[Discussion] Have any of you read some of David Wong's Cracked articles? : getdisciplined
6 Harsh Truths That Will Make You A Better Person . 'skill' to the relationship, they simply like each other for intangible reasons or because of. "6 Harsh Truths That Will Make You A Better Person" entry for Cracked. they need entertainment, they need fulfilling sexual relationships. badz.info Cracks and volcanic debris are seen on a road in Leilani Estate, Hawaii. But the truth is, life has its own hard way of teaching a lesson — that is, after you've already made a mistake. To stay Like a bad relationship, when it's over it's time to move on. ALL NEW WEDNESDAY 9 & 10P ET.
I mean, just look at Tao Lin. But, back to Michalson. What they hate is other artists. Particularly other artists who happen or threaten to get more recognition than themselves. This is true at every level, and results in an unintentionally tragic assault on all creative endeavors that bruises and scars serious humanities studies in the public eye.
That reality alone is a major part of why the writing competition is so spiteful, so hateful: Because even though the humanities encompass more than the critical study of the creative arts, that study is such a vital part of the humanities that the public easily equates the humanities in general with the arts in particular, and throws the creative arts into the current maelstrom of popular contempt for humanities studies.
So, just a simple question: And what does his ascent, despite his poor interpretative abilities, say about the state of literature? But in his attempts to argue for universality, Pargin trips in comparing different professions: There is a reason mechanics get more respect than unemployed hipsters.
Medicine enjoys prestige not simply for the services it provides, but for the enormously profitable and lucrative position in occupies in the United States in particular it also helps that doctors are a cartel in the U. And even looking back to other historical epochs, how many famous surgeons can you name in relation to famous comedians?
Remember when Chick-fil-A came out against gay marriage? And how despite the protests, the company continues to sell millions of sandwiches every day?
Keynes once posited that automation would reduce the working week to 15 hours by the end of the 20th century — and it probably could have. To his credit, Pargin seems to realize that his argument is money-centric, and tries to fend off critics by saying: Who said anything about money? Do you want to date someone? Do enough for whom? The same society that marginalizes many of them? Creative people are unbelievably hard on themselves, even if they do produce quality work.
But Pargin again too narrowly frames everything within the confines of capitalist economies run by extroverts. In just a few short months after its premiere, it became one of the most shared and lauded online articles in the history of the web. It hit a nerve. It jangled the cultural zeitgeist.
People popped their serenity prayers out of their frames and slid in SHT instead. SHT's thesis boils down to as it turns out six things: It doesn't have to be celebrated or well known, but it must change the world for the better in some way.
There are thousands of testimonials by people who have made SHT their way of life. A few real life testimonials about SHT profess: Just what I needed. SHT is a piece of work, no doubt. It strikes a tough stance with its absolutist tone, its fervent refusal to take prisoners or find middle ground, or acknowledge the existence of nuance and diversity.
The praise it receives is similarly absolutist. Like all visceral reactions, it resorts to hyperbole and oversimplification to make its point. Put That Coffee Down A consistently misapplied and misunderstood scene The playright and screenwriter David Mamet, before he went all Dennis Miller on us and denounced his liberalism, wrote a wonderful little play called Glengarry Glenn Ross.
The film adaptation of this play contained a scene that Mamet intended as grotesque satire. In the scene, Alec Baldwin proceeds to slowly bleed the life out of a group of mostly ne'er do well real estate agents with a rocket balls lecture about success. Unfortunately, Mamet did such a wonderful job at writing this scene, and Baldwin such a marvelous job at playing it, that it ceased to be what it was intended to be.
Rebutting David Wong’s “6 Harsh Truths” | ScreenGrab
No longer was it a denunciation of the values espoused by Baldwin's character, but a celebration of those values. It took on a life of its own. The movie Boiler Room contains a scene wherein the stock traders gets themselves pumped up at a party by watching that very scene from Glengarry, and reciting every word by heart.
Sales people and alpha dog types worship this paean to nut kicking abuse. They find it inspiring because it is so uncompromising. David Wong makes multiple references to the Baldwin scene throughout the course of 'Six Harsh Truths. Never mind this is not the intended effect of the scene and I doubt that Mamet, even today in his frothing hardcore Libertarian fervor, would deny it.
That something meant to shed a light on something truly awful and can be turned on its ear as an inspiration is a lot like Ann Coulter celebrating the historical genius of Senator Joseph McCarthy.
It's a prototypical Cracked article: When I saw that the article was meant and received as a dead serious tome for living with a growing audience, rather than an entertaining rant, I began to wonder: I re-read it a few times in hopes I could bottle what rankled me about SHT. I considered several possibilities: I considered the possibility that I was merely jealous of his success and notoriety.
