Sorry for my lack o’ updates—as well as all o’ the poetry in crippled Spanish. The bourgeoisie have tampered with my computer so that it becomes overheated with the passion o’ the upcoming sexy revolutions, so I can’t use it as much till I get that fixed.
But I have to discuss a few quality crimes o’ writing I’ve seen recently—recently being, for my slow work, last month:
I.
1st, this will be the last time I discuss Noah Smith’s fine work, but I feel like this synthesizes my commentary on his & Mankiw’s work. Smith recently wrote ’nother article jerking off economics, this time making up some faux-nerdy term to show how valiantly economics has avoided being taken up by the vile left & right. In this case he focuses on our friends, the Austrian-schoolers, ’cause they’re not clever ’nough to hide their biases.
What Smith fails to realize is that that’s simply ’cause nobody wants economics: both the left & the right build populist support by bashing economics, which everyone can agree has failed either by being too left, too right, centrist—whatever ideology one most despises. The point is, we all know economists suck ’cause they’ve done nothing but fail for the past few decades. The only people who defend economists are economists themselves—since they still need an ’scuse for all that phat loot.
Typically, throughout this rant he defends economics purely on the basis that it is purportedly “left-wing”—whatever vapid meaning he grants that empty term. & yet, @ the same time, he argues that mainstream economics has already co-opted Austrian-school ideology. So, ’gain, Smith shows that he doesn’t e’en read his own work or is deliberately trying to mess with his readers’ minds, since none o’ his shit makes sense, yo. Mo’ than likely, he is attempting to do that double-sided self-praise that pundits always do wherein they praise themselves for being successful in the mainstream while also pitying themselves for not being completely successful. You may recognize it as the same rhetoric Forbes used when they tried to show that capitalism was both triumphant & nonexistent, ’cause everything’s socialist now. It’s a universal technique, as it’s important to make one’s disciples feel urgent ’nough to act gainst a powerful threat while not discouraging them.
The truth is that, as the study that Smith misinterprets shows, economists are biased in favor o’ centrism, ’cause that’s the least controversial, & thus the 1 that’s most likely to make them appear smart to the most people, since everyone only thinks those who already agree with them are smart. If economists are starting to turn leftward, it’s only ’cause that’s what the media’s already turning toward. Notably, Smith can’t ’splain why economists are now turning leftward, other than that it’s what the hip people do, since that seems to be what Smith considers to be most important. For instance, his criticism for Post-Keynesians in his li’l bestiary is purely based on their not agreeing with him, without ’splaining why they—or anyone—should.
But the problem with economists like Smith has nothing to do with them being “mainstream” or “left-wing” or “right-wing”; their problem is something probably far mo’ heartbreaking to pseudonerds like Smith: that they’re just plain dumb. We can see this by the childish rhetorical games that Smith—as well as e’en mo’ respected economists, like Mankiw—use that wouldn’t e’en pass a freshman logic class.
I also love his parting sentence, which shows the kind o’ mental cancer economists must harbor:
Econ’s relatively strong resistance to political sci-jacking is not inconsistent with its recent leftward turn.
See, there’s a huge difference ’tween an “objective science” twisting coincidentally with the media’s tide o’ political views & the vulgar public media twisting economics toward their views—namely that economists still have their privileged & paid status in the former.
II.
Speaking o’ dumb, let’s take ’nother gander @ 1 o’ the many churches o’ America’s other mindless theology, vapid positivity, & read an article from Careerealism. In this case we have ’nother #’d list for tips on how to defeat one’s fears o’ failure. Who wants to bet none o’ the tips are useful & are, in fact, meaninglessly abstract &/or logically impossible?
We can see that this article’s writer has perfected the craft o’ terrible writing by her logical blunders right @ the 1st paragraph (after a photo representing the trite metaphor o’ a boxer—’cause nobody on the internet has a speck o’ creativity anymo’):
Everyone fears failure, especially as adults. Think about it: As a kid, you made mistakes and you had some failures. So, naturally, as an adult, you don’t want to experience those negative feelings associated with failing again.
Wait: so adults ’specially fear failure ’cause… they hated failure when they were kids? Then logically, kids fear failure just as much, if not mo’. Granted, I would agree that adults would logically fear failure mo’, since they usually don’t have nearly as strong a safety net as kids; but mentioning that would be authentic realism, so, ’course, nary a word is typed on that issue.
The 2nd paragraph uses the website’s own CEO as a source. By this point I think calling capitalism “prostitutionalism” would be just as accurate.
Clearly these go from best to worst, ’cause the 1st is a hoot:
Get a piece of paper and list everything you’re afraid of in your life and career. Are you afraid of failing, having people laugh at you, or having people judge you? No matter what it is you’re afraid of, write it down, and get it out there.
Here’s the fun part: Once you’ve written down all of those fears, crumple up that piece of paper and throw it away!
1st tip: act like a 4-year-ol’. Yes, that’ll show all those villainous fears!
I don’t know if I should be disturbed if this advice involves violence, e’en gainst inanimate objects, or glad that it advises fearful Americans to commit violence gainst inanimate objects, ’stead o’ just lower-class people, as is their custom.
Actually, if the advice were, “Shoot that sonoabitch crumpled paper! Show ’em whose boss!” that’d be hilariously badass. It’d be like that skit with Elmer Fudd shooting the baseball. You missed an ample opportunity as always, Careerealism.
The 2nd tip is either redundant or illogical; I can’t tell ’cause Careerealism’s writers use vague diction like “own,” ’cause they’re shitty writers. If it means, “admit you have fears,” then it’s redundant, ’cause the only reason someone would be reading this article—’less they’re like me & enjoy visiting the Menckenian zoo—is ’cause they’ve already admitted that they have fears. If that’s not what it means, then I have no idea what it’s s’posed to mean—& I have a sense that its writer doesn’t, either.
The 3rd advice is also vague, as well as filled with obnoxious emphasis using all-caps. “Do something!” has always been the rallying cry o’ the vapid middle-class who want to feel wise without putting in any effort—middle-class people being utterly unaccustomed to putting effort into anything.
OK, the 4th tip is literally, “Control What You Can Control.” Now we’re breaking into Poe’s Law. You don’t need to tell Americans to control as much as they can—those power-hungry narcissists want to control everything they possibly can. Better advice would be to tell Americans to stop trying to control things for once—well, ’cept that they wouldn’t listen, ’cause it wouldn’t be in their interests.
Footnotes:
