It turns out the CEO o’ everyone’s favorite church o’ happyology, Careerealism, isn’t done innovating in the industry o’ making money off her own inanity. She wrote an article wherein she promises to give you the juicy secrets that nobody else knows that’ll totally ensure you’re successful, just call this # this hour, on why 80% o’ jobs are gotten through handjobbing networking (her answer isn’t “capitalism is a cronyist landfill,” so we know she’s far off the circuit). ‘Course, the true reason she wrote this article, as is obvious by anyone who reads it, is to peddle some pseudoscientific psychoanalysis bullshit that bourgeoise twits eat up like honeyed turkeys; you know, like that Myers-Briggs test that everyone uses to talk ’bout what awesome “Introverted Thinkers” they are, or that A vs. B personality nonsense. In this case it’s the “career decoder,” which gives you a simple quiz & through that quiz guesses what your occupational zodiac sign is. ¿Are you a “Visionary,” a “Builder,” a “Superconnector,” or a “Warrior”? So basically, it has the sophistication o’ those simple JavaScript quizzes fanboys & fangirls make round their favorite franchises on a lazy afternoon, like “¿Which Avatar the Airbender character are you?”

For a laugh, I took the quiz & was impressed by the way it fell below my already-low standards. Clearly I should apologize to katarastar2267 for slandering her Avatar quiz so. See, every question is just “¿Which would you prefer?” & gives 2 answers utterly irrelevant to each other, like “Use storytelling to explain an idea” & “Reconfigure the office layout.” Note that I tried this quiz multiple times & can confirm that, though the answer pairs are reordered each time, the pairs themselves are the same (same answers put with the same other answers).

The answers also were creative with grammar, which truly added to the forunte-cookie [edit: not to be confused with boring-ol’ “fortune cookies.” ] Tsen—not to be confused with authentic Zen; this is the mentally-lazy knock-off westerners love to spew—flavor, including missing articles (I think she might’ve plagiarized “create strategy to save time and money on an internal process” from that ol’ man from The Legend of Zelda) & creative use o’ the verb “execute”: “Create and execute on a company plan.”

For those curious, my highest sign was “Builder,” with “Educator” not far ‘hind. Since nobody with their head screwed on would e’er let me be a teacher for anyone, we can confirm that this quiz is bullshit. & I’m a bearded commie; ¿don’t they know we don’t build anything, but only destroy things out o’ our jealousy for people like John Galt & Donald Trump? ¿Have they ne’er read Ayn Rand? Plus, the quiz ne’er told me if I’d meet my soulmate today or if I should expect happy moments in the near future.

This was, ‘course, after they made me give them my name & email, which they certainly won’t use to send me spam & give to identity collectors, no sire. Unfortunately, they weren’t sophisticated ‘nough to actually check if the email is valid. Ne’ertheless, I must apologize to Leon Trotsky @ [email protected] for using his identity without asking. I hope he understands that this was for science, & not my own selfish, bourgeoise interest (for the latter I signed him up for some Misesian think tank’s newsletter spam).

¿What was your si—¿You actually took that quiz? ¿What the hell is wrong with you? ¿Have you no dignity? Let me know in the comments below.

This article truly exists & yet I still disbelieve its existence. I almost posted this on September 11, ’cause it’s that much o’ a god damn disaster, but then I needed mo’ time to collect my thoughts so that this wasn’t a rambling mess (it probably still is, though).

The writers o’ 1st Web Design seem to be the kind o’ amusing bunch who have a li’l cute knowledge o’ web design—HTML, CSS, & how to buy already-made WordPress themes so that their websites look just like a’least a dozen others—but want to think o’ themselves as experts in web design. They do this the way all narcissistic dolts do: they simply call anything that requires actual thought not important & ‘stead emphasize abstract, motivational pap that doesn’t actually mean anything. Nor do they e’er defend this pap logically; they simply assert it with that obnoxious business-street style that fans o’ Shark Tank love—’gain, people who like to pretend they’re smart without having any actual smarts, since actually smart people know that logic & evidence, not boisterous language, makes smart ideas.

I don’t know where to start with this article, since I’m not sure what parts actually count. ¿Should I include the 1st paragraph that oddly has larger text than all o’ the rest & spews nothing but fortune-cookie filler in almost English?

¿Should I start with the 1st regular-size paragraph & its own e’en-mo’-bizarre psalm?

For me this 2015 is the chance to be foolish again after being bruised by business failures (lessons).

¿So the author’s admitting that they’re fools & failures? ¿Then what makes them qualified to teach me? ¿’Cause they’re learning “lessons” from their failures? Based on that logic, then every homeless person & every dead-end worker should be qualified to write this. ¿Why aren’t I reading their work ‘stead? (That’s an authentic question I’m asking myself now.)

They then go on to quote ‘nother bizarre quote, this time from Steve Jobs—the go to guru for people who like the style o’ profundity, but don’t want to go through the tedium o’ the substance:

“Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish.”

See, it’s profound ’cause it’s vague ‘nough to have multiple meanings, making it useless as actual advice since it’s impossible to e’en confirm what the advice is. ¿Is it asking the reader to both stay hungry & stay foolish or saying that staying hungry makes one stay foolish? Think o’ all the wonderful mysteries we would lose if Steve Jobs bothered to use proper English.

¿What relevance does this have to which programming language I should learn? Nothing.

But we do get to learn some fascinating insights into 1st Web Designer’s work:

As you have noticed here at 1stWebDesigner, we don’t go into teaching hardcore programming or anywhere deep in graphic design (but we care a lot about converting and usable websites).

“As you know, we don’t teach anything that’s actually useful—we let the other sites do that.” It is good to see that they care a lot ’bout what sounds like the middle-aged yuppie version o’ some drug fetish & usability—despite having li’l discussion o’ how to implement the latter.

However, we have noticed the main reason why most web designers don’t succeed is because they fail to see their freelance web design venture as a business. They think that if they learn good skills and the right web programming languages, clients will come magically.

Part o’ me wants to say “Please elaborate on this bald assertion,” but the other part o’ me wants to say, “¿Why are you saying all o’ this in an article based on learning programming languages? ¿Is this article actually trolling me by giving me something completely different from advertised?

Consider this – Most people despise salesmen, most especially a used car salesman. A lot of people always cast them in a bad light – opportunists.

