I found the first passage moving in that it moved me to think, “This is so fucking stupid”, so I never finished it and haven’t gotten around to reading the decucked version. When I do get around to it, I find it fairly likely that I’ll basically agree with the substantive point, but I have trouble taking a piece of writing seriously when it unironically uses insults like “cuck” and “shitlib”.
(Or maybe it is irony, but sufficiently advanced irony is indistinguishable from stupidity.)
My problem with the second passage was sentences like these:
I cannot request the documents via phone because of alleged patient confidentiality issues; not even with the limitation that I would request them to the address the healthcare department has in their patient records, which would effectively eliminate any potential privacy issues as the mail could not be redirected without physically intercepting it, and any adversary capable of consistently intercepting my mail already has full access to my confidential info anyway.
...
The fact that it has no demonstrated abuse potential nor has there been any evidence of significant harmful side effects doesn’t matter, as the law treats anything which could be used for treating illnesses, ailments etc. a regulated drug, unless it has been exempted as homeopathic or certain categories of herbal.
Too many damn clauses. Bad writing. The first internet-speak passage, despite no attempt at punctuation, is mostly clearer simply by virtue of being written in short sentences and short paragraph-like blocks.
Note that Eliezer and Scott Alexander, the two guys referenced as being “good at this”, both use short, clear sentences and short paragraphs.
This is kind of a side point, but I am a bit confused by the first passage quoted in the linked article (the passage that begins with “your regulation is #problematic, statecucks… ”).
The passage is said to be describing how “the FDA is fucking them and ruining their lives”. But, the passage is apparently discussing a health system other than the US health system (England’s health system would be my guess). So, it is not clear to me that the passage has anything to say one way or the other about the FDA, which is a US government agency.
Easier is not always better!
This post seems to take “this style is engaging and that style is boring” as, in itself, reason to prefer the fun style over the dull style. It isn’t!
Is it weird that I found the first passage not very moving at all and the second one very persuasive?
I found the first passage moving in that it moved me to think, “This is so fucking stupid”, so I never finished it and haven’t gotten around to reading the decucked version. When I do get around to it, I find it fairly likely that I’ll basically agree with the substantive point, but I have trouble taking a piece of writing seriously when it unironically uses insults like “cuck” and “shitlib”.
(Or maybe it is irony, but sufficiently advanced irony is indistinguishable from stupidity.)
My problem with the second passage was sentences like these:
...
Too many damn clauses. Bad writing. The first internet-speak passage, despite no attempt at punctuation, is mostly clearer simply by virtue of being written in short sentences and short paragraph-like blocks.
Note that Eliezer and Scott Alexander, the two guys referenced as being “good at this”, both use short, clear sentences and short paragraphs.
This is kind of a side point, but I am a bit confused by the first passage quoted in the linked article (the passage that begins with “your regulation is #problematic, statecucks… ”).
The passage is said to be describing how “the FDA is fucking them and ruining their lives”. But, the passage is apparently discussing a health system other than the US health system (England’s health system would be my guess). So, it is not clear to me that the passage has anything to say one way or the other about the FDA, which is a US government agency.