someone else's link that I commented on without reading background information
Issue is this has happened more than once. Your own post history shows this in threads you've created and then had to defend because users who actually read the linked articles point out the titles you come up with are irrelevant. When you've been called out on editorializing titles and/or commenting on them with no foundation of facts you either double down or abandon the argument by trying to deflect and insert strawman arguments.
A lot of users point out the article is not only "a fucking mess" [to quote myself], but also:
Lacking in details of why the person involved was arrested as mentioned by Bulbasaurus, AoV, Dom, and RoulerBleu.
TheImpossible1 [S] 3 points 3 months ago +5 / -2 Wow, it's even worse than I was predicting.
Doesn't actually relate to Scotland at all despite the title you went with since what happened occured outside Manchester.
Your defense here was it's Scottish journalism despite the archived site being owned by the London based Reach plc which also reported it on their other outlets outside of Scotland. Something else you got wrong because you didn't actually look into anything about the story.
TheImpossible1 [S] 1 point 3 months ago +3 / -2 Well, it's still Scottish journalism.
You posted a worthless, next to empty link you didn't even bother to read just so you could circlejerk and make an edgy thread title that made no sense regarding the actual events.
Ironically, given your track record blaming feminism, when it was brought up why some of the changes happened [woke feminist puritans], you denied and dismissed any opinions on the matter including the testimonies of the grid girls who had lost their jobs because of what happened even though it actually was caused by feminist leanings this time:
TheImpossible1 [S] -16 points 1 months ago +1 / -17 It had nothing to do with feminism, it was about rebranding as less of a millionaire's playground and more of a real sport. Also, cry me a river for those leeches.
TheImpossible1 [S] -1 points 1 months ago +1 / -2 Why on earth would I want the biased opinion of people who could care less about the sport? They just wanted their paychecks.
The above being the dismissive part where you generalize the reason anyone would want to be grid girl is purely for financial reasons.
Also some use of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy by literal elitist gatekeeping about what "true [European] elite sport" is later in that comment:
You don't see true European elite sport with this stupid women everywhere shit. It's cheap and pathetic. They can say it's about feminism all they like, but that doesn't work for anyone who was actually a fan during the rebranding.
You can't help but open with a comment about "worse halves". It's almost Pavlovian at this point that you can't go a thread without somehow angling it back to "worse halves", "United Femdom", or some other buzzword that's at the center of everything you post about. Regarding your focus on the UK/"United Femdom" and you repeatedly call it, for someone who doesn't live there any more [something you've said a few times now] you certainly give it a lot of thought/free rent space.
That's a fair point. I'll give you that. That was below my standards of posting.
Title is accurate, Mastercard (VP is member of a radfem political party in the UK) proved it by taking their ability to process payments away unless all videos were removed that didn't give earnings to the women in them.
I maintain that their removal was a greater good. Anything that takes our money out of women's pockets is a good thing.
The UK to me is like a car accident on the freeway. You can't help but look, even though you're not involved and you really shouldn't, because you're just curious what the hell happened there. Plus, you know...it's nice to see that you're right when you make big decisions, and I genuinely believe it will be the staging post for the next wave of feminist ideology.
Edit :
If establishment backs this (they will), it'll be a Gab style situation, where no matter what you do, you are struck down somewhere along the line by people with way more power than you. MasterCard's VP is a fucking radfem herself.
Months. Ago.
You call me out even though what I said would happen did happen?
Issue is this has happened more than once. Your own post history shows this in threads you've created and then had to defend because users who actually read the linked articles point out the titles you come up with are irrelevant. When you've been called out on editorializing titles and/or commenting on them with no foundation of facts you either double down or abandon the argument by trying to deflect and insert strawman arguments.
Some examples:
A lot of users point out the article is not only "a fucking mess" [to quote myself], but also:
Your defense here was it's Scottish journalism despite the archived site being owned by the London based Reach plc which also reported it on their other outlets outside of Scotland. Something else you got wrong because you didn't actually look into anything about the story.
You posted a worthless, next to empty link you didn't even bother to read just so you could circlejerk and make an edgy thread title that made no sense regarding the actual events.
The title you gave the thread:
Ironically, given your track record blaming feminism, when it was brought up why some of the changes happened [woke feminist puritans], you denied and dismissed any opinions on the matter including the testimonies of the grid girls who had lost their jobs because of what happened even though it actually was caused by feminist leanings this time:
https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/12hRCJ8dvN/x/c/4Dx42GGnfq5
The above being the dismissive part where you generalize the reason anyone would want to be grid girl is purely for financial reasons.
Also some use of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy by literal elitist gatekeeping about what "true [European] elite sport" is later in that comment:
You can't help but open with a comment about "worse halves". It's almost Pavlovian at this point that you can't go a thread without somehow angling it back to "worse halves", "United Femdom", or some other buzzword that's at the center of everything you post about. Regarding your focus on the UK/"United Femdom" and you repeatedly call it, for someone who doesn't live there any more [something you've said a few times now] you certainly give it a lot of thought/free rent space.
That's a fair point. I'll give you that. That was below my standards of posting.
Title is accurate, Mastercard (VP is member of a radfem political party in the UK) proved it by taking their ability to process payments away unless all videos were removed that didn't give earnings to the women in them.
I maintain that their removal was a greater good. Anything that takes our money out of women's pockets is a good thing.
The UK to me is like a car accident on the freeway. You can't help but look, even though you're not involved and you really shouldn't, because you're just curious what the hell happened there. Plus, you know...it's nice to see that you're right when you make big decisions, and I genuinely believe it will be the staging post for the next wave of feminist ideology.
Edit :
You call me out even though what I said would happen did happen?
https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/11R4XDO07G/seems-like-the-card-companies-ha/
Very good work!