That’s probably ’cause they’re ‘mong the top o’ the list o’ occupations most likely to be filled by sociopaths—probably on account o’ involving all o’ that opportunism. Kind o’ like the ugly opportunism 1st Web Designer used by giving this article a name that’s irrelevant with its actual content, also known as “false advertising,” also known as “lying,” also know as that thing that shitty people do. That’s why you’re looked @ as shitty people: ’cause you’re shitty people.

But why do you think sales people often get paid the most in the company?

‘Cause they’re sociopathic opportunists. Asking why the person who screws other people to help themselves succeeds is like asking why the cat beats the mouse. The very definition o’ success is getting mo’ for oneself than others. Obviously the best way to get mo’ customers than other businesses would be to get mo’ customers for oneself & less for the others; obviously the best way to get mo’ money is to get mo’ money from customers & put in less o’ one’s own resources, whereas customers want mo’ money for themselves & mo’ quality, which requires mo’ resources from the company. See, that’s kind o’ how this “competition” thing works.

Your entire company should be considered your branding department.

1st Web Designer clearly supports such antisocial behavior, since they believe that content creation should be almost entirely—this quote says entirely—subsumed by propaganda (“marketing” in business terms). Essentially, they support selling shit as if ’twere gold. If they’re surprised by why people may find this antisocial, annoying, & just bad in general, they’re clearly deluded. Yes, shake our fists @ those mean ol’ jealous consumers ’cause they happen to not like people who admit that they care ’bout nothing but taking as much as they can from them without e’en bothering to develop the skills to create content that is actually worth money.

See, smart businesses don’t say this shit out-loud ’cause they know it’ll piss off customers if they do so, & that might cause them to lose said customers. ¿How can 1st Web Designer claim to have the business finesse to get customers when they themselves outright say aloud how li’l they respect their customers that they’re willing to cut corners as much as possible? It’s clear from this article that 1st Web Designer would be a shitty business to buy products from.

In short, this article is the worst advertisement e’er.

The writer goes on to talk ’bout obvious shit like how businesses need to think ’bout how they spend their money (‘Less one’s a sheltered rich person, every adult needs to think ’bout finances. That’s like saying one needs to eat to stay ‘live) & hypocritical shit ’bout needing to “stand out from the crowd” from a site that uses the same template as Web Design Depot¹ & uses phrases like “stand out from the crowd.”

& we’re still not talking ’bout which programming language I should use. In fact, this article’s content clearly hints that the writers consider such a question superfluous. I can’t emphasize how corrupt &/or incompetent they are.

¡& how pleased I am to have run into this article after searching for something else entirely on Google! For as much as Google brags ’bout their wonderful search algorithms & how they penalize keyword abuse, they sure don’t punish cocksuckers like these sites ‘nough, since they’re still playing the system. See, this is why I hate these websites so much. One can’t say that I just shouldn’t read them, ’cause they truly get in the way o’ my ability to find useful content. My life would literally be better if this site ne’er existed.

So to answer 1st Web Designer, this is why people hate salespeople like you: the same reason they hate mosquitoes. Please exterminate this shitty website & do something mo’ productive. Surely you guys have some valuable skills–¿like holding road signs, maybe?

& enough with the superfluous images filled with cheap icon clipart you ripped off from some free clipart site. ‘Cause nothing says “professional” like cheap art I’ve seen a million times already. Way to “stand out.”

They continue to not talk ’bout what programming language I should use or programming @ all for paragraphs, but they do harken back to classic RPGs by spelling the strengths o’ smaller web agencies (¿who cares?) in all-caps.

I also find it strange that they assume small businesses are faster than larger ones, despite the larger ones having mo’ people, & thus are able to better divide the work. Maybe they think web design companies operate by the square-cube law.

It’s your opportunity and if you are true professional, you love what you do and you love to do the work you are proud of.

I would describe professional work as work that isn’t shitty, personally. “I don’t care whether my website works well or not, ¡but I demand you squeel with glee as you’re making it!”

You can just ask a friend or a contractor to help out with the things that aren’t your expertise. The key, however, is still the fact that you can move forward fast.

¡Just mooch off others! ¡Exploit! ¡Exploit! Just so long as you get their money now, it doesn’t matter how many people you fuck o’er & piss off.

I guess they truly do take after Steve Jobs.

(Laughs.) Under “be personal”:

You know you are awesome and you will do everything to please the client and willingly take the extra mile to satisfy him.

Finally someone cut to the fucking chase ’bout what this is all ’bout: jerking people off.

Clients love speed, quick turnover, and they love to see their agencies #deliver. Are you one of these agencies?

No ’cause I prefer to actually do work rather than dick round with insipid hash tags on Twitter. & I think clients also like their work not half-assed, too.

What technologies, programming languages to use?

¡O, fuck! ¡Finally we’ve gotten to the actual point o’ the article! ¡& Only half a page in! Great job: you’d fail a fucking middle school essay assignment.

I love how 1 o’ the most popular questions for them is “How do I learn web design?” Indeed, ¿What is this studying concept I’ve heard so much ’bout? I hear it oft involves books & such.

Their answer’s rather stupid:

You always want to find the next great tool or the shiny app of a new programming language that will help you have a competitive edge in the web industry and show that you are true ambassador of new technologies.

This is unfortunate for those who have higher goals—becoming the Prime Minister o’ New Technologies, for instance. For once they make it sound harder than it is, having to learn new programming languages all the time. I don’t e’en think they make new programming languages that oft.

Ruby on Rails web application framework, Ghost, Craft content management system built with PHP and C, Java, C++ for mobile app creation are super trendy right now.

“Look @ me totally name-check all these new trends like the hip-hopping turtle’s PJs that I am.”

Yeah, all the kiddies nowadays are building websites with C & C++. Perchance, ¿are those examples o’ the “new programming languages” they spoke ’bout earlier? ¿Couldn’t these whippersnappers suffice with websites build with good ol’ COBOL? (Yes, I’m sure there are real websites made with COBOL. Shut up.)

Do you want to spent countless hours coding and designing, or you want to run a web design business?

“¿Do you want to do productive work or just lazily leech off others?” This is, indeed, a mutually-exclusive dichotomy: I’m glad that 1st Web Designer let me in on the secret that no business e’er does coding or design or any o’ that shit the vulgar masses do.

There is nothing wrong with being a hardcore programmer or true artist, but we are here to educate you about having a bigger impact, scaling, and helping clients to create a CONVERTING website.

“There’s nothing wrong with programmers or artists, but they’re just not as cool as our hip converts.”

