4 ms·

> 100% pure clickbait And thus you undermine your case. It obviously isn't "100% pure clickbait". (What would that even mean?) Confirming again that people who

by oska 6y ago

> 100% pure clickbait And thus you undermine your case. It obviously isn't "100% pure clickbait". (What would that even mean?) Confirming again that people who use this word are usually engaging in a hyperbolic criticism, when they could simply point out any concerns they have with the title in a level manner. p.s. Chernobyl was and is in the Ukraine, not Russia.

octoberfranklin 6y ago
> "100% pure clickbait". (What would that even mean?) It would mean that one hundred percent of the title was pure clickbait. Like, for example, the title "Mexican Chernobyl".
ASalazarMX 6y ago
> p.s. Chernobyl was and is in the Ukraine, not Russia. My bad. When it happened, Ukraine was still part of the USSR, which was interchangeably with Russia back then. Also, would it have been better if I had said "pure clickbait" instead of "100% pure clickbait"? Both are equivalent, although yes, 100% pure is redundant. I was excited. Why did a lone hyperbole invalidate my whole argument? Isn't that an overreaction?
- oska 6y ago
  > Why did a lone hyperbole invalidate my whole argument? It didn't invalidate your argument. You made a good point about the phrase "Mexican Chernobyl" leading some people to think they were talking about a reactor accident. I agree that that phrasing is somewhat problematic. What I am objecting to is the use of the word 'clickbait' and again, quite obviously, that the title wasn't 'pure clickbait'. The title was still informative and gave a fairly good indication of what the article was about. There is an issue with the title, yes, but that can be pointed out without indulging in hyperbole, which is what undermines (not invalidates) your point. But your comment was still much, much better than the original one I objected to; I wouldn't have said anything in reply to your comment except for it being in that thread under the one I first replied to.

by oska 6y ago

octoberfranklin 6y ago

> "100% pure clickbait". (What would that even mean?) It would mean that one hundred percent of the title was pure clickbait. Like, for example, the title "Mexican Chernobyl".

ASalazarMX 6y ago

> p.s. Chernobyl was and is in the Ukraine, not Russia. My bad. When it happened, Ukraine was still part of the USSR, which was interchangeably with Russia back then. Also, would it have been better if I had said "pure clickbait" instead of "100% pure clickbait"? Both are equivalent, although yes, 100% pure is redundant. I was excited. Why did a lone hyperbole invalidate my whole argument? Isn't that an overreaction?

oska 6y ago
> Why did a lone hyperbole invalidate my whole argument? It didn't invalidate your argument. You made a good point about the phrase "Mexican Chernobyl" leading some people to think they were talking about a reactor accident. I agree that that phrasing is somewhat problematic. What I am objecting to is the use of the word 'clickbait' and again, quite obviously, that the title wasn't 'pure clickbait'. The title was still informative and gave a fairly good indication of what the article was about. There is an issue with the title, yes, but that can be pointed out without indulging in hyperbole, which is what undermines (not invalidates) your point. But your comment was still much, much better than the original one I objected to; I wouldn't have said anything in reply to your comment except for it being in that thread under the one I first replied to.