It’s quite common - in the UK at least - to say things like “It’s deceptively cold outside.” When the weather is cooler than it looks. Clearly we are not saying “The weather is not intentionally deceiving us.” Because that would imply sentience in something that isn’t. The same logic applies with this title as well.
I don’t really buy your argument. First, your example is contextually different: weather is natural and lacks agency. Second, you used the adverb form which has a different implication.
The title is not “...and a deceptively simple image.” If it we’re, we would probably not be having this discussion.
I think you’ve missed the point. By using the adverb-adjective form it removes agency and no longer has the negative connotations. Your example is inapt, not because it isn’t identical but because it is very different.
In any case, implying one thing even though it can literally mean another thing is standard clickbait fair.
I got your point and said it’s irrelevant nitpicking that completely ignores the definition I linked to in my first post.
Sure, it might be a bit clickbaity but this trend of “I didn’t bother to read the article so I’m going to bitch and moan about the title instead” I’ve seen on HN is way worse than the title in question.
I think you should look at your definition again, because I did not ignore it. In the example given by the dictionary for your prefered definition, they use the word to modify an adjectivized object. Although written in a different form, it is functionally equivalent to the form adverb-adjective object of the example you gave (i.e. "a deceptively curved line"). Hence, this is not 'irrelevant nitpicking' but attention to details that make your argument at best unconvincing.
To me, irrelevant nitpicking would be offering a secondary definition which is demonstrably not the definition the author or the majority of readers are using and which only applies under different context.
Sure, it might be a bit clickbaity but this trend of “I didn’t bother to read the article so I’m going to bitch and moan about the title instead” I’ve seen on HN is way worse than the title in question.
The OP indicated he had read the article and was objecting because the title did not match the content. If a reader has to perform grammatical gymnastics to make a title fit, it is at best poor writing and at worst deceptive.
The fact that you concede the title can be read that way - even if it is begrudgingly - means your post is entirely made up of nitpicking and mental gymnastics (as you put it). Which means you’re being just as deceptive as the title you’re complaining about
Comments
One of the definitions but not the only one.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/deceptive
It’s quite common - in the UK at least - to say things like “It’s deceptively cold outside.” When the weather is cooler than it looks. Clearly we are not saying “The weather is not intentionally deceiving us.” Because that would imply sentience in something that isn’t. The same logic applies with this title as well.
I don’t really buy your argument. First, your example is contextually different: weather is natural and lacks agency. Second, you used the adverb form which has a different implication.
The title is not “...and a deceptively simple image.” If it we’re, we would probably not be having this discussion.
That’s why it’s an example for comparison rather than a literally the same sentence repeated ;)
You can apply the death by a thousand paper cut method of debate if you like but that doesn’t change the definition I also referenced.
The fact is the title doesn’t have to mean intention even if that’s the meaning you chose to read in it.
I think you’ve missed the point. By using the adverb-adjective form it removes agency and no longer has the negative connotations. Your example is inapt, not because it isn’t identical but because it is very different.
In any case, implying one thing even though it can literally mean another thing is standard clickbait fair.
I got your point and said it’s irrelevant nitpicking that completely ignores the definition I linked to in my first post.
Sure, it might be a bit clickbaity but this trend of “I didn’t bother to read the article so I’m going to bitch and moan about the title instead” I’ve seen on HN is way worse than the title in question.
I think you should look at your definition again, because I did not ignore it. In the example given by the dictionary for your prefered definition, they use the word to modify an adjectivized object. Although written in a different form, it is functionally equivalent to the form adverb-adjective object of the example you gave (i.e. "a deceptively curved line"). Hence, this is not 'irrelevant nitpicking' but attention to details that make your argument at best unconvincing.
To me, irrelevant nitpicking would be offering a secondary definition which is demonstrably not the definition the author or the majority of readers are using and which only applies under different context.
The OP indicated he had read the article and was objecting because the title did not match the content. If a reader has to perform grammatical gymnastics to make a title fit, it is at best poor writing and at worst deceptive.
Cheers
The fact that you concede the title can be read that way - even if it is begrudgingly - means your post is entirely made up of nitpicking and mental gymnastics (as you put it). Which means you’re being just as deceptive as the title you’re complaining about