3 ms·
I interpreted it as a mildly self-deprecating joke on the author's choice of usual reading materials. However, if we're going to be pedantic... the informal ja
by redserk 3y ago
I interpreted it as a mildly self-deprecating joke on the author's choice of usual reading materials.
However, if we're going to be pedantic... the informal jab can work if the author doesn't respect the what is published by the CATO institute.
If we're wanting to be true to the term, "rag" doesn't fit because the article is an opinion blog post, not published in a newspaper or magazine.
> informal
> a newspaper or magazine that is considered to be of bad quality:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/rag https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/rag
> Informal.
> ...
> a newspaper or magazine regarded with contempt or distaste: Are you still subscribing to that rag?
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rags https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rags
- whimsicalism 3y ago> However, if we're going to be pedantic... the informal jab can work if the author doesn't respect the what is published by the CATO institute. I know what the words mean and the potential self-deprecation? But I don’t think we should characterize high quality publications we disagree with as low quality.
- redserk 3y agoIf you're going to oppose another poster's use of the word "rag", why are you labeling the same source as "high quality"? Neither are objective descriptors. This is hypocrisy.
- whimsicalism 3y agoWhat? I think it is a high quality pub (that I mostly disagree with) so I object to it being called a rag. I’m not objecting to the use of adjectives or non-objective descriptors writ large and I have no idea where you got that idea. "Rag" is a word we typically use for publications like NYPost, not an article by a research fellow at a think-tank. I suspect the usage here is motivated by political animus.