@caseyaaronquinn.bsky.social
in other words, you cannot explain what point you're trying to make.
is a headline part of an article? yes
should you assume what the article is about based only on an ambiguous headline? no
what is your argument against that?
is a headline part of an article? yes
should you assume what the article is about based only on an ambiguous headline? no
what is your argument against that?
December 11, 2025 at 5:24 PM
in other words, you cannot explain what point you're trying to make.
is a headline part of an article? yes
should you assume what the article is about based only on an ambiguous headline? no
what is your argument against that?
is a headline part of an article? yes
should you assume what the article is about based only on an ambiguous headline? no
what is your argument against that?
uh yes, so what? so is the very first word of the first sentence. do you think you can judge the rest of the article based on the first word of the first sentence?
i truly don't understand what point you think you're making or why it's directed at me.
i truly don't understand what point you think you're making or why it's directed at me.
December 11, 2025 at 5:13 PM
uh yes, so what? so is the very first word of the first sentence. do you think you can judge the rest of the article based on the first word of the first sentence?
i truly don't understand what point you think you're making or why it's directed at me.
i truly don't understand what point you think you're making or why it's directed at me.
what is it you think i was saying with that quotation that's any different than what i just said?
December 11, 2025 at 5:06 PM
what is it you think i was saying with that quotation that's any different than what i just said?
i've never insisted or suggested that. i've said you shouldn't assume what the article is about, and then take to the comments to decry it, based solely on your interpretation of the headline. i don't know why that's so hard for you to understand.
December 11, 2025 at 4:51 PM
i've never insisted or suggested that. i've said you shouldn't assume what the article is about, and then take to the comments to decry it, based solely on your interpretation of the headline. i don't know why that's so hard for you to understand.
yes, i’m *a mark* because i read past the headline before deciding what an article says. thanks, you’ve really contributed something here
December 11, 2025 at 4:02 PM
yes, i’m *a mark* because i read past the headline before deciding what an article says. thanks, you’ve really contributed something here
tripe sure but what specifically in the article is moralizing? it doesn’t say anything negative about caffeine except that some people need or want to avoid it for various medical reasons. i understand getting the wrong impression from the headline, but the article does not advocate against caffeine
December 11, 2025 at 3:54 PM
tripe sure but what specifically in the article is moralizing? it doesn’t say anything negative about caffeine except that some people need or want to avoid it for various medical reasons. i understand getting the wrong impression from the headline, but the article does not advocate against caffeine
do you also advocate for judging a book by its cover? seriously, what are you talking about? if you are incorrectly assuming what an article says based only on the headline, you literally do not know what you’re talking about
December 11, 2025 at 3:44 PM
do you also advocate for judging a book by its cover? seriously, what are you talking about? if you are incorrectly assuming what an article says based only on the headline, you literally do not know what you’re talking about
it could suggest that, or it could simply mean there are more options for you now than ever before if you do quit. if you read even slightly beyond the headline, you’ll find it’s the latter.
December 11, 2025 at 3:39 PM
it could suggest that, or it could simply mean there are more options for you now than ever before if you do quit. if you read even slightly beyond the headline, you’ll find it’s the latter.
many people are making assumptions about the content of an article based solely on one interpretation of the headline. we may be commenting on that phenomenon, but they are not. do you understand?
December 11, 2025 at 6:59 AM
many people are making assumptions about the content of an article based solely on one interpretation of the headline. we may be commenting on that phenomenon, but they are not. do you understand?
people are commenting on what they assume the article is (moralizing about caffeine intake) based only on the headline
December 11, 2025 at 4:38 AM
people are commenting on what they assume the article is (moralizing about caffeine intake) based only on the headline
you're not wrong about that, but note (1) you actually read the article and are responding to its content, not just your interpretation of the headline and (2) now you're the one moralizing, which was the main imagined critique from the people who didn't bother to read it
December 11, 2025 at 12:25 AM
you're not wrong about that, but note (1) you actually read the article and are responding to its content, not just your interpretation of the headline and (2) now you're the one moralizing, which was the main imagined critique from the people who didn't bother to read it
i think it's embarrassing to comment on something you haven't fully read while misinterpreting the one part of it you did read, regardless of how shitty you think it is
December 10, 2025 at 11:00 PM
i think it's embarrassing to comment on something you haven't fully read while misinterpreting the one part of it you did read, regardless of how shitty you think it is
no it's just people who are negatively affected by caffeine but still want to hang out with other people at cafes. why do so many people see that as moralizing?
