3 ms·
"Aaron Swartz wanted to save the world, so why couldn't he save himself?" ...Really? There are implicit assumptions in that title, and the way in which it was
by dylangs1030 14y ago
"Aaron Swartz wanted to save the world, so why couldn't he save himself?"
...Really? There are implicit assumptions in that title, and the way in which it was presented, which I find somewhat disrespectful.
Why do we need to question that he couldn't "save himself"? Why do we need to assume he had that responsibility at all?
And why does attempting to save the world beg the question of inability to save oneself?
The answer: it's just a title to get you to read it, hoping to have enough pathos that you don't think too critically about it.
Why do we force ourselves to take on the burden of overanalyzing the man? It's obviously a sad passing, but people are dwelling on it in what I believe to be the wrong way. Stop questioning and just appreciate for its own sake. It wasn't preventable. At least not for the reporters and readers of these articles. And I'm sure his loved ones are not appreciating news articles that implicitly try to find something wrong - it delays peace.
- intended 14y agoThe full title is: "The idealist: Aaron Swartz wanted to save the world, so why couldn't he save himself" The article itself, is good journalism in the in-depth detailed vein. After finishing it, I found the question in the title to be relevant. There was no over-analysis of the man. edit: missing quotation marks.
- dylangs1030 14y agoI agree with you, I have no difficulty with the article itself. The article was well-written. And while this is admittedly subjective, I find the title itself to invite the sort of things I mentioned above, borderline to link-bait.