Still, I’m happy to see a reference to my favorite TM from Pokémon Red, Blue, & Yellow, “CONVERTING”; I always teach it to my Blastoise just before I fight Sabrina. That, added with the random all-caps, is borderline Engrish by, I’m sure, someone for whom English is a 1st language. That’s an accomplishment. ¿Is the website still converting (¿Converting what? ¿Itself?) after it’s already been made? ¿Wouldn’t “converted website” make mo’ sense? Actually, ¿wouldn’t a phrase that actually means something concretely make e’en mo’ sense?

Unfortunately, they still haven’t actually educated me on what I’m sure are immensely arduous skills to learn & not made-up bullshit to hide the fact that they are clueless.

Programmers will solve technological issues and designers will make everything pretty but a 1st Web Designer will know the basics of programming and designing but will look beyond that by helping clients create an effective, converting website.

A “1st Web Designer” is apparently a member o’ their Kool-Aid cult.

I’m glad to see that Programmers only solve the issues that exist in programs that were apparently handed down to the world by the Flying Spaghetti Monster & that designers just “make everything pretty.” Members o’ their cult, however, don’t bother with such frivolous brainy shit—brainy if one thinks multiplication tables are confusing—but look “beyond” such pedestrian nonsense & actually create the websites, presumably from sticks & hay, since obviously programming & design have nothing to do with it.

¿Why was it “CONVERTING” before, but now just regular ol’ “converting”? I’ve ne’er heard o’ a term that loses power as it’s used.

¡Ha, ha, ha! ¡Not only is their next picture mo’ arbitrary bullshit spewed by some random nobody, the comment under it doesn’t e’en get it right! “Duh, coding, design—they’re the same thing basically.”

What does creating a converting website means?

I’m glad to see them describing this term after already using it 3 times. Clearly 1st Web Designer are using postmodern chronology, which only makes their articles richer ‘pon a 2nd reading.

It means you know about internet marketing. You know about A/B testing. You know what drives sales, how to set up a mailing list, and you how to create a landing page that is beautiful as well as converts visitors to sales. [emphasis mine.]

It’s good to see that the difference ‘tween members o’ 1st Web Designer’s cult & boring ol’ programmers is figuring out how to test & send emails–which clearly no programmer could figure out.

Sadly, I’m not as capable: I don’t e’en know how someone would “how” creating a landing page, much less how to do it myself. In fact, my linguistically-inferior mind didn’t e’en know “how” could be used as a verb.

I know it’s petty o’ me—& I am petty—but this is the kind o’ shit my mind focuses on when I read dreck like this. & I can’t just read something else, ’cause I’m ‘fraid o’ what worse I’ll find back in that Google search. I ought to just say, “Fuck it: I’ll just stick with PHP. Whatever.” PHP’s inconsistent & vague data types are nothing compared to trudging through the wasteland o’ vague & trite buzzwords—& I’m not e’en good @ programming.

You will not let technology stand in your way.

You will break the laws o’ physics. “I don’t care if you can’t handle a quadrillion animated GIFs o’ my cat, Patches, server—¡you’re fucking doing it!”

It must be fun to be so deluded as to think one’s magic mind beams o’ optimism can surpass any o’ those nerdy technological & design concerns. Such can only come from one who is so pampered & sheltered from mean ol’ reality by invisible servants. This is why such boisterous clowns who bark ’bout only results mattering–the scientific equivalent o’ saying that only conclusions matter, not the facts on which they ordinarily rely–are not savvy, but irrational. It’s no wonder the US’s economy’s so shitty when people so unreasonable as to refuse to acknowledge objective reality are idolized as the ideal businesspeople.

Your client won’t be technologically smart and that’s why he needs you.

¿Why? We’ve already established that neither the target audience nor the writers themselves have any technological knowledge, either. Here’s how I’d imagine the conversation going:

“Duh, ¿can you program the WordPress in Visual Basic? I could make some pretty nifty programs using my Nintendo when I was 17.”

“Duh… OK… ¡So long as it’s effective, efficient, converting, energizing, & #getstheshitdoneson!”

“Duh… ¿What’s any o’ that mean?”

“It means you understand what makes a website that leaves an impact.”

“Duh… ¿What’s that mean?”

We must end this conversation prematurely or else risk crashing your browser due to a memory shortage caused by an endless loop.

However, your selling points aren’t – “I will apply the latest web design trends, use Ruby on Rails, and create a responsive great looking website for you!”

Well, I’d hope so. The last thing I’d want are grammatically-incorrect selling points.

But a’least they’re classy ‘nough to use both the English & Spanish forms o’ quotation.

Your selling point is to understand why the client is hiring you, what results he is looking for and then, deliver him the results with your skills.

Marketing Bimbo Golden Rule: spew too-dumb-to-live-obvious broad statements as if ‘splaining the ingredients for the potion o’ youth. ¡Woah! ¡Hold on now! You’re telling me that when someone hires me to do something for them… ¿I should do the thing they want me to do? No wonder I ne’er succeeded: when my client asked me to design a website for them, I’d always just give them sheets o’ paper that talked ’bout what an awesome website is ‘stead o’ doing all that gross programming & design they wanted me to do—¡Ugh!

& it’s good to see that programmers & regular web designers are apparently too dumb to understand clients telling them what they want in English. It’s a good thing that 1st Web Designer is elaborating on all o’ these occult skills & not just spewing forth empty, arrogant disses gainst professions that have actually proven themselves to have skills that actually exist. ¿Where would they find the time to do so when they’re too busy regurgitating the same empty phrases o’er & o’er ‘gain till I want to bash my skull in?

You might not use the sexiest JavaScript plugin…

¡Augh! ¿You mean I have to fuck FuckItJS ‘stead o’ Grunt? ¡Gross!

Your client just wants results and he wants them fast. He doesn’t care how they are achieved.

“Since your client’s too stupid to know what good or bad web design is, just cut corners as much as possible & flee with the phat loot before they find out that that table o’ product info was just a PNG you put in the middle o’ the page.”

We are proposing you a world of delegation, automation with great tools, so you can focus on solving difficult problems by using your designers and business knowledge. This is the way of a professional. This is the principle we embrace.

[Note: in the original article, “great tools” was a link to 1 o’ their own articles that opened in a new window, ’cause ‘course 1st Web Designer are those kind o’ assholes.]

