• protist
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    5 months ago

    When one says a publication is grossly misleading, it certainly implies the entire publication

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        You’re not wrong, but we also should stop excusing, normalizing, and accepting wildly exaggerated for sales purposes titles of articles.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          We should stop accepting lies.

          Unless there is some way this reaction actually did produce twice the energy input, it’s not misleading it’s a lie.

    • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      Why have we accepted the standard of misleading headlines? “Oh well you didn’t read the article, I guess you and 90% of eyeballs get to be fundamentally misinformed” is an unhinged take.

      • protist
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        I never said a misleading headline was acceptable. I said the publication is not misleading and that it covers the criticisms dude up above was leveling.

        • aidan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          It is misleading, for someone to be misleading they must mislead, and the headline misleads.

        • No_@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          You didn’t say it, but when someone else did you became extremely pedantic, “corrected them” to maintain your perceived moral high ground, and straight up invented a strawman to not have to discuss it.

          So you basically did say it.

          • protist
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Go ahead and quote that strawman for me

            • No_@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Your entire comment is about correcting OP. None of it addresses the headline. That’s a strawman.

              • protist
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                but the publications are grossly misleading

                I think you’re only referencing the headline, the article itself clearly states what you said

                This one? Where I say the publication is not misleading, only the headline? You don’t understand what a strawman is.

                Your comment history indicates you’re pervasively angry about little things like this. What’s up with that?

                • No_@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  When you think looking at someone’s comment history is valid as an argument lmao. Just add ad hominem to the list. Or are you going to climb on a second high horse and say I don’t know what that is either? You’re a clown.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      “article” vs “publication”

      Two different things.

      The link takes you to an article. Publications are in actual scientific journals, not intended for popular consumption.