4 ms·
You need a bit more substance than association by guilt (and not even a strong association) to criticize an article or a headline. My reading of e.g. "quietly"
by tgv 3y ago
You need a bit more substance than association by guilt (and not even a strong association) to criticize an article or a headline. My reading of e.g. "quietly" is that either they're claiming a scoop, or they're critical of the acquisition, not of bad faith.
- robertlagrant 3y agoWhat is "association by guilt"?
- _0ffh 3y agoMaybe they mixed up "guilt by association".
- robertlagrant 3y agoPossibly, but then I would ask how that's relevant as well!
- tgv 3y agoI did mean guilt by association. The comment's author assumes the articles uses cheap devices based on an association the word "quietly" with bad faith arguments.
- robertlagrant 3y agoHow's that guilt by association?
- actionfromafar 3y agoI love this "Association by Guilt", great lo-fi post-punk band.
- brookst 3y ago“Quietly” is a way to imply wrongdoing in something purporting to be a news article. Which is funny because you can use “openly” the same way, and it seems to me that every action can be characterized as either quiet or open. That’s why it’s bad faith. It’s a cheap shot that purely injects a negative feeling without actually expressing an opinion. “Teamshares buys mom and pops to lock them in as customers” or “Teamshares screws small businesses to make a buck” would be honest, good faith headlines. Innuendo is never good faith.