Nothing’s mo’ professional than basing a client’s branding on a template already used by many, just as how professional businesses always just get their logos from clipart websites. I’m glad to see that they’ll help me “stand out from the crowd” by not putting any individual thought into my site’s programming or design, but will ‘stead just “delegate” & use “automation” for everything. They’ve certainly solved the “difficult problems” o’ how they can get paid without doing any work.

Despite my low standards, I think I’m going to skip the shilling o’ some vapid business cronies I care nothing ’bout. I ate too recently to watch the marketing equivalent o’ Super Hornio Bros.

After all o’ that—& it goes on fore’er—they ‘splain how one should learn the basics so they can figure out how to hire other people to actually do the work. That this already requires quite a lot o’ money is ne’er mentioned as a particular problem for our “1st Web Designer.” Presumably, our “1st Web Designer” must be born to a rich family willing to shell out so much money to start a whole business or have already earned money from different work for a’least a couple years. That or you rack up loans & hope you don’t fail—immensely responsible advice to give to inexperienced people.

So they finally get to the list o’ programming languages you should use & only 1.5 out o’ the 4 given @ best are actually programming languages. HTML could hardly be considered “programming” language; as its name indicates, it’s a hypertext, content language. It has no logic, just premade markup. CSS is a gray area: it does have some minimal cascading logic to it, & is beginning to come closer to programming with the introduction o’ variables, as well as the additions SASS & LESS add. WordPress is a content management system that can heavily be changed through the actual programming language that is PHP (¿Why isn’t it mentioned?), but is not a language in itself any mo’ than Mad Libs is a language ’cause it allows you to play round with English words & sentences to theoretically infinite levels.

But the platinum-seller is the 1st entry:

Adobe Photoshop for web design creation

I had to stop & think for a few minutes ’cause I couldn’t e’en think o’ what to say. I still can’t believe this was typed. This makes this writer fall from merely vapid ditziness to outright coma-level vegetable-mindedness. E’en my grandmother who only uses her computer to surf the internet & play Solitaire knows that Photoshop isn’t a god damn programming language. That’s ’bout as accurate as calling Tetris a programming langauge. ¡Super Mario World is mo’ a programming language than fucking Photoshop!

¿& who designs websites with Photoshop? I think you technically can using some obscure feature, but it’s certain to be e’en shittier than the puke spewed from those ol’ “Jimmy’s 1st Make Me a Website” disks that came in cereal boxes. ¿Do they mean planning how the website will look when it’s actually designed? E’en then just dicking round in Photoshop wouldn’t be sufficient. You still need to know what you can do & how you plan to do it & how different screen sizes or interactions will effect it. It’d be specially bad if one uses WordPress themes, since one—probably, since there’s no mention o’ PHP, which is a vital part o’ all themes—isn’t expected to actually look @ the theme’s code & therefore figure out how much one can change without changing the source code.

You will become irreplaceable. It is true that clients can find another good designer or programmer much easier but they will have difficulty finding a professional who understands what they need and will create a converting website.

What laughable arrogance coming from someone dumber ’bout the internet than an infant. Yes, it’s much harder to find people with concrete abilities than it is to find people with skills that are abstract meaninglessness—including the skill to plan to do something in the future. As for knowing what clients need: if the client needs a website @ all, then they’ll need it to fucking work, which means that one needs the concrete skills to ensure it works; I’d think that the people with knowledge o’ the technology ‘hind how websites work would have a greater understanding o’ what the client needs than knowing how to hire other people to do the work. If clients are smart ‘nough to figure out how to hire some douche who just hires other people, they should be smart ‘nough to just hire the people who actually know how to do the work themselves. This is ‘specially the case if the “professional” makes themselves look as unprofessional & incompetent as these guys. ¿Would you trust someone dumb ‘nough to think Photoshop is a programming language, cheap ‘nough to rely on templates & free clipart, & callous ‘nough to pooh-pooh the objective reality o’ how technology works in favor o’ empty rhetoric that literally doesn’t exist except as noises from their lips to know how to make sure your website works? I sure as fuck wouldn’t. I’d trust my 7-year-ol’ nephew to make me a website before I’d trust these hacks.

It’s ironic that 1st Web Designer would have the spine to call anyone else superfluous when they’re the most superfluous website in the world. Search the internet & tell me you can’t find the exact same shit they do—including their site’s design, which is literally based on a theme already used by other websites? The writing is nothing but clichés already written by a million other unoriginal narcissists on the web. That’s the greatest irony o’ these marketing hacks: for as much as they talk ’bout efficiency & eliminating superfluousness, their work is the most inefficient, superfluous filler in the world. While the web would break down without the programming ‘hind it, it’d be improved if 1st Web Designer & its ilk disappeared.

Then, predictably, they shill their own shit, since they have no shame, no principles, no redeeming factors whatsoever. I’m utterly depressed @ the potent mix o’ idiocy & ugliness 1st Web Designer exhibits.

OK, after downing a bottle o’ booze, I read ’bout their cheap web design course made for people allergic to putting any effort into anything & who just want to be tricked into thinking they’re great after a few hours o’ dicking round:

In 9 hours of video content, you will learn how to build website from scratch in Photoshop and then convert your PSD design to HTML5 and CSS3. Finally, we will also teach you how to use Bootstrap magic where you will learn how to convert website to fully responsive and functional WordPress website.

Frame this paragraph: this is the waving flag o’ mediocrity. This is how the word “decadent” came to mean “rich ditzes” ‘stead o’ just decay. In fact, I think they should replace that #getthatshitdoneson hashtag with #decayingbourgeoisie, but that would require that they can spell those words—or use their “get it done” skills to find someone else to do it for them.

OK, 1st… “build [sic] website from scratch in Photoshop” is hilarious—& not just ’cause o’ the typo. That’s like describing drawing as “drawing from scratch.” What, ¿do you think your readers are so mindless that they need a template to help them make still images? All you need is to drag rectangles. & if the plan involves mo’ detail—& the website, in fact, is mo’ detailed—then the tutorial could ne’er help—if we assume that this teaches them how to make an original website, which, now that I think ’bout it, we shouldn’t—’cause it’ll be different. That’s like making a “How to Write a Novel from Scratch” tutorial. Either it’ll be so broad that it’s useless or it’ll be so specific that it’s authorized plagiarism.

