• Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re arguing semantics on the title. Why? Her property was destroyed. That’s the important part.

      • die444die@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        While it’s still very upsetting to her I’m sure, this has not made her homeless. That’s the difference.

        • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          She’s also not the victim of a lion attack. Neither the title nor the body of the article state she was made homeless.

          • die444die@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            It says she returned from vacation to find home demolished, but then in the article specifies this is a “family home” that has been boarded up. That is very different than coming home to find your own home demolished. It still sucks but this is a clickbait headline and is right to be called out for it.

              • die444die@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                How dare we discuss an article here, on a site dedicated to discussing articles?!

                How bout you stop telling people what you think they’re allowed to comment on.

                  • die444die@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Haha you’re really just trying to argue at this point aren’t you? I didn’t call anyone out - I referred to calling out the fact that this is a clickbait headline, which it 100% is. Did you write the shitty headline in question? Why are you so worked up about this?

          • Mouselemming
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Considering she no longer has to pay to maintain something that has been useless to her for years, she’s better off in some ways. If she had let someone rent it and live there, this couldn’t have occurred. At some point in the past she decided it was cheaper and easier to board it up, that decision probably took into account the expense of demolishing it. Now that’s been done for her at no cost, she has options. But those facts will be part of the legal case.

            • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              You have no idea what the real estate market is in that area and it’s not for you to decide if she’s better off without that property. Fuck off.

              I’d fucking tell the company to put all the old lumber back in place.

      • Nudding@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The title is misleading, Imo. I don’t care if some woman’s abandoned building got accidentally demolished… Like at all.