Wow, this is just embarrassing NYT:
I'm only three paragraphs in, and this NYT column attacking Trump's English is horribly written. (h/t @DavidRutz) pic.twitter.com/QNRX1XDGYe
— Alex Griswold (@HashtagGriswold) July 17, 2017
It’s sorta like the NYT is trying to troll Trump for being stupid and showing themselves to be the real stupid ones in the process. For example, have you ever debated someone on Twitter who said, “Your stupid”? Yeah, that’s what the NYT just did here.
Helpful hint: if you are going to imply someone is stupid, don’t be stupid when you do it.
"obfuscating with linguistic obtuseness," wrote a human being pic.twitter.com/rLGwtUOcmk
— Alex Griswold (@HashtagGriswold) July 17, 2017
We get it, the writer wants us to think he’s smart.
Dude probably has a ‘Word of the Day Calendar’ on his desk. *eye roll*
Supercilious verbosity formulated to make the writer sound sophisticated by using prose excessively polysyllabic has the opposite effect.
— Razor (@hale_razor) July 17, 2017
Yeah, what he said.
charles blow in badly-written column shocker.
— Jeff B/DDHQ (@EsotericCD) July 17, 2017
Guess we could say the column, ‘blows’ …
We’ll be here all week folks, tip your waitress.
Holy, hell….I….does he have a 1000 word minimum?
— Colonel Potter (@laurakfillault) July 17, 2017
Maybe he’s paid per adjective?
"If I repeat words that sound like idiot, how many points will I earn?"
— Rebecca Ross (@AStandUpGirl) July 17, 2017
Odds are if someone uses a bunch of big, pretty words they’re hiding the notion that they really have nothing worth saying in the first place. Heck, look at us on Twitchy … we KEEP IT REAL.
Heh.
Related:
Literally SHAKING: NYT op-ed claims ‘speech you don’t like’ is violent, WILL TOTALLY KILL YOU
