I do that too. Seems to work really well with some sources like Wapo, not at all with others. I just tried with that Atlantic article and couldn’t find one. If there’s a “you’ve used up your free articles” mechanism in use, I’ll just open the article in a private browser window so the cookie is defeated; that used to work with the Atlantic, but no longer.
All I know is whenever I hear conservative business owners whine about a lack of enthusiastic minimum wage laborers, I think about how much I admire their self -reliance.
Sorry, I really think that this is on the OP rather than on Sam. You had a brief comment that you wanted to start a discussion on the Dangers of self reliance mentioning Horacio Alger and boot straps and then linking to an article that nobody but a select few can read.
This leaves it to the rest of us to interpret the question of what it means to “over emphasize self reliance” on our own, and Sam provided his interpretation. If that wasn’t what you wanted because there were specific arguments made in the article that you want to discuss you need to make them available in the OP.
Not sure if you were using the hypothetical “you” but I was not the OP.
Sam could have asked for a summary, rather than going in assuming the worst and going on a rant against moochers.
Yeah well, Sam could do a lot of things differently. But then there wouldn’t be a Pit thread covering the years upon years of assholish behavior.
But that wouldn’t be the Sam we know and… , that we know.
My apologies, Somehow I got the impression that you were (it may have been that you both had grey icons). My mistake.
That doesn’t sound very self-reliant.
Agree with both of the above. I will also say in passing that I never cease to be amazed at the pile-on hostility that is constantly directed against Sam, and no, “he just brings it on himself” doesn’t cut it. It’s way out of proportion, and this is an example. When an article isn’t publicly accessible and one only has a preview of it to go on, it may or may not be appropriate to comment on it, but I don’t see it justifying a major shit-storm in the Pit. Just MHO.
Hey, I’m no saint. I’ve done my share of pittings. Off the top of my head, that insufferable pompous fuck SamuelA who had a solution to all problems (usually involving nanobots) and bragged about engaging in sex tourism as a hobby, was one of the most annoying. But I’m not seeing the basis of the extreme hostility here. Sure, Sam is far-right, but he’s also a pretty informed poster on most non-political subjects.
First, this isn’t a shitstorm.
Second, I think it’s because it comes on the heels of his posting on another article that he didn’t read, which turned out to be an Onion piece.
I mean, if I started a thread asking, in general, what do you all think about self-reliance, his answer would be totally appropriate. However, I’m led to believe that this article is a lot more nuanced than that and jumping in as the first post to say that he hasn’t read the article, but here’s why society blows because of all the reliance, seems just too on-brand.
Then bragging about how ‘’‘self reliant’‘’ he is because he’s bought a bunch of stuff.
Then attempting to downplay the fact that he defended Elon Musk from an Onion piece.
Anyway, I’m not trying to revive that pile-on, just explaining why that new post is getting attention – he just got done getting past the last bunch of posts cause by him not reading a link and commenting anyway.
Just saying this thread would be much shorter if he’d stop doubling, tripling, quadrupling, etc., down.
The reason why people pile on Sam is that he never reads past the headline of an article. He frequently supports his arguments with articles that actually disprove what he’s saying, and he’ll admit that he didn’t actually read what was in it. So no, Sam does not get any sympathy or the benefit of the doubt in this case. Because it doesn’t matter if the article is paywalled or not, Sam’s actions would have been the same either way. Don’t read the article, respond to the headline, and ignorantly argue a straw man. History shows that is his modus operandi. Unless we are supposed to believe that this would have been the one time he actually would have read the article and made an intelligent response to it.
And that one time, Lucy would totally have let Charlie Brown actually kick the football if her wrist wasn’t so sore.
This. The only difference the article being paywalled actually makes in this case is that it is immediately obvious that Sam is responding to something he didn’t actually read.
An exchange I had with him last month in an EV thread, starts off with him making a claim that “Prices have risen dramatically (except for Tesla)”.
Someone replied “What EV prices have been rising dramatically?”
He posted a whole big dump of cites, one said, in the preview, “After dramatically lowering the price of the redesigned electric Chevy Bolt last year, GM is changing course and boosting the price”.
I read that one and mentioned to him that it…
“…is about a $600-$900 increase in the price just a few months after a $6000 reduction. I think you’re still coming out ahead on that one.”
His reply was “Yes, the Bolt had a price reduction, but is now increasing. You found one of the three cars (Tesla Model 3 and Ford Mustang-E being the others) that have come down in price in the last year.”
Not only did he clearly not read past the headline (or even the preview), he didn’t even recognize his own cite. He thought his own cite, that he used to back up something he claimed, was counter example that I came up with.
I don’t think it is the end of the world to respond with your views on a paywalled article if you cannot read it. And at least he did specify that he had not read it. That’s probably what I would do if I wanted to participate (although I’d try to find the equivalent information elsewhere if possible). Just my two copper pieces.
In the abstract, no.
But in the specific, there are some red flags
This is a poster known for not only failing to actually read articles before commenting on them, but a poster that is known for misrepresenting their own cited articles (probably having read just the headlines and making assumptions)
It was the first response in a thread. Most of us would probably participate by noting the paywall and seeking clarification instead of shooting off the hip. And if none were forthcoming, only then jumping in with our own thoughts.
And most of us would actually note that we were responding with some given assumptions instead of making those assumptions and basing our responses on whatever fever dreams we were having.
For most posters, I’d give a quite a bit of benefit of the doubt that they were posting in good faith if they were doing the best with limited information. But not for a poster who either doesn’t know or doesn’t care about the contents of articles they use themselves or are cited in others’ posts.
No, not end of the world, but akin to having just one wee drink. That’s fine for most people but not for a known alcoholic.