LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
+13 14 1
Published 11 months ago with 1 Comments

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
  • AdelleChattre

    Apparently someone’s downvoted this as misleading, clickbaity and/or sensationalized as well. That’s funny, only a little while ago another piece not entirely in accordance with the going McCarthyist hysteria also ticked someone off. Assuming there were actual reasons, what were they?

    I mean, nobody at Snapzu would haul off and do something like that without being able to specify what stated facts or drawn conclusions may’ve mislead someone, would they?

    Or if it was clickbaityness — you know, from this, the veteran investigative reporter who broke the Iran/Contra scandal, recipient of the George Polk Award and the I.F. Stone Medal — they should be able to point out exactly what it was that struck them as clickbaity, right?

    Perhaps they made the decision to reflexively downvote this as somehow sensationalized. I’d like to know the precise reasoning behind that controversial decision on their part. Clearly any Snapzu user should be able to articulate why they elected to negatively curate, right?

    Goodness, what would it say about them if they couldn’t cite any fathomable reason? That they’d acted without thinking? That they lost it? That they saw something that might’ve, gasp! informed them, so they knew what they had to do? I’d hate to think that was true, but I’ll face the possibility honestly. Something I wish they’d tried first, before going full chickenshit.

Here are some other snaps you may like...