I don’t mean that it is written in contrived manner. I mean that it is vague. There is no context, there is only a clickbait title.

> I mean that it is vague. There is no context, there is only a clickbait title.

If you can't parse the context from the writing, there is no context for you.

It seems like you can’t parse the context of my writing and the problem lies way deeper than your level of English.

Given that your writing supports the notion that he knew exactly why you said what you said, it seems like he can parse the context of your writing just fine.

you are behaving quite patronising to this guy for no reason. He is challenging the premise of the piece and you are telling him he is too stupid to read the piece at all.

Do you not see the irony here? Commenters, too, should be allowed to have bad takes

Challenging the premise of the article based on reading only title while not really understanding the language the title is written on is not actually something praise worthy. If he is a.) not reading article and b.) not understanding normal and common English idiom, then pointing out he should stay away from the discussion is valid.

And that is assuming it is genuine misunderstanding and not, like, typical nerdy "I refuse to actual engage with those idiots from other fields, better just make up something".

I criticize the title because it says something vague piggybacking on the idea of freedom to guilt-trip its readers to support a controversial opinion that has barely anything to do with the title in question. And I can only learn the content by clicking on that clickbait title that provides no information.

Well, if it is common in English to refer to the situation when the public opinion about you is allegedly shaped by your last work as "not allowed to make bad work" than indeed I do not know English on the third level of OECD literacy. But that sounds like a very peculiar trait of English, and a very deep ideological commitment incorporated into the language on a level that I couldn't expect.

> it says something vague piggybacking on the idea of freedom

This is where you are wrong.

It is not based on the idea of freedom. The point of the article, and the title, has nothing to do with whether someone is legally allowed to make bad art, or has some fundamental human rights, that are being infringed on, related to freedom.

Instead, the purpose of the article, and the title, is that because artists are more in the public eye these days, this extra scrutiny on every single piece of work that they do, has anti-creative effects on artists, and this is bad.

The only person who invented a fictional narrative about freedom, was you. The actual point of the title, and the article, was actually pretty obvious though, if you aren't looking for some gotcha.

> that I couldn't expect.

It was actually very easy to understand the article, if you start from the idea of "This article author isn't completely stupid, let me think for a second as to what such a person might be attempting to say, assuming they do not believe the obviously untrue statement that making bad art is illegal".

> Instead, the purpose of the article, and the title, is that because artists are more in the public eye these days, this extra scrutiny on every single piece of work that they do, has anti-creative effects on artists, and this is bad.

So, explain what does any of that has to do with “not being allowed” to do something?

> So, explain what does any of that has to do with “not being allowed"

What it has to do with that, is not that artists are literally prevented by the law from making bad art.

Instead, it is that artists should be able to make bad art, without suffering significant negative consequences from doing so.

So, you should interpret the statement as being "artists must be able to make bad art, without suffering significant negative consequences for doing so"

That is the intent of the title.

This is what "allowed" means in this context.

It means "it must be possible for them to do this, while not suffering significant negative consequences."

And since we both agree that it has nothing to do with freedom, why do you think it is justified to talk about it as "being allowed to"?

> why do you think it is justified

Because by "allowed to" what it means is "to be able to do so, without suffering significant negative consequences."

So, that would be the definition of "allowed to" that is being referred to, which is both true and justified.

Because that is how English language works.