December 10, 2025 at 10:56 PM
no it's just people who are negatively affected by caffeine but still want to hang out with other people at cafes. why do so many people see that as moralizing?
people should comment about how an article is moralizing about caffeine when it isn't because the headline is engineered to provoke that reaction? that seems dumb to me, but ok. i don't care about the NYT. i just think it's embarrassing to comment on something when you don't know what it's about.
December 10, 2025 at 10:45 PM
people should comment about how an article is moralizing about caffeine when it isn't because the headline is engineered to provoke that reaction? that seems dumb to me, but ok. i don't care about the NYT. i just think it's embarrassing to comment on something when you don't know what it's about.
i mean that’s totally fine but then why comment on it without knowing what you’re talking about?
December 10, 2025 at 10:36 PM
i mean that’s totally fine but then why comment on it without knowing what you’re talking about?
how dare these people with their (reasons) to avoid things that other people like
December 10, 2025 at 10:34 PM
how dare these people with their (reasons) to avoid things that other people like
okay and? did you read the article? it's about options that have not been sold by these places forever. is the idea that if you don't drink caffeine, you MUST drink either decaf or water or shut the fuck up? why is it so offensive that there are other options for other people?
December 10, 2025 at 10:11 PM
okay and? did you read the article? it's about options that have not been sold by these places forever. is the idea that if you don't drink caffeine, you MUST drink either decaf or water or shut the fuck up? why is it so offensive that there are other options for other people?
this is NYT's test to see how many people read past the headline. the answer is embarrassing.
December 10, 2025 at 10:01 PM
this is NYT's test to see how many people read past the headline. the answer is embarrassing.
maybe read the article before commenting on it? there's no moral revival here, it's about cafes offering decaf and caffeine free drinks in addition to all the caffeinated ones. the headline may be misleading if you read it in a certain way, but it takes 20 seconds to figure that out
December 10, 2025 at 9:56 PM
maybe read the article before commenting on it? there's no moral revival here, it's about cafes offering decaf and caffeine free drinks in addition to all the caffeinated ones. the headline may be misleading if you read it in a certain way, but it takes 20 seconds to figure that out
all this person did was respond to your opinion that “food in a college town is often tailored to very limited,very bland tastes” by saying that isn’t their experience, and you reposted to call them names and insinuate they’re stupid. was it really that offensive to you?
December 5, 2025 at 4:44 PM
all this person did was respond to your opinion that “food in a college town is often tailored to very limited,very bland tastes” by saying that isn’t their experience, and you reposted to call them names and insinuate they’re stupid. was it really that offensive to you?
1 where is this from?
2 wherever, it’s one poll. you wouldn’t cite one poll in an election
3 does the fact that so many respondents apparently can’t afford to live in any of these cities actually support your weeks long argument?
4 many people have political reasons to not list ny, sf, etc
2 wherever, it’s one poll. you wouldn’t cite one poll in an election
3 does the fact that so many respondents apparently can’t afford to live in any of these cities actually support your weeks long argument?
4 many people have political reasons to not list ny, sf, etc
November 25, 2025 at 8:54 PM
1 where is this from?
2 wherever, it’s one poll. you wouldn’t cite one poll in an election
3 does the fact that so many respondents apparently can’t afford to live in any of these cities actually support your weeks long argument?
4 many people have political reasons to not list ny, sf, etc
2 wherever, it’s one poll. you wouldn’t cite one poll in an election
3 does the fact that so many respondents apparently can’t afford to live in any of these cities actually support your weeks long argument?
4 many people have political reasons to not list ny, sf, etc
you have to be extremely insecure about your own intelligence to find comfort in claiming some superior group intelligence
November 7, 2025 at 9:51 PM
you have to be extremely insecure about your own intelligence to find comfort in claiming some superior group intelligence
is it nimby now to oppose building anything?
October 25, 2025 at 1:20 AM
is it nimby now to oppose building anything?
*left ourselves
October 24, 2025 at 9:00 PM
*left ourselves
there was no trump tower meeting. ok but it was about adoptions. ok but nothing ever came of it.
and many pundits to this day treat the last one as gospel.
and many pundits to this day treat the last one as gospel.
October 22, 2025 at 8:15 PM
there was no trump tower meeting. ok but it was about adoptions. ok but nothing ever came of it.
and many pundits to this day treat the last one as gospel.
and many pundits to this day treat the last one as gospel.