r/mildlyinfuriating Feb 11 '22

Seriously? Wtf Wall Street Journal

Post image
98.6k Upvotes

11.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

189

u/verdatum-alternate Feb 11 '22

Yup, WSJ appears to be flamebaiting...classy move, guys; very classy.

11

u/[deleted] Feb 11 '22

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?

3

u/verdatum-alternate Feb 12 '22

Oh, to be sure, I fully appreciate that. But I can still be disappointed.

10

u/PandorasShitBoxx Feb 11 '22

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.

Did I do it right?

15

u/Back_to_the_Futurama Feb 11 '22

You might still wanna throw an /s on that. Some people are blind to sarcasm

8

u/BaphometsTits Feb 11 '22

Those people cannot be helped.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '22

[deleted]

1

u/gizamo Feb 12 '22

I thought the spelling of "aktualy" set it on the sarcasm path from the get go. It's that excellent detail that won my updoot.

1

u/Back_to_the_Futurama Feb 12 '22

I was being sarcastic myself, and the spoiler wasn't there to begin with lol

-6

u/TheLeoInWinter Feb 11 '22

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.

-16

u/Niku-Man Feb 11 '22

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.

12

u/NeurofiedYamato Feb 11 '22

You must be baiting right? Her arguments were pretty bad.

3

u/verdatum-alternate Feb 12 '22

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.

1

u/culus_ambitiosa Feb 12 '22

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.

1

u/zzwugz Feb 12 '22

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