this is one of the worst pieces of political writing I've ever encountered, and I read political history for a living.
Although I have nothing nice to say about the attempt to reform authoritarian leftism for the modern era, I'm speaking only about the actual prose.
Although I have nothing nice to say about the attempt to reform authoritarian leftism for the modern era, I'm speaking only about the actual prose.
https://twitter.com/ACPMain/status/1815163785134436404
The very first sentence reads like a fragment: you generally don't say "not only in..." without following up with a "but..."
The second sentence contains a comma splice ("the united mission" is the subject of both the first and second clause, so the comma should not be present)
The second sentence contains a comma splice ("the united mission" is the subject of both the first and second clause, so the comma should not be present)
the word "thereof" seems to serve no purpose except to make the writers believe that they are conveying intelligence and education. It conveys the opposite.
The serial comma is used inconsistently throughout the piece.
The serial comma is used inconsistently throughout the piece.
It is counterrevolutionary to affect intellectualism in political writing--that is, to try to sound fancy for the sake of sounding fancy. This isn't to say there isn't a place for specialized vocabulary that might read as jargon to outsiders, but it must be used with purpose.
It's true that the working class can understand (or learn to understand) writing written in an academic tone, but in order for that to be the case, the writing should be clear and consistent.
If you're trying to sound smart, you'd better actually sound smart.
If you're trying to sound smart, you'd better actually sound smart.
What this piece of writing conveys is that it was written by a group of people that desperately want to be taken seriously on an intellectual level but don't know shit about shit. They're cosplaying as political actors, writing what they think is a coherent political text.
I generally refuse to resort to grammar pedantry, because the purpose of writing is communication, not adherence to rules. But this is a group committed to the idea of empowering an authoritarian state, a state built on the principle of adherence to rules.
When people write informally (like on twitter) then hurray, the formal grammatical conventions should not be applied to them.
When people write their silly little manifesto full of jargon and the kinds of grammatical errors a freshman should be embarrassed to make, then whatever
When people write their silly little manifesto full of jargon and the kinds of grammatical errors a freshman should be embarrassed to make, then whatever
Also your typography is bad and you should feel bad.
Look at that fucking indented paragraph on the second page caused by text wrap by your stupid little authoritarian logo. Fuck you.
Look at that fucking indented paragraph on the second page caused by text wrap by your stupid little authoritarian logo. Fuck you.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
