I advised the furry that the writer worked for Daily Caller and tabloids, safe to say he wont give good faith and will bait and toy with people who engage, and relish clicks if it gets spread wider, it's lose-lose.
The furry considered trying to report it as fake news and I added that they likely give wide leeway to a guy making sarcastic or satirical comments on his own account (mean or not). The WE article links a study, so it's sourced even if it's larding on gratuitous detail to mock, and such is politics these days. I don't believe that newspaper will care (they like all traffic, pissed readers or not). In cases like this i say "be the media""
A furry complained about the Washington Examiner followup on this, which has an out of context citation to an IARP study with fandom attitudes about sex. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/national-republican-congressional-commit...
Writer responds:
https://twitter.com/SaysSimonson/status/1106302119852851201
"Apologies to the furry community if my language implied you’re all depraved perverts and not just some of you"
I advised the furry that the writer worked for Daily Caller and tabloids, safe to say he wont give good faith and will bait and toy with people who engage, and relish clicks if it gets spread wider, it's lose-lose.
The furry considered trying to report it as fake news and I added that they likely give wide leeway to a guy making sarcastic or satirical comments on his own account (mean or not). The WE article links a study, so it's sourced even if it's larding on gratuitous detail to mock, and such is politics these days. I don't believe that newspaper will care (they like all traffic, pissed readers or not). In cases like this i say "be the media""