2 ms·
I was afraid the article would go with the bad connotation of losers (i.e.: people that 'deserve to lose') but, reading the article, it felt more just like a de
by josinalvo 10y ago
I was afraid the article would go with the bad connotation of losers (i.e.: people that 'deserve to lose') but, reading the article, it felt more just like a descriptive connotation (i.e.: people that are losing money and quality of life)
Still, your point is generally valid
- throwanem 10y agoYou can't talk about "losers" in modern American English without invoking that connotation. I am quite certain that whoever wrote that headline knows this; you don't get to produce content for an A-list blog like the Washington Post without having a working knowledge of semiotics and the dialect in which you're writing.
- cvwright 10y agoI think it's a subtle (OK, maybe not so subtle) jab at Trump and his supporters. He uses this kind of language all the time -- calling people he doesn't like "losers". The author here is attempting to be clever by turning around and using the same trick against them. I wonder if it had the desired effect...
- r00fus 10y agoToo clever by half; wrestling with a pig in the mud only makes the pig happy and you full of mud. Don't use other people's argumentative frames if you actually disagree with them.
- throwanem 10y agoSounds like WaPo is still smarting over getting its press card pulled. (As they should be! It was a brilliant move, and it's had them on the back foot ever since - their latter coverage of Trump reads like a cross between red-top tabloid and schoolyard bigmouth.)