I was waiting for this to happen - congrats on getting there first! That piece was so fucking pompous and, more importantly, not even funny. Look forward to reading this after work!
This piece is unintentionally hilarious - it seems the New Statesman's light-hearted piece gently poking fun at intellectually vacuous Centrist Dads has hit a really raw nerve with you, and upset you deeply. Did you see a lot of yourself in that satire by any chance? Because I can see a lot of Waterstone's Man in you just from the litany of insecurities you've exposed to the world in this piece.
Lets go through why its bad. Firstly, it's income bracket at the start, £32,000, seems like an odd choice when compared to the £90,000 Waterstones man brings in - are you trying to emphasise the Proletarian credentials of this archetype? £32k is slightly about the median wage, but is by no means extravagant. Lower middle-class, depending on circumstances and geography. Feels like a bizarre point to lead off with - if the intention here is to mock socialists for being weather then it falls flat, if the point is to sincerely recognise that people who supported Corbyn and the hard-left were were, on average, from lower income brackets than the centrist, anti-socialist wing of the Labour, but that's something multiple studies since the first Labour leadership contest in 2015 have shown, but it feels incongruous when put aside the lazy sort of tropes about left-wing people being rich that appear later in the piece?
Secondly, all the references to reading "obscure tomes about capitalism" seem very petty and insecure on your part, like you're jealous that someone else might choose to read something more challenging than mass market, middlebrow Airport books. It also doesn't work since you can't name a single example of such a book its hard to know exactly what constitutes "obscure" by your definition. The piece you're emulating didn't make that mistake, they named specific writers (David Aaronovitz, Raphael Behr, Ian Dunt etc) who fit with the overall characterisation whereas you don't have enough knowledge of that which you're criticising to drop in a specific name.
Finally, and this is the point that will elicit the biggest reaction from the left of twitter, is you linking these traits with an appallingly centrist rag like the New Statesman. I assure you, as a card carrying member of the Corbyn cult, people on our side regard the New Statesman as a joke. We don't read or pay much attention to it, it's not a venue we'll ever get an honest hearing, indeed they were unremittingly hostile to Corbyn's leadership, and are just generally boring old small-c conservative bores. Maybe Jacobin, Tribune, New Socialist, New Left Review etc but not the New Statesman. You really need to do better research on your target to avoid looking silly like this in your future attempts at satire.
I am not remotely upset by this light hearted article - despite being a Corbyn supporter myself- and I don’t think you need to be either. I haven’t read the NS piece but will certainly do so now.
This article made me smile as I recognised parts of it as I undoubtedly will with the NS one. That’s the point surely, they are caricatures?
One remark on your criticism of the £32k salary though, which you seemed particularly upset about…my reading of this was that it was precisely the point that £32k isn’t a high salary, but somehow this chap and his ilk manage to buy a place in London and live a ‘London lifestyle’ despite earning an average salary. Something most of us cannot achieve (presumably family money comes into play in a significant way). Don’t we all know people like that?
The whole flaw in the piece he’s satirising is that it conjured into existence a ludicrous straw man and condescended to it. So obviously it’s justified to do the same in response - it’s kinda how it works as satire??
The piece he's satirising might have upset the eternally thin skinned centrist bores, but the guy who wrote clearly made some effort to research the type of guy in question, whereas this piece is internally incoherent and doesn't make sense within its own frame of reference - for example, the type of person who reads "obscure tomes" about capitalism are very unlikely to have any time for the painfully dull and centrist New Statesman, people who have expensive private school educations and end up with sinecures in the arts and/or media usually bring in much more than 32k a year and politically those types tend to cleave more towards the centre than the left. It's just badly done, really.
It’s a pretty speedily written - given the NS piece came out yesterday - takedown of an incredibly pompous piece in a well respected magazine. The original author obviously had much more time to write his piece. I just don’t get your criticism, it’s pedantic. Especially as this is just meant as a humorous retort (I assume). And it works for me!
Plus the writer of the original had absolutely no insight into the reading habits of, say, David Aaronovitch. He just seems to dislike him for some reason? The overall thesis of the NS piece is reducible to “I’m cleverer than you” - nothing more tbh
There's no shortage of reasons to dislike David Aaronovitch, he's shite, just pumps out right-wing pablum for a Tory rag, or did I should say.
But the piece wasn't about him, it was about the kind of people who read him. Not so much people who are stupid, although some are, but usually intellectually lazy and vacuous rather than stupid per se, and yes that type of person definitely exists, I'm sure more specimens will out themselves here in the comments as time passes. People who love Jonathan Pie and who quote Marina Hyde columns at the pub. People who voted Tory in 2017 and 2019 but pretend they voted for ChangeUK. Waterstones man is something that's a bit of a knockabout piece, a bit of fun, but it really has hurt some of these people badly. It's something the have in common with MAGA types - a shared hatred or anything left-wing, a massive feeling of intellectual inferiority with all the attendant chips on the shoulder that brings, and most crucially both groups are the most thin-skinned set of crybabies you could ever meet.
