Being overly certain about your beliefs is a common error, but this is pure sneering that can be applied to any argument, good or bad. It's a bit surprising to see it in the Atlantic and I hope we...
Being overly certain about your beliefs is a common error, but this is pure sneering that can be applied to any argument, good or bad. It's a bit surprising to see it in the Atlantic and I hope we never see it on Tildes.
Does The Atlantic have a history of publishing snarky polemics? I had a subscription in the past and don't remember many opinion pieces (then again, I don't remember much, anyway). Well, if that...
Does The Atlantic have a history of publishing snarky polemics? I had a subscription in the past and don't remember many opinion pieces (then again, I don't remember much, anyway). Well, if that content makes its way into the publication, then I honestly have no qualms with this expression of frustration over a certain type of individual (though, presented here as an amalgamation of many types of individuals). I mean, as someone who reads Hackernews fairly regularly, I read a lot that from people that can fit some part of that mold. And certainly, with such a large mold, I see myself in there a bit. Annoyingly staunch know-it-alls, that is.
Do you ever read old magazines? I find this stuff kinda fascinating from a historical perspective. Gaining a glimpse into the timber of the times.
The Atlantic publishes some very good reporting by authors like Ed Yong. It's also where Ta-Nehisi Coates published some of his best work. However, these longer articles only appear occasionally....
The Atlantic publishes some very good reporting by authors like Ed Yong. It's also where Ta-Nehisi Coates published some of his best work. However, these longer articles only appear occasionally. Unfortunately, day to day, quality is quite a bit less. On your average day, on the front page there are a lot of conventional opinion pieces about the day's top stories, the sort of thing you can read anywhere, along with some good articles that you've probably already read because they were widely shared.
I agree that there are a lot of know-it-all takes out there and this is why I emphasize that it's good to be modest about what you really know. I just don't think pieces like this are at all helpful because there is also very good writing published by people without formal credentials. Coming up with a stereotype and using it to sneer at anyone who sort of fits it isn't far removed from schoolyard taunting.
I get what the author is saying, and though I know of a few of the "Facts Men" she is likely speaking of it would have been helpful to have linked some particularly egregious examples. As it...
I get what the author is saying, and though I know of a few of the "Facts Men" she is likely speaking of it would have been helpful to have linked some particularly egregious examples.
As it stands, this is not a very engaging article and reads more like a low-quality rant.
The article is behind a paywall for me. Using reader mode to bypass: The article is pretty low quality, and has just about the highest density of thought terminating sarcastic remarks I've ever...
The article is behind a paywall for me.
Using reader mode to bypass: The article is pretty low quality, and has just about the highest density of thought terminating sarcastic remarks I've ever seen. It's genuinely hard to find an authentic statement in the entire piece.
cool exercise in constructing strawfactsmen.
Ha. I'm liking this rewrite a lot more. I think we need an new version of Your Scene Sucks: Your Online Presence Sucks.
Being overly certain about your beliefs is a common error, but this is pure sneering that can be applied to any argument, good or bad. It's a bit surprising to see it in the Atlantic and I hope we never see it on Tildes.
Does The Atlantic have a history of publishing snarky polemics? I had a subscription in the past and don't remember many opinion pieces (then again, I don't remember much, anyway). Well, if that content makes its way into the publication, then I honestly have no qualms with this expression of frustration over a certain type of individual (though, presented here as an amalgamation of many types of individuals). I mean, as someone who reads Hackernews fairly regularly, I read a lot that from people that can fit some part of that mold. And certainly, with such a large mold, I see myself in there a bit. Annoyingly staunch know-it-alls, that is.
Do you ever read old magazines? I find this stuff kinda fascinating from a historical perspective. Gaining a glimpse into the timber of the times.
The Atlantic publishes some very good reporting by authors like Ed Yong. It's also where Ta-Nehisi Coates published some of his best work. However, these longer articles only appear occasionally. Unfortunately, day to day, quality is quite a bit less. On your average day, on the front page there are a lot of conventional opinion pieces about the day's top stories, the sort of thing you can read anywhere, along with some good articles that you've probably already read because they were widely shared.
I agree that there are a lot of know-it-all takes out there and this is why I emphasize that it's good to be modest about what you really know. I just don't think pieces like this are at all helpful because there is also very good writing published by people without formal credentials. Coming up with a stereotype and using it to sneer at anyone who sort of fits it isn't far removed from schoolyard taunting.
I get what the author is saying, and though I know of a few of the "Facts Men" she is likely speaking of it would have been helpful to have linked some particularly egregious examples.
As it stands, this is not a very engaging article and reads more like a low-quality rant.
The article is behind a paywall for me.
Using reader mode to bypass: The article is pretty low quality, and has just about the highest density of thought terminating sarcastic remarks I've ever seen. It's genuinely hard to find an authentic statement in the entire piece.