We are all Slave now.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

How can it be a big question if we already know the answer?

TM

Is this one of the better recursive statements here?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You already called it shite. I was just asking why. If it's too much work for you to make up some post hoc explanation, never mind.

And calling Krugman shrill doesn't "discredit" him. That's exactly the point.

Indeed, folks who use the word shrill like this really discredit themselves. Morons.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Indeed, folks who use the word shrill like this really discredit themselves. Morons.

Okay, so I’m a Moderator and you all better listen: it’s one thing to gang up on Sebby for how he voted, AND ganging up on him for saying some blogger isn’t racist when in the first five minutes of the posted interview he said something really racist. I would go as far as saying it was almost a civic duty to gang up on him for those.

But a word choice (or at least that word choice)? You all didn’t have a predisposition against the word shrill. I’m going to call bullshit right here. We can’t hang up on him for breathing.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Okay, so I’m a Moderator and you all better listen: it’s one thing to gang up on Sebby for how he voted, AND ganging up on him for saying some blogger isn’t racist when in the first five minutes of the posted interview he said something really racist. I would go as far as saying it was almost a civic duty to gang up on him for those.

But a word choice (or at least that word choice)? You all didn’t have a predisposition against the word shrill. I’m going to call bullshit right here. We can’t hang up on him for breathing.

In the words of Cory Booker, "Bring It."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Indeed, folks who use the word shrill like this really discredit themselves. Morons.

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.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You already called it shite. I was just asking why. If it's too much work for you to make up some post hoc explanation, never mind.

And calling Krugman shrill doesn't "discredit" him. That's exactly the point.

It's a dumb article. No shit "shrill" is a nasty way to dismiss Krugman. No shit it was employed by opponents to dismiss him without considering his arguments (with which arguments I agreed). That's what a truly effective adjective does. That's what a truly effective political hit-job does. The strength's in the brevity. If you can nail somebody in minimal syllables, you've increased the public's ability to remember and repeat the insult. It's smart. If you can't or don't want to fight on substance, fight on style.

And it does discredit Krugman. Like it or not, he's now branded a very biased OpEd writer. His name is synonymous with strident arguments, and he's perceived as the sort of academic cited by people like Rachel Maddow. And he's reveled in it. He's titled his own books with the word "liberal." Krugman's no fool. He decided to get political, and now he's tarred as such. He could have been less antagonistic, like Stiglitz. He chose otherwise. Is it unfair? Sure. But that's how politics and media works. Buy the ticket, take the ride...

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Okay, so I’m a Moderator and you all better listen: it’s one thing to gang up on Sebby for how he voted, AND ganging up on him for saying some blogger isn’t racist when in the first five minutes of the posted interview he said something really racist. I would go as far as saying it was almost a civic duty to gang up on him for those.

But a word choice (or at least that word choice)? You all didn’t have a predisposition against the word shrill. I’m going to call bullshit right here. We can’t hang up on him for breathing.

Thanks, but I'm fine with it.

We're actually talking past each other. "Shrill" is a great word. Ty and GGG are confusing the fairness of its use with its effectiveness. It is an unfair word. But that's part of why it's such a perfect word. Once used, it sticks. And the more you rail against it, a potentially shrill act in itself, the more it sticks.

An analogue for the left would be "guns and religion." You can aim that at almost anyone on the right, and they can't wiggle out of it. The more they try, the more the image of a redneck keeps re-appearing. The only effective reply is to ignore it. Is it fair? No. Is it effective? Yup.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

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.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Thanks, but I'm fine with it.

We're actually talking past each other. "Shrill" is a great word. Ty and GGG are confusing the fairness of its use with its effectiveness. It is an unfair word. But that's part of why it's such a perfect word. Once used, it sticks. And the more you rail against it, a potentially shrill act in itself, the more it sticks.

An analogue for the left would be "guns and religion." You can aim that at almost anyone on the right, and they can't wiggle out of it. The more they try, the more the image of a redneck keeps re-appearing. The only effective reply is to ignore it. Is it fair? No. Is it effective? Yup.

It pleases me to no end that the entire exchange is still under the "Squeeeeeeeze" title, referencing Paul Ryan's shrillness.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

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.

There’s no blather there.

Here’s the Cliff’s:

1. Being discredited by you means one is doing something right;
2. Shrill’s a great word for use on people like you (and many others).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It pleases me to no end that the entire exchange is still under the "Squeeeeeeeze" title, referencing Paul Ryan's shrillness.

I don’t know what this means. I don’t care about or follow Eddie Munster.

On another note, I watched “Active Measures” today, and it is really engrossing. Highly recommended.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

"Shrill" is an unfair word.

That's why I went off on you for using it, you doofus.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Shrill’s a great word for use on people like you (and many others).

Not if you're trying to convince.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

That's why I went off on you for using it, you doofus.

Not if you're trying to convince.

Fairness is not a valid measurement on these things.

Convince?

1 of 5 people is capable of changing his mind when confronted with a contrary view
1 in 10 on religion and politics
Triple those #s if the people are lawyers

I can’t think of a more futile act here. (Or most other instances where these discussions might take place.)

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I’ve also heard female friends use it. I’ve not heard many male friends use it.

Did you follow the 2016 presidential election, like, at all?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Did you follow the 2016 presidential election, like, at all?

Hello? Anyone home? NO HE DID NOT FOLLOW THE ELECTION. Am I on ignore?