5 ms·

I can't believe how many words were used in this article to convey such little substance. Does the author know anything other than 50 cent words, or is this st

I can't believe how many words were used in this article to convey such little substance. Does the author know anything other than 50 cent words, or is this style supposed to mean it's an intellectual piece? Not that I'm anti-vocabulary, I was recently reading Denial of Death (Becker) which was very dense, but every sentence was justified in understanding the message. Speaking of message, what were the key takeaways? Best I could tell it was something vague about the best strategies for attacking people who think technology has something positive to offer society.

jff 12y ago
> I can't believe how many words were used in this article to convey such little substance. Does the author know anything other than 50 cent words, or is this style supposed to mean it's an intellectual piece? Click around the rest of the site, they're all like that and it's hilarious
- bcbrown 12y ago
  I thought http://www.thebaffler.com/salvos/purple-reign http://www.thebaffler.com/salvos/purple-reign was well-written and very interesting.
devindotcom 12y ago
If you didn't read it, why are you so sure there was no substance? It's fine if it's not your style, but that doesn't mean the author isn't saying anything worthwhile.
- WhitneyLand 12y ago
  I did read it, just thought it sounded a bit pretentious without actually making a strong point. Kind of reminded me of reading reviews for high end audiophile equipment.
vacri 12y ago
I think it's funny that the author used such flowery language, yet seems to be of the opinion that "criticism" and "critique" mean "opposition", a common but incorrect belief. Film critics don't oppose films, for example. They discuss the pros and cons of various films, and suggest films that may be appropriate depending on your preferences. I wouldn't have thought a logophile would make that error. Then again, the author also thinks that 'Silicon Valley' is synonymous with 'technology'. I wonder how many venture-capital backed startups were involved with the automation of the pilot's cockpit that he so mourns...
- danans 12y ago
  I think he's actually attacking the mourning of cockpit automation, not defending it. He uses it as an example of Carr's romanticization of manually performed work.
  - vacri 12y ago
    I don't read the 'pilot' paragraph that way. It leads in with "Carr's basic premise is sound" and the following sentence about the pilots is used to support that first sentence. I do admit that I only read half-way through the article as a whole, though; I found it pretty light on substance and more trouble than it was worth. On a tangent, regarding the self-driving vehicle, I would venture that the critic referred to already has a... cough "self-driving Carr" cough ...
- knucklesandwich 12y ago
  I think it's funny that the author used such flowery language, yet seems to be of the opinion that "criticism" and "critique" mean "opposition", a common but incorrect belief. The author isn't talking about people who oppose technology, he's talking about people who evaluate it's evolution, which is in line with criticism in the sense of "film criticism". The people being cited here are clearly not against technology on the whole. Then again, the author also thinks that 'Silicon Valley' is synonymous with 'technology'. It's called synecdoche. The US Government isn't relegated to Washington, DC either.
pessimizer 12y ago
I'm honestly curious about the words you found difficult. This article seems pitched at about a high school reading level. edit: These are the worst I could find: diffidence, oppositional, émigrés, emancipatory, phenomenology, oeuvre, bailiwick, solipsistic.
- barrkel 12y ago
  The words aren't difficult. The problem is that the material is at its heart insubstantial - this is a criticism of a critique, after all - and is beefed up with allusions to abstract concepts of dubious relevance. It attacks theoretical representations of the subject matter rather than its subject itself, critiquing constructions that are the product of criticism itself, asymptotically approaching a vapid onanism.
  - just_For_this 12y ago
    Very droll. Almost too subtle - I thought you simply had a case of beam-in-the-eye until the clause "asymptotically approaching a vapid onanism.".
- vacri 12y ago
  "They bemoan the arrogant thrust of technological thinking as it clashes with human traditions and fret over what an ethos of permanent disruption means for the configuration of the liberal self or the survival of its landmark institutions" Each of those words would be known in isolation by a high-schooler. But does "thrust of technological thinking" refer to? What is "an ethos of permanent disruption"? Or "configuration of the liberal self"? Does "landmark institutions" refer to "liberal self", "technological thinking" or "human traditions"? What does it mean in reference to any of those? The words aren't all that tricky, but it's still not a freely-flowing read. I would expect wordsmiths who frequent HN to understand that sentence, but I wouldn't call it high-school level.
danans 12y ago
It's a criticism of current technology critics, in particular the sort that decry automation as reducing peoples' humanity by depriving them of the personal fulfillment that comes from "traditional work". He calls these critics "conservative" or "romantic", because they idealize past definitions of work and mourn the coming end of virtuous human skills like driving a manual transmission (due to self-driving cars). He considers such criticism elitist. And he says the real underlying problems, addressed only by "radical" tech critics, are the socio-politico-economic issues raised by technology.

