You're taking what is only peripherally mentioned, and trying to make it a central issue.