3 ms·
> What are you even talking about? The article never says they're lesbians. Click on the first picture and you get the undertitle: "Eadweard Muybridge first l
by throw827474737 4y ago
> What are you even talking about? The article never says they're lesbians.
Click on the first picture and you get the undertitle:
"Eadweard Muybridge first lesbian kiss
Item x of 16
Eadweard Muybridge naked kiss women lesbian"
So even if not the photographer's statement or intention (though the article does also not clearly state the opposite..) and the article's author made thst up, it is like it is.
> You seen to be reading something that isn't in this article, and using the word "woke" in a bizarre way.
Those judgements are often seen quick and given easy, but not always as simple, eh??
Hell, why are we even discussing that??? Point for OP...
- SamBam 4y agoI think it would be reasonable to confine judgement of an article to the actual text of the article, which is explicitly making the point that two women could kiss because it wasn't seen as sexual, rather than some SEO keywords that have been added to an image subheading that is invisible unless you click on it.
- throw827474737 4y agoThat is now how you phrase it! I think it is reasonable to assume as it is or most publications, that pictures and subheadings are intentionally chosen by the author and belong to the article (I mean no doubt about that here, these are not random pictures?) But again, why do we discuss that at all in relation to what GP said is the actuap question.