I mean, the assumption I was operating under was that someone would see that something in the context of the previous part of that conjunction and assume I meant something in the same vein, or at the same level of seriousness. In the same way that someone could say "I think I got stabbed or something" and you wouldn't assume that the something to which they referred might be a hangnail. But this is The Playbook people who don't want to acknowledge what the right is doing use all the time: play dumb, like you can't understand basic language or logic that you would otherwise completely understand in any other context, and require everyone to do every ounce of the research and work for you in finding you evidence for every statement made, in order to raise the barrier of effort until the other person gives up, while maintaining the appearance of neutrality.

> My point is specifically that saying "pedophilia or something" is disingenuous

But it wasn't. You just assumed it was because you weren't immediately provided evidence you could have just as easily found yourself.

Is being pedantic about this adding anything to the conversation?

What the site does is not innocuous; we already know that.

> Is being pedantic about this adding anything to the conversation?

Asking for specific examples to substantiate serious allegations is not "being pedantic." This is a divisive topic, passing around potentially untrue or exaggerated claims only muddies the water.