Which makes me realize that these writers’ ant-sized brains can’t comprehend that art requires actual individual thought. You can’t teach it with a step-by-step guide. (This applies to business, too—elsewise everyone without a conscience would be a successful businessperson; however, they write a blog that relies on WordPress themes, so they clearly aren’t successful businesspeople, either). They don’t understand art². They don’t understand anything. They’re clueless. This is the dumb leading the dumb. What horror.

& there’s no such thing as “Bootstrap magic.” Computers don’t work on magic; they work on this li’l thing called science which is real & works a certain way & if you don’t know that way, you’re going to fuck up. You don’t need to know every li’l detail, but if you go in thinking that it’s just magic that always works ’cause you don’t let technology make you its bitch, you’re going to do a shitty job ’cause you’re clearly an idiot, & idiots have this funny tendency to fuck up, don’t ask me why.

What you are waiting for? Take your skills to the next level right now! Make sure 2015 is the year of changes and great achievement for you!

“It can be yours for only 5 monthly payments if you call 1-800-HACK-JOB in the next 2 minutes—that’s 1-800-HACK-JOB.”

What is your opinion about learning new programming languages versus learning business communication skills and delegating?

I don’t know: you still haven’t ‘splained how to do either, so you’re a fucking failure wherever the coin lands.

---

Footnotes:

• [1]‘Cept blander—& when I praise the link repository that is Web Design Depot o’er your site, you know you’ve fucked up.
• [2]Note: I consider programming an art, too.

Noah Smith might be in the running for the whitest white guy e’er to exist, so I’m always eager to hear his surely experienced wisdom on race issues.

After misinterpreting Cornell West’s rant gainst Ta-Nahisi Coates o’er who’s indier than thou¹ as being purely ’bout evil capitalism, when the very quote Smith puts in his article includes a list o’ problems, only 1 o’ which being capitalism’s vileness (although I guess the imperialism stuff might be connected) & giving some simplistic history lesson ’bout how revolution & vile communism lead to Stalinism—’cause all critics o’ capitalism go round slaughtering monarchs & o’erthrowing governments, you know,—Smith offers this jewel o’ advice:

If history is any guide, the only option is to increase tolerance.

¡It’s so simple! ¡We can end racism by not being racist! ¿Why haven’t we tried this? That’s right up there with that guarantee o’ becoming rich by making a lot o’ money or laissez-faire libertarian’s solution to government being not to have it anymo’. In fact, I’m not sure why Smith’s criticizing revolutionaries so much, since his advice is quite common: ¡let’s just not have the system we don’t like! I don’t know why silly black leaders like Coates or West have all o’ these complicated arguments when Smith, Certified Expert in Black Issues, made it all so simple—& therefore mo’ efficient in economics thinking. Why, it’s so simple that it’s utterly thoughtless—¡you can’t get mo’ simple than that!

I have a better idea: let’s just do what privileged ditzes like Noah Smith do without external stimulation & sedate our minds from all issues with drugs so that in our mind’s there’s no mo’ racism, poverty, responsibilities, or nothing. Let’s just completely ‘scape from reality & just babble o’er & o’er ‘gain sugary phrases like “¡Hang in there, Jere!” & “¡Be Something!”

…

Actually, now that I think ’bout it, that ‘scaping from reality thing truly does sound nice. ¿Where can I get those drugs you’re taking, Smith?

Addendum:

Also, can I think Smith for warning me gainst this “o’erthrowing capitalism in a bloody revolution” idea & warning us ’bout this “Soviet Union” thing that happened ‘hind all our backs. I can’t count all o’ the Americans who’re thinking to themselves,—’long with “I ought to start my own business” or “I ought to go to a protest,”—“you know, I think I really ought to try o’erthrowing capitalism & putting into power the dictatorship o’ the proletariat.” But then they read this blog post & slapped their foreheads. “¡I forgot all ’bout the Soviet Union & Stalin & all that stuff! & here I thought communism would be nothing but us all sticking our vaginas & dicks in each other’s bums. O well, I guess I’ll just have to douse the misery in my heart caused by 60 hours a week o’ minimum wage work that is slowly whittling my body into dust by getting drunk & masturbating, like usual.”

---

I’ve oft risked mental deterioration—e’en mo’ than what has already transpired—while perusing these money-grubbing hacks’ simplistic top-14 lists, but Problogger.net‘s so shitty it almost crashed my browser with its artery-clogging ads—the equivalent o’ having a trash can dumped onto your face. I know they’re the McDonalds o’ writing, but do they have to give my computer a heart attack as badly?

For god’s sake, they actually have a link in the top bar called «Make Money.» One with a smidgen o’ self-awareness would’ve realized that such lofty promises o’ riches are a stock joke.

Which made me realize: these websites are the modern form o’ those after-midnight infomercials. You know the 1s: with their tacky production values & lecherous ol’ men gripping tightly to their books in all-caps like drunken millennials¹—«MAKE MONEY WHILE SCRATCHING YOUR ARMPITS.»

The web design certainly fits. Let’s gander @ all o’ the «business website» tropes seen in a million websites already:

1. Ugly bar @ top pestering me to join their newsletter.

Problogger‘s isn’t so bad, however, ’cause it disappears inexplicably after a while—so much so that it took me a while to make it reappear, to the point that I almost thought I only imagined it.

O wait, now I see: it’s s’posed to change, but that other stuff hadn’t loaded yet.

2. Ads to themselves—nobody else wants to waste money on their crap—that stay on-screen no matter how you scroll.

These are like telemarketers who breathe into your ear, «You can’t ‘scape from me darling»; & as hot as that is, rather than making them just stay in the same place using basic CSS, they for some reason added this delayed screeching animation like Wile E. Coyote.

O, & sometimes it doesn’t work, ’cause Problogger‘s scripting just sucks that much.

3. Content that’s inane or obvious.

Not only does this article have a title that screams, «¡We have all o’ the answers!» like a cult, their answer is simply «stuff that people want is what they want most.»

This article gives immensely rare advice, such as «be original,» «use storyboards,» & «understand how money works, dumbshit,» for planning.

4. Their style & diction makes me want to tear my eyeballs out.

Let’s face it.

Faking emphasis.

Through over use o’.

Rare breaches o’.

Proper writing style.

Doesn’t work.

When this rare tatic.

Is overused.

Any questions?

Yeah, ¿do you expect me to answer you through my monitor? Otherwise, ¿why would you be asking me a question?

¡If you have any questions, post a comment!

To be fair, «Let’s get hacking,» is honest.

