4 ms·
> This is performatively false: he wrote a book on it. This is such bizarre reasoning it stunned me. The point of the book as to describe a trend of people fee
by d3nj4l 5y ago
> This is performatively false: he wrote a book on it.
This is such bizarre reasoning it stunned me. The point of the book as to describe a trend of people feeling that their jobs were pointless, "Bullshit", so to speak. But going from there to assuming that the book asserts a universal criteria for what job is Bullshit, without even reading the book, is ???
- mjburgess 5y agoHave you read his claim? > Anthropologists are not qualified to... Anthropologists however are trained to... ... a bullshit job is defined as ... I am not qualified to do X. However I am qualified to do Y. Ah! Y enables me to do X. So let me do X. The first sentence there is a lie to massage the impact of the later ones. He literally defined what a "Bullshit Job" is, he wrote a book about it. The conceptual scheme of the entire book is his. He wrote the surveys; he defined the topic. The idea that he is just a passive receiver of a coherent theory of jobs is false; and this is just a rhetorical gambit to disguise the fact that, no, he is the major architect of this idea and of the whole project. And this becomes more blindingly obvious when other people attempt to repeat a survey asking whether their job is "bullshit" and find only 5% of people saying so.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]