I really appreciated this article and would have strong upvoted (I weak upvoted) it apart from this part which really turns me off...
”We know that capitalism causes all the world’s ills because it’s asserted by pompous, economically illiterate English professors at second-rate institutions whose primary research focus is the ecopolitics of queer sexuality in the writings of Derrida and Foucault, and who have been a visiting lecturer at clown college for three years.”
Making personal, identity/political based attacks is both unnecessary and makes the article feel cheaper and weaker. I don’t think you need to “tone down” the first half of the article (I love a bit of passion) but cutting bits like that out could make a big difference I think.
I really appreciated this article and would have strong upvoted (I weak upvoted) it apart from this part which really turns me off...
”We know that capitalism causes all the world’s ills because it’s asserted by pompous, economically illiterate English professors at second-rate institutions whose primary research focus is the ecopolitics of queer sexuality in the writings of Derrida and Foucault, and who have been a visiting lecturer at clown college for three years.”
Making personal, identity/political based attacks is both unnecessary and makes the article feel cheaper and weaker. I don’t think you need to “tone down” the first half of the article (I love a bit of passion) but cutting bits like that out could make a big difference I think.
I agree, it felt like a smug condemnation of anti-capitalism; followed by a statement about smug condemnations being bad!
”At the very least, you shouldn’t smugly condemn those who endorse doing something about those kids dying”
I appreciate you saying this Nick — I totally agree with you and couldn’t have said it better myself.