please excuse the annoyingly un-precise title here. jacobin likes to do this thing where they put article context in their subtitles, but in this case the subtitle (“Don’t start a family — it’s...
please excuse the annoyingly un-precise title here. jacobin likes to do this thing where they put article context in their subtitles, but in this case the subtitle (“Don’t start a family — it’s bad for the planet.” The latest bad take on climate change forgets one little thing: whether or not you have a kid, the fossil fuel industry will still be there.) is over 200 characters with their main title, so it doesn't fit and i've had to omit it.
You don't have to use article titles exactly as they write it, and can always tinker with it a bit to make it fit while still giving people a better understanding of what the article is about....
You don't have to use article titles exactly as they write it, and can always tinker with it a bit to make it fit while still giving people a better understanding of what the article is about.
E.g. "Don’t Blame the Babies - Whether or not you have a kid, the fossil fuel industry will still be there"
= 100 chars
And I would be happy to change the title to that, or something else you prefer, if you want.
i try not to editorialize unless it's egregious, honestly, mostly because i find it annoying to have to do that in the first place and also because it's easier to just make a comment about the...
i try not to editorialize unless it's egregious, honestly, mostly because i find it annoying to have to do that in the first place and also because it's easier to just make a comment about the title most of the time than it is to try and invent a title which better captures whatever the author is going for.
The problem with that is that vast majority of people are not going to read your comment and the current title is practically useless in letting people know what the article is actually about....
The problem with that is that vast majority of people are not going to read your comment and the current title is practically useless in letting people know what the article is actually about.
p.s. Just the subheading “Don’t start a family — it’s bad for the planet.” The latest bad take on climate change forgets one little thing: whether or not you have a kid, the fossil fuel industry will still be there. is only 190 chars. Should I switch it to that? It's not editorializing at all, and it does a better job of describing the article contents than Don't blame the babies, IMO.
having already done exactly what i just described a few times, this has not really been my experience, tbh. people on here seem to do just fine if you put a clarifying note on the title as a comment.
The problem with that is that vast majority of people are not going to read your comment and the current title is practically useless in letting people know what the article is actually about.
having already done exactly what i just described a few times, this has not really been my experience, tbh. people on here seem to do just fine if you put a clarifying note on the title as a comment.
That may be true for now... but if Tildes continues to grow, that is not going to scale. Especially since comments on the title and why you chose it are going to get labeled offtopic (for being...
That may be true for now... but if Tildes continues to grow, that is not going to scale. Especially since comments on the title and why you chose it are going to get labeled offtopic (for being meta) and so will be sorted below on-topic discussion of the article itself... making them even less likely to be seen. That's precisely why title editing is in place, and users here are allowed to editorialize their titles (within reason) in service to making the title more useful.
i'm trying to kill this discussion but just for the record, i don't really see a reason to preoccupy myself with how this insignificant stylistic choice will work in the future when we're not in...
i'm trying to kill this discussion but just for the record, i don't really see a reason to preoccupy myself with how this insignificant stylistic choice will work in the future when we're not in that future yet. if it becomes an issue in the future, then i'll cross that bridge, but until then it's whatever.
Fair enough and sorry for annoying you, I was just trying to make a helpful suggestion and explain my reasoning behind it, that's all. But if you don't want to discuss meta stuff I totally...
Fair enough and sorry for annoying you, I was just trying to make a helpful suggestion and explain my reasoning behind it, that's all. But if you don't want to discuss meta stuff I totally understand and so won't bug you about similar things in the future.
That's fair. I'd add though that editorializing, in my opinion, is more specifically when you change the meaning of the title. Conveying the intended meaning as best you can within the limits of...
i try not to editorialize unless it's egregious
That's fair. I'd add though that editorializing, in my opinion, is more specifically when you change the meaning of the title. Conveying the intended meaning as best you can within the limits of the platform seems much more reasonable to me.
It's a far leap from a title like: "Author shares bad opinion with mindless audience". This clearly injects opinion and poisons the well. These sorts of titles have unfortunately taken hold on other social media.
I completely agree and have been saying exactly this for a while. This approach to "personal responsibility" to combat climate change that we've been sold is important, but sometimes damaging....
I completely agree and have been saying exactly this for a while. This approach to "personal responsibility" to combat climate change that we've been sold is important, but sometimes damaging. While people should definitely try to reduce consumption, it is the corporations who are in charge of over 70% of climate changing emissions. Blaming people for having kids is just another cynical way of shifting responsibility, while shipping and oil and meat industries do nothing to reduce emissions and governments do little to regulate them.
I've been meaning to put together a thorough debunking for those who think the current population level is sustainable and more growth is fine—and more illogically, why anyone would want more...
I've been meaning to put together a thorough debunking for those who think the current population level is sustainable and more growth is fine—and more illogically, why anyone would want more people anyway.
Because it flies in the face of what's causing the problems on the planet, and is a reckless and dangerous virus of an opinion which is, frankly in my opinion, going to lead to the rapid collapse of civilization in the next 100 years.
