4 ms·

You are reading the title as "Why animals don't ever get lost". That's one way to read the title. It can also be interpreted as "Why animals don't often get los

You are reading the title as "Why animals don't ever get lost". That's one way to read the title. It can also be interpreted as "Why animals don't often get lost", or in other words, "What mechanisms do animals use to avoid getting lost." Which is an interesting question.

hyko 6y ago
Yes, you’re right - thanks for pointing this out.
enriquto 6y ago
Their interpretation of the title seems the normal one, yours is very convoluted, like aspiring to some sort of plausible deniability. If the title was "Why people from country X are thiefs.", that would be very insulting to people from X. If the article turned out to be about why some people from X become thiefs, the title would be very misleading.
- hyko 6y ago
  Yes, you’re also right - that’s a good way to explain it.
- meowface 6y ago
  A closer analogy would be "Why people from country X steal" ("get lost" and "steal" are action statements), which, while initially a bit suspicious upon first look, isn't necessarily insulting. "Why people from country X steal - [Opening sentence] Due to unprecedented levels of corruption and cruelty by their new tyrannical government, a third of the population is starving from man-made famines, leaving many country Xians no choice but to steal food from markets and risk one form of death to avoid another." Still not great, since it's a negative statement, but not necessarily xenophobic. An even closer analogy would be something positive like "Why people from country X ski so well". I don't imagine there'd be many complaints, probably. In my opinion, the headline's perfectly fine and clear.
  - enriquto 6y ago
    > not necessarily xenophobic So, to be more specific, the following titles would not be necessarily xenophobic according to your argument: Why Indians cheat in exams. This is an article about one person of Asian origin that was found to cheat on an exam, and explores its family background and life history that lead to this situation. The author deplores that the young person had to resort to the sad practice of cheating. Why Jews occupy positions of power. This one is about the excellent homeschooling tradition by some Jewish families that have enabled their kids to be successful in life. It is illustrated by the life stories of three such kids that went on to become powerful CEOs. Why black people go to live in poor and violent ghettos. This is an article about a black boy that was born in a well-adjusted middle-class family on a good neighborhood but after a sad series of circumstances he was found out living as a drug dealer at the other side of the country. The (black) author deplores that such a promising kid had this horrible fate, and also mentions a couple of other similar cases. > In my opinion, the headline's perfectly fine and clear. So, in your opinion, the three headlines that I wrote as examples would be also "perfectly fine and clear"? I don't think so, to me they sound as disgusting racist clickbait, or at least as very misleading titles. The exact same thing for "why animals don't get lost" (and not only for me, many people are complaining that the title is confusing or misleading).
    - meowface 6y ago
      Key on the "not necessarily". It's not phrasing I would ever use, and if I saw it I'd recommend someone change it, but I don't think it necessarily implies anything; it's more like simple, dumb clickbait. I agree it'd probably still be generally considered offensive. But it's also different because it's negative vs. positive attributes. Animals not getting lost is generally a positive trait. If you had a headline like: >Why Indians do so well on exams about them studying a lot or whatever (nothing to do with cheating or anything negative), then it's still probably clickbait-y, but not really offensive or unclear. I think this is kind of a subtle grammar thing. "Why animals don't get lost" is a somewhat stylized phrasing (common among publications like The New Yorker), which if seen in that stylized context is likely intended to be interpreted as "Why [some/many] animals don't get lost". Imagine a headline "Why people don't like chocolate". Most people probably like chocolate; some don't. The grammar isn't implying the group "people" does not like chocolate; the plural is referring to an arbitrary, floating bag or set wherein each person happens to not like chocolate. I think "Why animals don't get lost" is using that same kind of grammar. They could've written "Why animals tend not to get lost", or "Why many animals don't get lost", but it doesn't look or sound as nice. But I'm sure the clickbaitiness was also a factor.

hyko 6y ago

Yes, you’re right - thanks for pointing this out.

enriquto 6y ago

Their interpretation of the title seems the normal one, yours is very convoluted, like aspiring to some sort of plausible deniability. If the title was "Why people from country X are thiefs.", that would be very insulting to people from X. If the article turned out to be about why some people from X become thiefs, the title would be very misleading.

hyko 6y ago
Yes, you’re also right - that’s a good way to explain it.
meowface 6y ago
A closer analogy would be "Why people from country X steal" ("get lost" and "steal" are action statements), which, while initially a bit suspicious upon first look, isn't necessarily insulting. "Why people from country X steal - [Opening sentence] Due to unprecedented levels of corruption and cruelty by their new tyrannical government, a third of the population is starving from man-made famines, leaving many country Xians no choice but to steal food from markets and risk one form of death to avoid another." Still not great, since it's a negative statement, but not necessarily xenophobic. An even closer analogy would be something positive like "Why people from country X ski so well". I don't imagine there'd be many complaints, probably. In my opinion, the headline's perfectly fine and clear.
- enriquto 6y ago
  > not necessarily xenophobic So, to be more specific, the following titles would not be necessarily xenophobic according to your argument: Why Indians cheat in exams. This is an article about one person of Asian origin that was found to cheat on an exam, and explores its family background and life history that lead to this situation. The author deplores that the young person had to resort to the sad practice of cheating. Why Jews occupy positions of power. This one is about the excellent homeschooling tradition by some Jewish families that have enabled their kids to be successful in life. It is illustrated by the life stories of three such kids that went on to become powerful CEOs. Why black people go to live in poor and violent ghettos. This is an article about a black boy that was born in a well-adjusted middle-class family on a good neighborhood but after a sad series of circumstances he was found out living as a drug dealer at the other side of the country. The (black) author deplores that such a promising kid had this horrible fate, and also mentions a couple of other similar cases. > In my opinion, the headline's perfectly fine and clear. So, in your opinion, the three headlines that I wrote as examples would be also "perfectly fine and clear"? I don't think so, to me they sound as disgusting racist clickbait, or at least as very misleading titles. The exact same thing for "why animals don't get lost" (and not only for me, many people are complaining that the title is confusing or misleading).
  - meowface 6y ago
    Key on the "not necessarily". It's not phrasing I would ever use, and if I saw it I'd recommend someone change it, but I don't think it necessarily implies anything; it's more like simple, dumb clickbait. I agree it'd probably still be generally considered offensive. But it's also different because it's negative vs. positive attributes. Animals not getting lost is generally a positive trait. If you had a headline like: >Why Indians do so well on exams about them studying a lot or whatever (nothing to do with cheating or anything negative), then it's still probably clickbait-y, but not really offensive or unclear. I think this is kind of a subtle grammar thing. "Why animals don't get lost" is a somewhat stylized phrasing (common among publications like The New Yorker), which if seen in that stylized context is likely intended to be interpreted as "Why [some/many] animals don't get lost". Imagine a headline "Why people don't like chocolate". Most people probably like chocolate; some don't. The grammar isn't implying the group "people" does not like chocolate; the plural is referring to an arbitrary, floating bag or set wherein each person happens to not like chocolate. I think "Why animals don't get lost" is using that same kind of grammar. They could've written "Why animals tend not to get lost", or "Why many animals don't get lost", but it doesn't look or sound as nice. But I'm sure the clickbaitiness was also a factor.