4 ms·

also they don't adopt them, they fund their caretaking. this title is pretty poor.

by make3 6y ago

jedimastert 6y ago
using the phrase "adopt" to mean "funding the ongoing care of" is pretty common parlance, at least in US-based charities. You can, for example, adopt a highway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adopt-a-Highway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adopt-a-Highway
emteycz 6y ago
"Adopting" is what they pay for. It's symbolic of course, but it is called exactly that.
skohan 6y ago
"adoption" is the terminology used by the foundation, and symbolic adoption is a known quantity in this type of operation so I don't have a problem with it. However referring to wallstreet bets users as "investors" does seem like a bit of a misnomer...
- blfr 6y ago
  "Adoption" is fine on the foundation website with context. Here my first thought was that this is some crazy Tiger King scenario.
  - reaperducer 6y ago
    Here my first thought was that this is some crazy Tiger King scenario. Some people see "animal adoption" and think about how you can sponsor a critter at your local zoo. Some people see "animal adoption" and see hillbilly tailer park side show TV shows. I guess it's all in your life experiences.
  - teawrecks 6y ago
    What do you think is happening when people "adopt a highway"?
    - blfr 6y ago
      Pretty much this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pothole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pothole And more seriously, people actually do adopt animals and bring them home or to some enclosure. There are supposedly more tigers in captivity in Texas than in the wild. So my guess was not that crazy. Especially considering that it would be a much more captivating if less noble story than "redditors raised money for gorillas."
- marcosdumay 6y ago
  My only issue is that "Reddit investors" means people that invest on Reddit, while the article is about people that speculate with stocks (kinda ok to call them investors) and use Reddit. Still, I don't know how to improve the headline.
  - skohan 6y ago
    Yeah I think the term "Reddit investors" is fine - along the lines of "main-street investors" or "wall-street investors". I think it probably is more ambiguous to people on this board than the general population since people here are particularly VC-minded.
- SilasX 6y ago
  I kind of agree with parent. While I don’t have a problem with symbolic use of adoption, I do have a problem with “multiple adoption”. When I think of a donor “adopting” a case, I have a model of “this donation sufficed for lifetime care of that case”. If one donation isn’t sufficient, then maybe a group of donations would collectively be the adoption. You shouldn’t have a scenario where there are more adoptions than cases (gorillas in this one). I mean imagine if a foster agency said they processed five adoptions but had only two children.
  - skohan 6y ago
    I guess in my mind, the point of the adoption is that the "adopter" has a point of personal connection with the funding they are providing, and they can hang a picture on the wall to remind themselves why they are supporting this cause. Given that almost none of these "adopters" will ever see the gorilla in question in real life, it seems unreasonably jealous to insist that this organization should forgo funding so that they and they alone can have a financial relationship with this particular gorilla.
    - SilasX 6y ago
      >Given that almost none of these "adopters" will ever see the gorilla in question in real life, it seems unreasonably jealous to insist that this organization should forgo funding so that they and they alone can have a financial relationship with this particular gorilla. I never suggested or hinted at that, just that it was misleading to call it adoption, if they're not granted a kind of "owning" of that relationship, in the sense of that donor is "the" supporter of that gorilla [pair]. If they want to call it "supporting", I wouldn't consider that misleading.
- iso1631 6y ago
  I think "investors", with the quotes, is quite accurate "investors" would be wrong ""investors"" would be fine How do you quote this type of quote?
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    "\"investors\"", obviously :).
    - iso1631 6y ago
      "\"\\\"investors\\\"\"" sounds reasonable, what could possible go wrong
  - oneeyedpigeon 6y ago
    > investors would be wrong > "investors" would be fine
  - reaperducer 6y ago
    How do you quote this type of quote? In the United States, it's "'investors.'" Just like you've seen in books where a character is quoting another character.
  - eCa 6y ago
    Different types of quotes: ’investors’ ’”investors”’
jasode 6y ago
>also they don't adopt them, they fund their caretaking. this title is pretty poor. We don't have to be mega pedantic about words not being used for its literal meaning. The Dian Fossey Fund uses the word "adopt" in a symbolic way like many other charities do: https://fosseyfund.salsalabs.org/adopthomepage/index.html https://fosseyfund.salsalabs.org/adopthomepage/index.html
- dmos62 6y ago
  It's not being pedantic, but accurate. It took me a confusing 30 seconds to understand that the gorrilas won't be coming home with the owners of Reddit.
  - tokai 6y ago
    You not knowing the common usage of the word adopt in charity work doesn't make you accurate.
    - dmos62 6y ago
      Ok, if we're getting pedantic about it, adopting as a synonym for supporting is a misnomer or more specifically an attempt to conceal the conflict of wanting to support something, but being unwilling to become intimately involved with it. It takes away from the genuine act of adoption. So I'll stand behind not using the term.
      - jowsie 6y ago
        That just feels pedantic and gatekeeping. Adoption in this context has been used this way for as long as I can remember (20+ years) with every animal charity in the UK at least.
        dmos62 6y ago
        That's a fair point, as regards animal support. I was a bit hot under the collar when I wrote that. The scenario I was thinking of was adopting vs supporting people, and the regretable reluctance to adopt children in general.