They also use buzzwords like «effective» that Dilbert’s been making fun o’ since the last few decades.

5. They take ideas from that hack Goins.

This brilliant idea involves manufacturing a «struggle»; make oneself an artificial Cesar Chavez, but ‘stead o’ the goal being to help fruit-picking workers not have to use said fruit as their toilet, make the goal ’bout oneself getting as much money as possible. An honest person would call this «emotional manipulation»: tricking dopes into loving you even though you only love their money. This is, indeed, an effective trick, though 1 that doesn’t need the silly euphemism o’ «fight.»

6. They praise not doing anything as the key to success.

I never understand how this fits with the optimistic tone: success isn’t based on how much work you put in, but that you think & look as some hive mind wants. Where I come from, this is called an Orwellian nightmare. ¡No thanks! Silly ol’ me would rather succeed by working hard & still maintaining a shred o’ individuality, thanks.

7. They created this eldritch nightmare o’ English, the apex o’ cottonswabbery.

Please don’t make me discuss it.

---

What bristles me most ’bout bohemian bourgeoisie is that though they like to depict themselves as free-thinking libertarian types, their views are actually quite soulless, repressive, & bleakly conformist to the point that they remind me o’ those cheesy stepford-smile dystopias mo’ than anything else.

I came to this epiphany ‘pon reading a Smashing Magazine article giving the usual career “advice”: look for careers that are good. As usual, the focus is on “career culture,” an incentive buzzword companies made-up as a way to sway attention from falling wages & rising work time—aspects that workers actually care ’bout. That this writer would write so blatantly as if she’s the Pointy-Haired Boss is curious. Then ‘gain, I should expect this from the “Talent Ambassador” @ “Digital Telepathy”—a truly “zany,” as you hiphoppin’ stompin’ kids say it, enterprise, you can bet your pogs.

Anyway, she says that one should only work with companies that are just like oneself, since she assumes her readers are as shallow as she is. Then she lists off specific attributes o’ companies you should look for. ¿Notice something there? She already assumes your personality & culture. You should look for companies that embrace risk ’cause surely you embrace risk. You’re looking for a computer business that puts shiny colors ‘bove actual programming quality like Apple ’cause ‘course all web designers mistake well-designed with vacuously pretty. & ‘course you value the creepy quality called “togetherness” ’cause you, too, urgently demand that your occupation simultaneously serve your needs for a cult as well as a paycheck (so much for capitalists being “individualist”—I’m kidding: no one who isn’t blatantly lying to themselves believes this).

This is a common occurrence ‘mong bohemian bourgeoisie, as I noted with Goins & those assholes @ Lifehacker: they assume everyone has the same desires, goals, & beliefs as them & damn those who don’t while @ the same time depicting themselves as open minded.

But I love the creepy implications o’ her advice:

While waiting for the interview or when exiting the office, look around you. How do people look? Happy? Miserable? What do they have on their desks? One study suggests that messy desks indicate a creative environment (perfect for designers). If you make eye contact with someone passing by, do they smile or quickly walk by without acknowledging? These are all ways to better understand the corporate culture in which you might be working.

Yes, ’cause nothing’s mo’ professional than being an anal asshole who refuses to work with anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their shallow, specific criteria o’ keeping their desks messy. I always thought creative businesses were all ’bout diversity & that shit; but I guess there has to be a line we can’t cross. I mean, if we accept coworkers with clean desks, we might as well accept coworkers who greet us by sticking their hands in our pants & stroking our genitals (for the record, I only work @ companies whose employees do this—that’s the only company culture I’m comfortable with).

& I love how while there are children who every day have to worry ’bout sawing their fucking fingers off on the machine they use all day, this asshole’s all like, “¡How dare you ruin my creativity with your neatly stacked papers! ¡How dare you distract me from thinking with the deep depression I feel after not being smiled @ when I said hello! I can’t work in these conditions!”

Also, it’s good to know that “one study” hiding somewhere out there in the wild shows that people with basic cleaning skills are incapable o’ creativity & should be avoided like AIDS. This is as opposed to our “Talent Ambassador,” who has done nothing but show her creative streak by spewing the same narrow-minded assertions every other business blogger does.

The obvious takeaway is that wise employers punish employees who don’t smile so that they can maintain the same happy-slave facade all totalitarian regimes have—including corporations. After all, the ethos o’ loving your work—“¡Whistle while you work!”—comes straight from Soviet propaganda.

This is 1 o’ the few times I’d put my coin in with Keynes: I’d rather have less work, like anyone who isn’t lying to themselves—or are privileged ditzes who aren’t truly working—thank you. However, since the left is an utter joke, I don’t see that cute “15-hour work week” will e’er happen this millennium¹ & will stick with my 40 or mo’ hours o’ misery & despair per week, thank you.

---

Footnotes:

[1] I love how the masses o’ moderate-liberal Keynesbots mock Marx for his ridiculous optimism ’bout capitalism’s collapse, but don’t mention the laughable absurdity o’ Keynes’s own predictions.

Perhaps 1 reason the left’s such a joke is that it’s impossible to find a member who doesn’t base one’s economic views on economist-worship ‘stead o’, I dunno, some semblance o’ independent thought.

In this article, Careerealism teaches readers how to be invited to the cool kids’ table on imaginary social media that the average person doesn’t give 2 shits ’bout. This makes sense if they’re like Careerealism’s writers; if one is a hollow husk o’ vapidity & ignorance, then I can understand why one would crave other people to fill the hole that is their own person’s emptiness.

According to J.T. O’Donnell, founder of CAREEREALISM.com…

“WHEN OUR FOUNDER TELLS US TO DRINK THE PURPLE KOOL-AID, WE DRINK THE PURPLE KOOL-AID.”

So, like, as the writer talks like a dipshit teenager stereotype ’cause they, like, totally think their readers are fucking morons, they advise you to be a matchmaker ’cause people don’t find them annoying @ all.

The idea is that you should make connections by matching the connections you already have… which means you aren’t gaining any connections. ¿Or am I to believe that this writer truly believes that some businessperson would be thrilled to have some complete stranger confront them—which I think requires one to pay for some extra privileges in LinkedIn, & you don’t want to pay that shitty website anything—& trust said stranger to give good advice on whom to get help from?

Yeah, that sounds careerealistic to me—fuck, I hate that god damn name, it’s so stupid.

