Yes people. Please flag [EDIT, as in write "NSFW" when applicable. Thanks shawnz]. The article feels that is going to be serious, which it kind of is, but then the pics. What was the point of that? The writer could not have simply mentioned the pics?
I think the expression, "a picture is worth a thousand words" applies. Sometimes points merit reinforcing. I'm guessing the author thought that adding the pictures added impact. I'd say it did. Too easy to gloss over phrases like "twitter account littered with misogynist/immature/whatever pictures".
The pictures, from the Instagram account of the men accused of misogyny, are directly pertinent to the purported misogyny of the people in question. Why shouldn't they be included?
Comments
Yes people. Please flag [EDIT, as in write "NSFW" when applicable. Thanks shawnz]. The article feels that is going to be serious, which it kind of is, but then the pics. What was the point of that? The writer could not have simply mentioned the pics?
I think the expression, "a picture is worth a thousand words" applies. Sometimes points merit reinforcing. I'm guessing the author thought that adding the pictures added impact. I'd say it did. Too easy to gloss over phrases like "twitter account littered with misogynist/immature/whatever pictures".
Also, great article, I thought.
This is one of the very few contexts where those types of images are completely relevant, but I'm surprised there wasn't a warning in the article.
The pictures, from the Instagram account of the men accused of misogyny, are directly pertinent to the purported misogyny of the people in question. Why shouldn't they be included?
Agreed - this article has imagery that's inappropriate to display in many locations, and should be indicated as such in the title.
I don't disagree with optimus. It's just about lacking the flag.
I think people thought you meant "flag" as in reporting the article, not "flag" as in writing NSFW in the title.
My bad.