this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2026
62 points (84.4% liked)
Offbeat
1911 readers
206 users here now
Post your funny, weird, strange, or quirky news stories here!
Community Rules
- No editorialized titles
- No satire news sites (The Beaverton, The Onion, etc...)
- No politics
- Submissions must be no older than 2 months (i.e. the article should be "recent" news)
Similar Communities
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, that part really shows the entire methodology of the article is bullshit.
They're proving that this instance of a negative mention of Pokemon doesn't even have to do with someone being interested in the hobby which is the entire premise of the article. But they never mention filtering for this, and then just go on to say that liking Pokemon is the worst hobby stats wise. Not that I'm expecting perfect methodology for something like this, but this is a pretty fucking glaring issue they even openly admit but somehow don't see the problem with it.
Saying someone collects women like Pokemon cards is just an insult about someone being a player, it doesn't have anything to do with someone's hobbies. It could easily be said as collecting women like any other commonly collected item.