• fishabel@discuss.onlineOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      3 days ago

      It’s not misleading. It’s just focusing on one aspect of a much larger problem. The article never said “only gay fiction.”

      You seem to exist on both sides of this topic. It must be exhausting to be queer, and pro-china, since you’re definitely not welcome there.

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        The article clarifies, but you know people don’t read articles. Posters read headlines and then go right to the comments section. All I was doing was taking the information in the article and posting it in the comments section.

        And it’s not like I’m fucking welcome in my own home lol

        • fishabel@discuss.onlineOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          3 days ago

          But it’s not important to create an argument against something just because you dislike the title of the article. It just makes you sound like you’re in favor of locking them up.

            • fishabel@discuss.onlineOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              3 days ago

              It’s not misleading. It’s just focused on a specific group, because that’s the publication. You’re asking a lot from “journalists” ;)

              • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                3 days ago

                Even if you allow for the special focus it still implies China is targeting gay erotica, as opposed to gay erotica. Those are very different stories. Plus, this forum doesn’t have a focus on any specific groups for which the publication’s bias should be accounted.

                And so that’s what I did. I clarified what was missing in the title. That’s all.