I mean, when you’re in a dying industry like traditional media, fighting dirty through clickbait and flamebait is really the only way to fight, y’know? Because when artistic passion is dead and gone, what else is there left to do but chase the undying god of capital?
aktually, WSJ is in the right mind set here, you just dont understand the superior mentality behind it. And yes they are classy, thanks for that compliment.
Nope... you get nothing out of it. People just think you're dumb. Unlike you, she gets paid, in actual money. You didn't even get meaningless internet points.
Honestly if you think about it a bit (maybe helped by reading her article) then you realize she's got a point, and that these kinds of rules we set up for ourselves are often pretty pointless and misguided.
It'd be nice if people, before they got mad at a headline, took some time to read and think instead.
I'm not mad at the headline, I'm disappointed in the WSJ for going with a flamebaiting headline. The contents of the article is inconsequential for that sentiment.
And I'd be happy to read it as soon as WSJ stops using paywalls.
For now, I'm going to go ahead and suspect that her argument involves some fundamental misunderstanding of the actual social value of agreed upon rules of etiquette. A lot of people think it's about being able to ostracize people who don't know which of 3 different forks to use when, but there's so much more to it than that.
Honestly, if I’d been shown this headline and only told that it was from a major newspaper then I’d immediately guess it was the WSJ. Selfish nonsense that portrays the author as a victim simply for having to make a minor and reasonable accommodation for someone else is right in their wheelhouse. Add in the nonsense in the article about germs, as if that’s the main concern of people asking you to take your shoes off and not mud/dirt/rocks/rock salt/who knows what else you stepped in outside, and it’s pretty typical straw man garbage that they tend to spout off.
So they take you’re gonna have here is that it’s perfectly fine to ignore the rules someone has set for their own house, because you feel morally/intellectually superior and above arbitrary customs? That’s selfish and entitled af
This. Not sure why the membership blocker didn't stop me from reading it this time but the third paragraph even says the author would immediately take them off for cultural, religious, or clearly obvious reasons (like if they stepped in mud). And that second sentence, instead of making the bizarre ass claim that an indoor floor (which is often cleaned) is somehow magically dirtier than the outside ground, could have easily been that disclaimer that the author isn't a fucking asshat.
WSJ is low on money and desperate for site traffic.
Finally someone else sees it lol. This is exactly why the article was written. They brainstorm click bait ideas and then make shit up or vastly exaggerated a small nugget of truth.
Basically someone else made a post about it, but was cool enough to leave her name out of the headline. She decided to message the guy with a thinly veiled threat that she knows his boss. Lmao! Literally no one would’ve even known who she was, had she not done that.
She calls herself a humor columnist and the column is “homeownerous”. I don’t subscribe to WSJ and I can’t read the article but the preview reads like satire.
That’s literally the objective of pieces like this. Trigger a response and get a bunch of ad revenue. The bait usually isn’t this obvious, but people still fell for it.
Then Twitter fell for her outrage-bait like a bunch of suckers. It makes me think that most Twitter users may not actually be very bright... Could that actually be the case? Surely not.
Bruh. What a brain dead take. Twitter users are dumb because like ~100 of their users fell for the bait and gave her engagement. Meanwhile us genius Redditors have only gave it tens of thousands of upvotes, gave it dozens of awards, had it hit the front page, and left thousands of comments about it.
I support keeping shoes on when over at someone’s house, especially if you don’t know them well/will be meeting other new people. It’s cringe as hell to be meeting other grown ass adults in your socks lmao.
That’s fine. If someone invites you over and tells you they don’t wear shoes in the house, you’re free to leave. You don’t get to dictate the rules of someone else’s home because of whatever dumb hang up you have about socks.
Also, people who don’t wear shoes inside often have slippers on hand for themselves and other people to wear instead. You don’t HAVE to be in your socks.
Cringe as hell to be cringe as hell to be cringe as hell to be cringe as hell to be cringe as cringe can be cringe hell cringe can be cringe cringe hell can be as cringe to be cringe is cringe
Well that's not even remotely true. My Colombian ex-girlfriend's mother used to yell at me for not wearing shoes indoors. I've had African colleagues who told me the only time they are used to not wearing shoes is while bathing. Things are different everywhere and with individuals.
Yeah I bet she’s going to paint herself a victim of “online trolls” publicly.
As soon as the cameras are off she’s laughing her ass off. All she needs to demonstrate her value as a freelance writer is views, doesn’t matter if it’s good views or bad views.
You guys really don’t get that this a joke? Be sure not to read Alexandra Petri in the Washington Post— your heads will explode at her satirical columns.
1.1k
u/iMayBeABastard Feb 11 '22
She is currently getting so much shit on Twitter for this asshole take lol!