I don’t know if you intentionally take my point out of context, but the man was arguing that it ruined his day because there were such things as sex in these random clips.

It's possible you got lost in the comment thread. I said one of those things and the original commentor said the other.

--The original commentor said that it "kinda ruined their day a bit" and felt a little intrusive.

--Then someone responded by saying that is was just things that occur in every day life and doesn't violate anyone's privacy.

--Then I responded to clarify that things which occur in every day life can still be intrusive to privacy i.e. sex, breakups, drug use, etc.

I did not say that people were having sex in these clips, nor did the original commentor.

This comment thread feels like a variation of the Telephone Game.

There is a plague in here where people examine every statement in attempt to find the strongest evidence that can be used to refute the previous claim. If you don't make your sentences airtight, they will pull out semantic arguments for any type of counterexample. Among the set of replies, there is very little sympathetic comprehension of the essence of what was said. At times it can be maddening.

It's not just here, it's any place where technical people congregate. It's something wrong with technical people, I think. It probably has something to do with why terrorists are frequently engineers.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/11/theres-a-good-reason-wh...