Like I saw somewhere else, depriving yourself of having children, is in a way depriving the human society from having a next true genius like Einstein. Your children could be the ones that save...
Like I saw somewhere else, depriving yourself of having children, is in a way depriving the human society from having a next true genius like Einstein. Your children could be the ones that save this planet from climate change, for example. Basically we are depriving ourselves from our reaching our true human potencial. If everyone only has two childs is enough to "replace" the population that dies and eventually it will balance itself out.
All of these stories are only to shift the guilt and responsibility to us.
Corporations make most of the polution, making personal changes doesn't help much if corporations don't change (goverments need to force them, probably). This is exactly the problem with plastics. You can reduce and recycle all the plastic you want but nothing will change if the corporations don't stop selling so much plastic products.
please excuse the annoyingly un-precise title here. jacobin likes to do this thing where they put article context in their subtitles, but in this case the subtitle (“Don’t start a family — it’s bad for the planet.” The latest bad take on climate change forgets one little thing: whether or not you have a kid, the fossil fuel industry will still be there.) is over 200 characters with their main title, so it doesn't fit and i've had to omit it.
compare this article (tildes discussion) from The Guardian on the so-called 'Birthstrike' movement of people who refuse to have children in a climate-change world; this article (tildes discussion) from The Independent on research about the impact of children; and also this article (tildes discussion) from Inverse on population control.
You don't have to use article titles exactly as they write it, and can always tinker with it a bit to make it fit while still giving people a better understanding of what the article is about.
E.g. "Don’t Blame the Babies - Whether or not you have a kid, the fossil fuel industry will still be there"
= 100 chars
And I would be happy to change the title to that, or something else you prefer, if you want.
i try not to editorialize unless it's egregious, honestly, mostly because i find it annoying to have to do that in the first place and also because it's easier to just make a comment about the title most of the time than it is to try and invent a title which better captures whatever the author is going for.
The problem with that is that vast majority of people are not going to read your comment and the current title is practically useless in letting people know what the article is actually about.
p.s. Just the subheading
“Don’t start a family — it’s bad for the planet.” The latest bad take on climate change forgets one little thing: whether or not you have a kid, the fossil fuel industry will still be there.is only 190 chars. Should I switch it to that? It's not editorializing at all, and it does a better job of describing the article contents thanDon't blame the babies, IMO.having already done exactly what i just described a few times, this has not really been my experience, tbh. people on here seem to do just fine if you put a clarifying note on the title as a comment.
That may be true for now... but if Tildes continues to grow, that is not going to scale. Especially since comments on the title and why you chose it are going to get labeled offtopic (for being meta) and so will be sorted below on-topic discussion of the article itself... making them even less likely to be seen. That's precisely why title editing is in place, and users here are allowed to editorialize their titles (within reason) in service to making the title more useful.
i'm trying to kill this discussion but just for the record, i don't really see a reason to preoccupy myself with how this insignificant stylistic choice will work in the future when we're not in that future yet. if it becomes an issue in the future, then i'll cross that bridge, but until then it's whatever.
Fair enough and sorry for annoying you, I was just trying to make a helpful suggestion and explain my reasoning behind it, that's all. But if you don't want to discuss meta stuff I totally understand and so won't bug you about similar things in the future.
That's fair. I'd add though that editorializing, in my opinion, is more specifically when you change the meaning of the title. Conveying the intended meaning as best you can within the limits of the platform seems much more reasonable to me.
It's a far leap from a title like: "Author shares bad opinion with mindless audience". This clearly injects opinion and poisons the well. These sorts of titles have unfortunately taken hold on other social media.
I completely agree and have been saying exactly this for a while. This approach to "personal responsibility" to combat climate change that we've been sold is important, but sometimes damaging. While people should definitely try to reduce consumption, it is the corporations who are in charge of over 70% of climate changing emissions. Blaming people for having kids is just another cynical way of shifting responsibility, while shipping and oil and meat industries do nothing to reduce emissions and governments do little to regulate them.
I've been meaning to put together a thorough debunking for those who think the current population level is sustainable and more growth is fine—and more illogically, why anyone would want more people anyway.
Because it flies in the face of what's causing the problems on the planet, and is a reckless and dangerous virus of an opinion which is, frankly in my opinion, going to lead to the rapid collapse of civilization in the next 100 years.
But more on that from me later.
Like I saw somewhere else, depriving yourself of having children, is in a way depriving the human society from having a next true genius like Einstein. Your children could be the ones that save this planet from climate change, for example. Basically we are depriving ourselves from our reaching our true human potencial. If everyone only has two childs is enough to "replace" the population that dies and eventually it will balance itself out.
All of these stories are only to shift the guilt and responsibility to us.
Corporations make most of the polution, making personal changes doesn't help much if corporations don't change (goverments need to force them, probably). This is exactly the problem with plastics. You can reduce and recycle all the plastic you want but nothing will change if the corporations don't stop selling so much plastic products.