Same is true of most of these cringeworrhy libs, their loyalties are much nearer to Boris and Trump etc than any type of socialism or social democracy. Their conduct in 2019 is proof, their joy at Boris's election victory the icing on the cake.
Its hilarious that for someone like you a pro-war, pro-austerity Murdoch hack constitutes the left- imagine letting the Overton window close off your brain to such an extent!
Now, I think the next step for you is to throw out some insults, personal abuse, and to continue to fastidiously refrain from any mention of the specific substance of my critique. Perhaps you could accuse me of anti-semitism as a way to deflect from the substance of my arguments, that's always pretty reliable if you find yourself in a conversation with a socialist and out of your depth.
Its all well and good to believe in the enlightenment, reasoned discussion, civil discourse, but in practice such virtues are usually only extended to those on the far right, people who hate Muslims or Trans teenagers etc, whatever the current public enemy that's being vilified, its very rarely indulged anyone to the left of Harold Wilson.
Why are you preempting my reaction? That’s just weird. You can have a problem with The Times being owned by Murdoch which is totally valid - I don’t like it either. But the idea that David Aaronovitch is in any way a supporter of Boris Johnson or Donald Trump suggests you’ve never read anything he’s written. He has vociferously attacked both numerous times. Conflating Murdoch with anybody who writes for the publications he owns is frankly risible...
Just seems like you liked the original so dislike this satire of it. That’s fine. But no reason to go to all these lengths to criticise a swiftly written piss take of an astonishingly condescending + pompous piece in the NS who is probably quite well remunerated for the “ideas” he supplies us with. “Ideas Editor” - I mean come on man!
I didn't care too much about the original, it was a very frivolous kind of piece, but this attempt at satirising it is hilarious. I bet you a tenner he was crying like the "seethe" wojak meme as he typed it. It's this enormous tantrum reaction to that piece that's piqued my interest.
Anyway my bus journey is coming to and end now so I will leave my contributions there. Have fun!
Of course, he moans about equality but stares at you blankly when you mention the Gini co-efficient (and he has certainly not aware of what it means). He witters about poverty, but is unable to appreciate the difference between "relative poverty" and "absolute poverty". And he is an insufferably smug git who, whilst spouting contextless quotes from Bevan or Keynes, could not tell you why they'd be horrified by today's scale of benefits and taxes (respectively).
Yours was better. End of story.
I was waiting for this to happen - congrats on getting there first! That piece was so fucking pompous and, more importantly, not even funny. Look forward to reading this after work!
Not so sure if this is New Stateman Man. Sounds more like Tribune Man to me.
Frankly I (born 1979) don't know which of these two caricatures I feel more seen by
I normally love the new statesman and find it v insightful, but that article is v v dumb and annoying and unnecessary
This piece is unintentionally hilarious - it seems the New Statesman's light-hearted piece gently poking fun at intellectually vacuous Centrist Dads has hit a really raw nerve with you, and upset you deeply. Did you see a lot of yourself in that satire by any chance? Because I can see a lot of Waterstone's Man in you just from the litany of insecurities you've exposed to the world in this piece.
Lets go through why its bad. Firstly, it's income bracket at the start, £32,000, seems like an odd choice when compared to the £90,000 Waterstones man brings in - are you trying to emphasise the Proletarian credentials of this archetype? £32k is slightly about the median wage, but is by no means extravagant. Lower middle-class, depending on circumstances and geography. Feels like a bizarre point to lead off with - if the intention here is to mock socialists for being weather then it falls flat, if the point is to sincerely recognise that people who supported Corbyn and the hard-left were were, on average, from lower income brackets than the centrist, anti-socialist wing of the Labour, but that's something multiple studies since the first Labour leadership contest in 2015 have shown, but it feels incongruous when put aside the lazy sort of tropes about left-wing people being rich that appear later in the piece?
Secondly, all the references to reading "obscure tomes about capitalism" seem very petty and insecure on your part, like you're jealous that someone else might choose to read something more challenging than mass market, middlebrow Airport books. It also doesn't work since you can't name a single example of such a book its hard to know exactly what constitutes "obscure" by your definition. The piece you're emulating didn't make that mistake, they named specific writers (David Aaronovitz, Raphael Behr, Ian Dunt etc) who fit with the overall characterisation whereas you don't have enough knowledge of that which you're criticising to drop in a specific name.
Finally, and this is the point that will elicit the biggest reaction from the left of twitter, is you linking these traits with an appallingly centrist rag like the New Statesman. I assure you, as a card carrying member of the Corbyn cult, people on our side regard the New Statesman as a joke. We don't read or pay much attention to it, it's not a venue we'll ever get an honest hearing, indeed they were unremittingly hostile to Corbyn's leadership, and are just generally boring old small-c conservative bores. Maybe Jacobin, Tribune, New Socialist, New Left Review etc but not the New Statesman. You really need to do better research on your target to avoid looking silly like this in your future attempts at satire.
I am not remotely upset by this light hearted article - despite being a Corbyn supporter myself- and I don’t think you need to be either. I haven’t read the NS piece but will certainly do so now.
