I did a closer read and it's all over the place. I can't make heads or tails of the point they're trying to make. It's a terribly written article that manages to limbo below the ridiculously low bar that's set for "journalism" these days.
I think it was intentionally written vaguely so that there's just an idea of some "toxic fans" out there without getting into the details of who those toxic "fans" are.
I did a closer read and it's all over the place. I can't make heads or tails of the point they're trying to make. It's a terribly written article that manages to limbo below the ridiculously low bar that's set for "journalism" these days.
I can get behind that. I was honestly off put by the first few paragraphs too.
Yeah, my take-away as well.
I think it was intentionally written vaguely so that there's just an idea of some "toxic fans" out there without getting into the details of who those toxic "fans" are.