3 ms·
Cowen's review is very poor. Graeber famously interviewed a lot of people and they described their own jobs as bullshit and explained why. Graeber's work might
by goodpoint 3y ago
Cowen's review is very poor. Graeber famously interviewed a lot of people and they described their own jobs as bullshit and explained why.
Graeber's work might be opinionated but his evidence is stronger than Cowen's flippant comeback.
>> At that point we’ll see who really has the bullshit job.
This almost reads as Cowen is claiming that Graeber's job is bullshit.
Graeber is a prize winning and successful writer and academic.
- unmole 3y agoGraeber was a successful bullshit artist. Sure, he didn't have a bullshit job according to his vague and peculiar definition. But this was a man who wrote a door stopper of a book on Debt which blitley conflates credit with benevolence.
- zeroonetwothree 3y agoI don’t think winning prizes that academics themselves create is proof that the academic jobs are valuable. Of course we could say the same thing about Tyler.
- goodpoint 3y agoWith enough mental gymnastic you can say that.