This article made me smile as I recognised parts of it as I undoubtedly will with the NS one. That’s the point surely, they are caricatures?
One remark on your criticism of the £32k salary though, which you seemed particularly upset about…my reading of this was that it was precisely the point that £32k isn’t a high salary, but somehow this chap and his ilk manage to buy a place in London and live a ‘London lifestyle’ despite earning an average salary. Something most of us cannot achieve (presumably family money comes into play in a significant way). Don’t we all know people like that?
The whole flaw in the piece he’s satirising is that it conjured into existence a ludicrous straw man and condescended to it. So obviously it’s justified to do the same in response - it’s kinda how it works as satire??
The piece he's satirising might have upset the eternally thin skinned centrist bores, but the guy who wrote clearly made some effort to research the type of guy in question, whereas this piece is internally incoherent and doesn't make sense within its own frame of reference - for example, the type of person who reads "obscure tomes" about capitalism are very unlikely to have any time for the painfully dull and centrist New Statesman, people who have expensive private school educations and end up with sinecures in the arts and/or media usually bring in much more than 32k a year and politically those types tend to cleave more towards the centre than the left. It's just badly done, really.
It’s a pretty speedily written - given the NS piece came out yesterday - takedown of an incredibly pompous piece in a well respected magazine. The original author obviously had much more time to write his piece. I just don’t get your criticism, it’s pedantic. Especially as this is just meant as a humorous retort (I assume). And it works for me!
Plus the writer of the original had absolutely no insight into the reading habits of, say, David Aaronovitch. He just seems to dislike him for some reason? The overall thesis of the NS piece is reducible to “I’m cleverer than you” - nothing more tbh
There's no shortage of reasons to dislike David Aaronovitch, he's shite, just pumps out right-wing pablum for a Tory rag, or did I should say.
But the piece wasn't about him, it was about the kind of people who read him. Not so much people who are stupid, although some are, but usually intellectually lazy and vacuous rather than stupid per se, and yes that type of person definitely exists, I'm sure more specimens will out themselves here in the comments as time passes. People who love Jonathan Pie and who quote Marina Hyde columns at the pub. People who voted Tory in 2017 and 2019 but pretend they voted for ChangeUK. Waterstones man is something that's a bit of a knockabout piece, a bit of fun, but it really has hurt some of these people badly. It's something the have in common with MAGA types - a shared hatred or anything left-wing, a massive feeling of intellectual inferiority with all the attendant chips on the shoulder that brings, and most crucially both groups are the most thin-skinned set of crybabies you could ever meet.
Sorry you consider David Aaronovitch “right wing”???
Yes. Centre-right at my most generous.
Same is true of most of these cringeworrhy libs, their loyalties are much nearer to Boris and Trump etc than any type of socialism or social democracy. Their conduct in 2019 is proof, their joy at Boris's election victory the icing on the cake.
Its hilarious that for someone like you a pro-war, pro-austerity Murdoch hack constitutes the left- imagine letting the Overton window close off your brain to such an extent!
Now, I think the next step for you is to throw out some insults, personal abuse, and to continue to fastidiously refrain from any mention of the specific substance of my critique. Perhaps you could accuse me of anti-semitism as a way to deflect from the substance of my arguments, that's always pretty reliable if you find yourself in a conversation with a socialist and out of your depth.
Its all well and good to believe in the enlightenment, reasoned discussion, civil discourse, but in practice such virtues are usually only extended to those on the far right, people who hate Muslims or Trans teenagers etc, whatever the current public enemy that's being vilified, its very rarely indulged anyone to the left of Harold Wilson.
Why are you preempting my reaction? That’s just weird. You can have a problem with The Times being owned by Murdoch which is totally valid - I don’t like it either. But the idea that David Aaronovitch is in any way a supporter of Boris Johnson or Donald Trump suggests you’ve never read anything he’s written. He has vociferously attacked both numerous times. Conflating Murdoch with anybody who writes for the publications he owns is frankly risible...
Just seems like you liked the original so dislike this satire of it. That’s fine. But no reason to go to all these lengths to criticise a swiftly written piss take of an astonishingly condescending + pompous piece in the NS who is probably quite well remunerated for the “ideas” he supplies us with. “Ideas Editor” - I mean come on man!
I didn't care too much about the original, it was a very frivolous kind of piece, but this attempt at satirising it is hilarious. I bet you a tenner he was crying like the "seethe" wojak meme as he typed it. It's this enormous tantrum reaction to that piece that's piqued my interest.
Anyway my bus journey is coming to and end now so I will leave my contributions there. Have fun!
Of course, he moans about equality but stares at you blankly when you mention the Gini co-efficient (and he has certainly not aware of what it means). He witters about poverty, but is unable to appreciate the difference between "relative poverty" and "absolute poverty". And he is an insufferably smug git who, whilst spouting contextless quotes from Bevan or Keynes, could not tell you why they'd be horrified by today's scale of benefits and taxes (respectively).
😂 well put. We all know the type 🙄
Wonderful