Ha, ha, ha. Look @ this letter they got from an anonymous writer:

Dear Experts,

I’m starting to think that all of you Career Experts are a bunch of liars. I’ve been out of work for 8 months. I’ve read tons of articles, tried all the advice given and I STILL am unemployed.

Is this all a bunch of rubbish you are feeding people to get them to buy your stuff?

Dear Anonymous Writer,

Yes.

‘Course, our grammatically-challenged (¿would you advise your readers to write professional works in cellphone speak?) experts respond by accusing the writer o’ bitterness, evading her question with an ad hominem. What they don’t do is provide any evidence that their advice is effective.

So, to reiterate: yes, they are lying to get idiots to buy their garbage (or get hits to their ads), as many o’ these cheap, after-midnight paid programming equivalents do.

Through a web stroll that is now a haze to me—save its origins: an email promising me a job where I can “Mess Around on FaceBook And Twitter!” while making over 700$ a week—I stumbled ‘pon generic-brand Lifehacker known only as Lifehack, whose name only brings me images o’ those clunky pirated games like Super Donkey Kong 99.

Speaking o’ which: to fit the mood, I suggest you listen to this lovely song on-loop throughout the whole article (sorry I couldn’t find an extended version).

The specific article I ran into is called “10 Reasons Why Some People Will Never Succeed,” which sounds terribly original. Good thing somebody finally handled this rare topic.

‘Course, none o’ these reasons are “Bourgeoisie Conspiracies,”¹ so we already know these are wrong. That doesn’t mean we can’t point & snicker with consummate seriousness.

& it starts creatively, too—by quoting someone else:

In O.G Mandino’s The greatest salesman in the world, a very important fact was made which said that:

Stop, stop… Sorry, I just need to savor this diction—like stale “Fruit Circles,” which shouldn’t be mistaken for “Fruit Loops,” no, they’re totally different.

Tragically, nobody told Lifehack‘s editors that facts aren’t made by saying them & that said facts can’t talk themselves. The sad thing is, this could’ve been improved by making it simpler: just say, “In The greatest salesman in the world, O.G [I’m not sure if that’s a typo or not] Mandino said:”

Anyway, the “fact” is nothing but folksy wisdom without an ounce o’ evidence. Apparently all 1,000 “wise men”—I hadn’t realized that was still an occupation—agree that failure is the same: not succeeding @ what one wants. Wow, that is deep: turns out they all agree that “failure” is its own definition. Next you’ll tell me 2 = 2.

Turns out, this quote has no relevance to the rest o’ the article. The writer tosses it to the side & then introduces the list o’ things “people do to fail on purpose.” I can only imagine all o’ the scoundrels sitting in their dark caves, rubbing their hands roughly & cackling as they conspire to fail just to spite Lifehack. These fiends must be stopped!

The 1st reason is not valuing time, which apparently includes going round helping everyone in various situations. This ‘splains why that dumbass George Bailey’s bank failed. Should’ve put mo’ effort into jumping off that bridge, Bailey, ‘stead o’ getting distracted by that “angel” you keep seeing.

‘Course, some people might consider going round helping people in a variety o’ situations to be a fine goal to accomplish itself. They’re wrong & they should feel bad ’bout themselves.

Lifehack was nice ‘nough to give us this gorgeous animated GIF o’ some woman twirling a pencil in her fingers with a glazed look on her face. Her school assignment must be reading this article. As wacky as this bandwidth-wasting GIF is, it adds nothing to the content, & probably shouldn’t have been included. Whoever took the time to add this GIF clearly wasn’t taking this article’s advice.

The 2nd reason is, get this, that they don’t do things that help them accomplish their goals. This leaves me curious as to what the later reasons could be, since this is clearly the prime reason; I’m quite sure that not doing things that lead to a goal being accomplished is itself the definition o’ not accomplishing said goals.

Lifehack ruins this by spewing nonsense below: people who don’t value their goals won’t accomplish them. Then they’re not goals. Goals that one doesn’t value aren’t a stubborn problem; they’re Zen riddles. Nobody has them ’cause in order for someone to have them, they must’ve divided by 0 & blown up the world with a logic bomb.

Thankfully, Lifehack follows this with actually useful advice:

Writing down in a journal what your gaols [sic] are and implementing strategies which can get you there will help you identify things that are not on par with where you are going [emphasis mine].

I agree wholeheartedly: inspire yourself with fear by listing all o’ the nearby jails you’ll end up in when you’re forced to rob convenience stores to keep fed. It’s ’bout time somebody on the internet got it.

This reason’s picture is just bewildering: some asshole yells @ some woman with 90s hair reclining in a movie theater & the latter tells the former ’bout her “horizontal running.” Isn’t most running horizontal? Is that s’posed to be the point? “Ha, ha: look @ this idiot who thinks running but not doing it up hills is great. Successful people always run up hills.”

Mmm, mmm… You can’t imagine the taste in my mouth when I see the next reason: “They never step up to the plate.” Probably ’cause they’re not playing baseball, asshole.

O, come the fuck on! Look @ this next quote:

“People seem to think that success in one area can compensate for failure in other areas, but can it really? True effectiveness requires balance” – Stephen Covey

That’s the exact opposite o’ what you were saying before! You were just saying that balance is bad! That’s spreading yourself thin! Now you’re quoting this dickweed saying not spreading yourself is evil without giving a rationale. Why can’t I consider success in 1 area my goal?

Also, Lifehack’s editor is terrible. You don’t put quotation marks in the blockquote; the block itself indicates that it’s a quote. Haven’t you people ever read a manual o’ style? Next you’ll be telling me you don’t spend nights curled up with the Oxford Pocket Dictionary and Thesaurus—which is ’bout 7 by 4 by 3 inches & weights a’least 5 lbs., so it must be made for huge pockets.

The article continues with the same reactionary victim-blaming cliché I’ve read 3 times already: “[L]ife has this universal law of giving you what you put in.” Huh, must’ve missed that breakthrough. Must’ve been sleeping in my Physics class when that topic came up. Silly I might think that there’s no evidence for this—that there is, just from a cursory search, some evidence gainst this claim by authentic scientists. But if Lifehack’s work is any indication, successful people don’t use scientific evidence or that ilk; they just spew ideological assertions like Bible verses.

The next reason is the same nonsense that one’s abilities are simply a manifestation o’ their dreams—which is the equivalent o’ saying that magic exists. Magic doesn’t exist & people who stay stupid shit like this are no smarter than people who still believe in the humors system or witches. We should treat Lifehack just as seriously.