also they don't adopt them, they fund their caretaking. this title is pretty poor.

by make3 6y ago

also they don't adopt them, they fund their caretaking. this title is pretty poor.

using the phrase "adopt" to mean "funding the ongoing care of" is pretty common parlance, at least in US-based charities. You can, for example, adopt a highway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adopt-a-Highway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adopt-a-Highway

emteycz 6y ago

"Adopting" is what they pay for. It's symbolic of course, but it is called exactly that.

skohan 6y ago

"adoption" is the terminology used by the foundation, and symbolic adoption is a known quantity in this type of operation so I don't have a problem with it. However referring to wallstreet bets users as "investors" does seem like a bit of a misnomer...

blfr 6y ago
"Adoption" is fine on the foundation website with context. Here my first thought was that this is some crazy Tiger King scenario.
- reaperducer 6y ago
  Here my first thought was that this is some crazy Tiger King scenario. Some people see "animal adoption" and think about how you can sponsor a critter at your local zoo. Some people see "animal adoption" and see hillbilly tailer park side show TV shows. I guess it's all in your life experiences.
- teawrecks 6y ago
  What do you think is happening when people "adopt a highway"?
  - blfr 6y ago
    Pretty much this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pothole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pothole And more seriously, people actually do adopt animals and bring them home or to some enclosure. There are supposedly more tigers in captivity in Texas than in the wild. So my guess was not that crazy. Especially considering that it would be a much more captivating if less noble story than "redditors raised money for gorillas."
marcosdumay 6y ago
My only issue is that "Reddit investors" means people that invest on Reddit, while the article is about people that speculate with stocks (kinda ok to call them investors) and use Reddit. Still, I don't know how to improve the headline.
- skohan 6y ago
  Yeah I think the term "Reddit investors" is fine - along the lines of "main-street investors" or "wall-street investors". I think it probably is more ambiguous to people on this board than the general population since people here are particularly VC-minded.
SilasX 6y ago
I kind of agree with parent. While I don’t have a problem with symbolic use of adoption, I do have a problem with “multiple adoption”. When I think of a donor “adopting” a case, I have a model of “this donation sufficed for lifetime care of that case”. If one donation isn’t sufficient, then maybe a group of donations would collectively be the adoption. You shouldn’t have a scenario where there are more adoptions than cases (gorillas in this one). I mean imagine if a foster agency said they processed five adoptions but had only two children.
- skohan 6y ago
  I guess in my mind, the point of the adoption is that the "adopter" has a point of personal connection with the funding they are providing, and they can hang a picture on the wall to remind themselves why they are supporting this cause. Given that almost none of these "adopters" will ever see the gorilla in question in real life, it seems unreasonably jealous to insist that this organization should forgo funding so that they and they alone can have a financial relationship with this particular gorilla.
  - SilasX 6y ago
    >Given that almost none of these "adopters" will ever see the gorilla in question in real life, it seems unreasonably jealous to insist that this organization should forgo funding so that they and they alone can have a financial relationship with this particular gorilla. I never suggested or hinted at that, just that it was misleading to call it adoption, if they're not granted a kind of "owning" of that relationship, in the sense of that donor is "the" supporter of that gorilla [pair]. If they want to call it "supporting", I wouldn't consider that misleading.
iso1631 6y ago
I think "investors", with the quotes, is quite accurate "investors" would be wrong ""investors"" would be fine How do you quote this type of quote?
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  "\"investors\"", obviously :).
  - iso1631 6y ago
    "\"\\\"investors\\\"\"" sounds reasonable, what could possible go wrong
- oneeyedpigeon 6y ago
  > investors would be wrong > "investors" would be fine
- reaperducer 6y ago
  How do you quote this type of quote? In the United States, it's "'investors.'" Just like you've seen in books where a character is quoting another character.
- eCa 6y ago
  Different types of quotes: ’investors’ ’”investors”’

jasode 6y ago

>also they don't adopt them, they fund their caretaking. this title is pretty poor. We don't have to be mega pedantic about words not being used for its literal meaning. The Dian Fossey Fund uses the word "adopt" in a symbolic way like many other charities do: https://fosseyfund.salsalabs.org/adopthomepage/index.html https://fosseyfund.salsalabs.org/adopthomepage/index.html

dmos62 6y ago
It's not being pedantic, but accurate. It took me a confusing 30 seconds to understand that the gorrilas won't be coming home with the owners of Reddit.
- tokai 6y ago
  You not knowing the common usage of the word adopt in charity work doesn't make you accurate.
  - dmos62 6y ago
    Ok, if we're getting pedantic about it, adopting as a synonym for supporting is a misnomer or more specifically an attempt to conceal the conflict of wanting to support something, but being unwilling to become intimately involved with it. It takes away from the genuine act of adoption. So I'll stand behind not using the term.
    - jowsie 6y ago
      That just feels pedantic and gatekeeping. Adoption in this context has been used this way for as long as I can remember (20+ years) with every animal charity in the UK at least.
      - dmos62 6y ago
        That's a fair point, as regards animal support. I was a bit hot under the collar when I wrote that. The scenario I was thinking of was adopting vs supporting people, and the regretable reluctance to adopt children in general.