I considered that I am one of the undeveloped beings that he targets. I thought, how dare you talk to me like that! How dare you assume you know me and that all unfulfilled people need the same prescription in order to be 'cured! The answer to that question, is, of course, that one of David Wong's brilliant stories was just made into a major motion picture. And he's sure to have more. I Am a Loser "Self worth matters By doing that, I fell right into the trap the article constructs.
Rebutting David Wong’s “6 Harsh Truths”
By even getting defensive about Wong's article, I illustrated his point for him. I couldn't let go. It was the first time I'd seen an articulately stated critique of Wong's missive.
Kanakia, like David Wong, is a published writer with some nice accomplishments.
It was, to be honest, galvanizing to hear someone other than myself express consternation about SHT's thesis. He later goes on to say: But that is no reason why you need to internalize society's point of view. From your point of view, you are special.
I refuse to accept the idea that all the 'world' demands the same kinds of output from individuals. Or that all individuals in order to feel constructive and happy must all become heroes of the same 'makers' myth that Wong suggests turns the earth. I reject the idea that people have to be spoken to like petulant children in order to learn to walk. The assumption that epiphanies must be forced on people in a funk in order to wake them up.
SHT appeals to a vast, universal fear, one most of us share, that we haven't accomplished enough in our lives, then says 'this is the only way you'll learn to be a better person.
Instead of acknowledging its thesis as a very valid piece in a broader puzzle, it says "this is all there is. These facts are absolute. There is nothing else. So why is SHT so upsetting to me? I can think of three reasons offhand. Firstly, SHT appeals to universal anxieties, then exploits them.
By universal anxieties, I mean fears that a majority of human beings feel; anxieties about fear of being nebulous. SHT simplifies and mocks the slow, process-oriented recovery often prescribed for people suffering from feelings of uselessness and isolation.
By verbally kicking our chairs out from under us, Wong mocks daydreaming. He mocks the process oriented-approaches to just about everything: What Wong's article fails to acknowledge is that for every universal truth you can glean from the human condition, the fact remains that we're a messy bunch, and our solutions to things like 'unhappiness' are as varied as the kinds of unhappiness we grapple with each and every day.
Secondly, SHT presents definitions it doesn't bother to elaborate on and expects us to go along with it. Anxiety and depression, for instance, are all blamed on the same root cause - idleness, self pity, lack of fulfillment. Every one of Wong's concepts and definitions - 'world, 'society,' 'value,' 'happiness,' or 'person' - are all predicated on false assumptions like this. Even this concept of 'what society wants from us' is painted with an enormous, broad brush, as if 'society' is a generalized entity, like God, expecting the same sort of performance from everyone.
SHT doesn't stop to acknowledge that the world is a series of separate global value systems all demanding disparate behaviors and values of their citizens. None of Wong's definitions are clearly mapped out. They're merely presented, flippantly applied to a series of list items, then presented to the young, ambitious entrepreneurs for whom the article was intended. The problem here should be clear: Thirdly, in SHT's wheelhouse, value is an objective quantity not up for negotiation.
It's worth and output jiggled into a quadratic equation and tossed out the other side. In truth, idleness and arrogance without purpose is truly a blight on human relationships and on society.
I happen to agree with Wong on some of these points. I'm upset when people expect the world to hand them things because they're good people, or because they feel they deserve it. That's not how the world works. I've known people who felt the world owes them something because they have good hearts - these people are usually miserable, envious and constantly sabotaging other peoples' happiness.
Before You Post
That kind of misery is toxic. Wong's not wrong about this. In fact, I can understand his strong emotions in discussing it. If you've ever known someone who feels useless, idle but entitled to great things, sometimes all you want to do is shake them by the collar.
My problem, though, and let me make this clear: What he's telling us is, if you're not doing it the way I've told you, then happiness - or what you think might be happiness - will be an illusion. You see, I've also known people who have followed through on SHT's criteria, to the letter, and through no fault of their own, failed to produce anything that meets SHT's criteria. They also failed to feel useful or happy. Let's Get Real "I'm just sayin He is, by all accounts, a really fucking nice guy, a successful and witty and progressive voice.
He did an AMA on Reddit recently that really impressed me. He's not out for page hits or fame - and much as he might wittily joke about it - and he clearly didn't set out to become a self help figure, but now that he's an accidental guru, the chickens in SHT are coming home to roost in ways that bother me. I don't think that was Wong's intent. I think he wrote SHT to get something off his chest, and I think he wrote the piece because it fulfills what people expect from a Cracked article.
Cracked or Buzzfeed, or any number of sites like it are not springboards for discussion.