Ha, ha! The next reason has a quote that isn’t even relevant, & seems to belie the general tone o’ this article:

“If you can’t make it good, at least make it look good” – Bill Gates

Well, that ‘splains Windows.

These are the people who will find reasons and logic as to why they can’t and why they shouldn’t.

& they should be butchered! God damn it, if I tell you to build me a flying car, you’d better believe you can. I don’t care if you’re 5 years ol’.

Also, if they “find” logic, then that implies that they’re successful in logically ‘splaining their ‘scuse… & thus it’s valid. See, the very definition o’ “valid” is that it’s logical, as opposed to illogical. I think Lifehack‘s actually arguing that their ideology is ‘bove logic itself. That’s awfully precious o’ them.

They sometimes mistake this abhorrent tendency for “just being realistic”.

I love how Lifehack creates an intentional nonfalsifiable argument here: e’en if reality says something negative, ignore it in favor o’ my arbitrary religion o’ happiness.

They lack imagination and always find ways to justify why something shouldn’t be but they never really try.

“They’re strawmen, basically.”

The best remedy for this is to stop your mind when it’s about to start making the excuses and re-ignite the engine that has started it all.

What does that e’en mean? You just said that they lack imagination, so they’d clearly ne’er ignited it, anyway. & why would you want to stop it just to start it ‘gain? What’s “it all” s’posed to refer to? I’m guessing the vile doubts—which makes me ask, ‘gain, why you’d want to “re-ignite” them… God damn it, Lifehack, you make Jack Chick look like the next Aristotle.

Ha, ha, ha. I think that animated GIF o’ the guy jerking round with flickering & the words, “Writing is hard” is a representation o’ Lifehack themselves.

6. They lack class

“They weren’t born into the regency family.”

Unsuccessful people usually tend to have no social IQ.

“People with psychological problems are losers.” No shit. Next thing you’ll tell me that people without arms won’t do too well, either. Good job rubbing it in, asshole.

They say things like “well at least I’m being honest” or “this is how I am, deal with it”.

Um, no: those are assholes. Look, just ’cause assholes go round calling themselves autistic whenever they’re dicks doesn’t mean you’re s’posed to truly believe they’re autistic, stupid-ass.

(By the way, I have Hollywood Tourette’s Syndrome, so you can’t be mad @ me for calling you a stupid-ass.)

Actually, I have to agree with her on my bewilderment on why anyone would think such a defense would work. Most people don’t give a shit ’bout others, so they’d just respond, “Well, I don’t like who you are, so fuck off.”

Nobody likes a big mouth, a show off, a humble boaster, or people who don’t know how to just say thank you when given a compliment.

“Yeah, editor whom I’ll never compliment for putting these nice GIFs in ever ‘gain…”

It has been said…

Nope! I don’t listen to advice given by thin air. Go back & put a name ‘hind that “said” & maybe I’ll listen.

7. They are procrastinators

The funny thing about this one is that they are usually self-proclaimed procrastinators. They see no shame in it.

Sometimes we agree; though this may just be coincidence: I’m always gainst people not feeling shame for things. Shame on you for not feeling shame.

This goes back to them never understanding the value of time.

Thank you for pointing out that you recycled this idea. A less scrupulous writer would’ve been wary ‘nough not to do that.

They are okay with living a life that keeps up with yesterday.

I agree with your criticism here: how can they be OK with something that doesn’t even make sense?

They live life as though they just have another one in the bank.

‘Nother what? Slow down; I can’t keep up with all this skip-skippin’ lingo, fat pajama cat.

Let’s just see how round one goes and if all else fails we press next or rewind or pause.

(Laughs.) What the fuck is this? Who are you talking to?

Understanding that you start dying the moment you are born and wisdom to realize that every day is a gift and you owe it to yourself to do everything you can do in those twenty four hours because nothing’s ever promised today tomorrow.

I think they just gave up @ this point & wrote whatever came to their head. Considering how li’l this Milks & Boon 2.0 probably paid them, I can’t truly blame them.

Unsuccessful people tend to ponder and leave footprints in the sands of time.

“Quit dirtying up my sands o’ time, you bums!”

The worst thing you can do is ponder.

“You don’t see me thinking ‘fore I write you gotta jump the hoop & dodge the giant eat the fish & make a 4-pointer.”

Stop dreaming about what will be, dreams in themselves are not bad but get up, show up and DO something.

“For god’s sake, anything must be better than sitting round reading these articles.”

9. They can’t face adversity

“All sunshine and no rain makes a dessert [sic]” – Arabian Proverb

“& I’m diabetic, so wash ‘way all those simple sugars, please.”

There was a shepherd boy, he was not a warrior and he was small in size. He looked at a giant and said “I will strike you down and cut off your head” and that is exactly what he did.

See, Lifehack was paying so li’l attention that they accidentally pasted some microfiction into the article. It’s probably the best part o’ this article, too: “[A]nd that is exactly what he did” is right up there with “& then Gatsby died.”

The thing with challenges is, they’re only as big as we make them seem and as strong as our weakness will allow.

“You think curing yourself o’ Huntington’s is impossible; but that’s only ’cause you haven’t imagined that you can… Probably ’cause your brain has already wasted ‘way.”

Unsuccessful people have not understood this and they give up all too quickly because things got uncomfortable, things got a little bit rough, they want roses without the thorns, babies without labour and a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow without bearing the storm.

The true moral here is that you’ll always be a loser if you set your win condition to something that’s literally impossible. I agree that that’s, indeed, stupid.

Also, I’m glad to see the Labor Theory o’ Value applied to childbirth. It can only happen when 2 share the means o’ production, after all—I’ll be here all night (so you all must suffer, ha, ha!).

I fell asleep for the last reason. Sorry, I just don’t care anymo’.

1 o’ the related articles, by the way, is titled, “13 Ways Successful People Deal With Toxic People.” 1 obvious contribution would be, “stay ‘way from Lifehacker or Lifehack.”

Footnotes:

• [1] That is, the punk rock band. Regular ol’ bourgeoisie conspiracies have been doing wonders for people’s success, ‘course, else nobody would be doing them, duh.

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 & right¹. 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 bestiary² 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:

Presenting WikiHow‘s “How to Be a Poet: 9 Steps (with Pictures”

But th’most inspiring part o’ th’sunset pic
Is the adorable li’l watermark.