Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Really? How do you measure? Whether people like you judge them harshly? Here's a newsflash: You, me, Ty, this board... We're maybe .001 of people. Our sensibilities, how we judge people, what we think, means very little.
If I'm a campaign manager, and I'm talking to a person like you, I would do every thing you don't like. I would make a list of things you criticize and have my candidate do all of them, as loudly and openly as possible. I don't mean that to insult you. I'm stating this as a simple matter of sound strategy.
This is how a buffoon like Trump can "work" a person like you. It's how a buffoon like Trump can work a person like me. We have no idea. We've thought ourselves up our own asses so long ago, we forget the Bernaysian brilliance of a word like "shrill."
The proof you're clueless is your very comment here. This little word, "shrill," gets Ty annoyed enough to cite DeLong about it. It worked so well it got Cowen, DeLong, and numerous others to write blog posts about it. It compelled you to state, pedantically, that anyone using it is discredited. So given all that - all those words written by irritated "marks" in response to two little syllables - tell me just how ineffective and discredited the word is.
No one cares what some self-important lawyer thinks. The value of the word is in its effectiveness.
|
Whatever I did worked well enough to create significantly more senseless blather from you, proving my point.
Generally, the First Law of BS is that refuting BS takes an order of magnitude more effort than spreading it. BUT the first corollary is that the Average Bullshitter is willing to expend that magnitude of effort effectively refuting themselves if allowed to do so.
