web.archive.org (no paywall)
Every summer I repost this article on how to spot drowning. Please read it and pass on. In the last few years I’ve had SIX messages from people who saved a kid’s life after clicking on the link from my feed.
web.archive.org (no paywall)
Every summer I repost this article on how to spot drowning. Please read it and pass on. In the last few years I’ve had SIX messages from people who saved a kid’s life after clicking on the link from my feed.
Drowning 100% looks like drowning. The problem is that people dont know what drowning looks like. Including myself.
Going to repeat Glemek because you’ve received a shocking number of upvotes.
The point is that people who haven’t seen someone drown, may not know what drowning looks like, with the exception of media depictions.
The title and headline communicate the point effectively which draws out the semantics sadists such as yourself.
There, fixed that for you.
Drowning does not look like the splashing depictions in media. So that’s not an exception. Because that’s not what drowning looks like.
Way to prove the headline communicates it effectively when you just made that exact mistake.
I didn’t make a mistake. I understood the intent. You decided it was a mistake because you like playing with semantics. You’re a semantichist (hah! See what I did there?)
They chose a headline that catches attention, and it bothered you enough to warrant your attention too. Effective. Communication. The words that were chosen had the intended effect.
Drowning (actual) doesn’t look like drowning (common cultural depictions)
Yes, headline is stupid. Author should be set on fire.
And then drowned.
being set on fire doesn’t look like what you think
especially with methanol.
yeah but you should know that burning doesn’t look like burning!
Or be left to drown?
Both? Hm, no