jff 12y ago

> I can't believe how many words were used in this article to convey such little substance. Does the author know anything other than 50 cent words, or is this style supposed to mean it's an intellectual piece? Click around the rest of the site, they're all like that and it's hilarious

bcbrown 12y ago
I thought http://www.thebaffler.com/salvos/purple-reign http://www.thebaffler.com/salvos/purple-reign was well-written and very interesting.

devindotcom 12y ago

If you didn't read it, why are you so sure there was no substance? It's fine if it's not your style, but that doesn't mean the author isn't saying anything worthwhile.

WhitneyLand 12y ago
I did read it, just thought it sounded a bit pretentious without actually making a strong point. Kind of reminded me of reading reviews for high end audiophile equipment.

vacri 12y ago

I think it's funny that the author used such flowery language, yet seems to be of the opinion that "criticism" and "critique" mean "opposition", a common but incorrect belief. Film critics don't oppose films, for example. They discuss the pros and cons of various films, and suggest films that may be appropriate depending on your preferences. I wouldn't have thought a logophile would make that error. Then again, the author also thinks that 'Silicon Valley' is synonymous with 'technology'. I wonder how many venture-capital backed startups were involved with the automation of the pilot's cockpit that he so mourns...

danans 12y ago
I think he's actually attacking the mourning of cockpit automation, not defending it. He uses it as an example of Carr's romanticization of manually performed work.
- vacri 12y ago
  I don't read the 'pilot' paragraph that way. It leads in with "Carr's basic premise is sound" and the following sentence about the pilots is used to support that first sentence. I do admit that I only read half-way through the article as a whole, though; I found it pretty light on substance and more trouble than it was worth. On a tangent, regarding the self-driving vehicle, I would venture that the critic referred to already has a... cough "self-driving Carr" cough ...
knucklesandwich 12y ago
I think it's funny that the author used such flowery language, yet seems to be of the opinion that "criticism" and "critique" mean "opposition", a common but incorrect belief. The author isn't talking about people who oppose technology, he's talking about people who evaluate it's evolution, which is in line with criticism in the sense of "film criticism". The people being cited here are clearly not against technology on the whole. Then again, the author also thinks that 'Silicon Valley' is synonymous with 'technology'. It's called synecdoche. The US Government isn't relegated to Washington, DC either.

pessimizer 12y ago

I'm honestly curious about the words you found difficult. This article seems pitched at about a high school reading level. edit: These are the worst I could find: diffidence, oppositional, émigrés, emancipatory, phenomenology, oeuvre, bailiwick, solipsistic.

barrkel 12y ago
The words aren't difficult. The problem is that the material is at its heart insubstantial - this is a criticism of a critique, after all - and is beefed up with allusions to abstract concepts of dubious relevance. It attacks theoretical representations of the subject matter rather than its subject itself, critiquing constructions that are the product of criticism itself, asymptotically approaching a vapid onanism.
- just_For_this 12y ago
  Very droll. Almost too subtle - I thought you simply had a case of beam-in-the-eye until the clause "asymptotically approaching a vapid onanism.".
vacri 12y ago
"They bemoan the arrogant thrust of technological thinking as it clashes with human traditions and fret over what an ethos of permanent disruption means for the configuration of the liberal self or the survival of its landmark institutions" Each of those words would be known in isolation by a high-schooler. But does "thrust of technological thinking" refer to? What is "an ethos of permanent disruption"? Or "configuration of the liberal self"? Does "landmark institutions" refer to "liberal self", "technological thinking" or "human traditions"? What does it mean in reference to any of those? The words aren't all that tricky, but it's still not a freely-flowing read. I would expect wordsmiths who frequent HN to understand that sentence, but I wouldn't call it high-school level.

danans 12y ago

It's a criticism of current technology critics, in particular the sort that decry automation as reducing peoples' humanity by depriving them of the personal fulfillment that comes from "traditional work". He calls these critics "conservative" or "romantic", because they idealize past definitions of work and mourn the coming end of virtuous human skills like driving a manual transmission (due to self-driving cars). He considers such criticism elitist. And he says the real underlying problems, addressed only by "radical" tech critics, are the socio-politico-economic issues raised by technology.