this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2023
14 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10180 readers
14 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You mean the Scotus that overturned Roe v. Wade? No.
I don’t imagine you actually read the article? Otherwise you wouldn’t be arguing against a position that neither the article nor I take.
You're right I didn't, and maybe I should have, but I would argue that it's also just unhealthy for an article to have a title that's completely antithetical to what it's actually saying.
Maybe the fault was mine, for including a piece from the Editor's Blog (which is a bit more informal than most of TPM's reporting and assumes familiarity with their other work).
I forget who originally said that whenever you see a headline with a question mark (colloquially referred to as the Cavuto Mark, after Fox's Neil Cavuto, perhaps the most prominent practitioner), the answer is almost always 'no,' but it's been such a piece of conventional wisdom that I didn't realize it was more widely understood as such.