by yCritic | 2026-01-21 04:50:17+00:00
Super annoying writing style… specifically…

1. LEDE BURYING: Fails to deliver the 5W’s early, forcing the reader to infer purpose, stakes, & scope.
2. TEMPORAL VAGUENESS: Uses imprecise time markers (“a while back”) that weaken credibility & urgency.
3. METADISCOURSE OPENING: Talks about another article instead of stating the actual subject claim upfront.
4. THESIS DELAY: Withholds the central claim too long, substituting atmosphere for orientation.
5. WEAK EXIGENCY: Fails to justify why the reader should care now, beyond the author’s interest.
6. ASSOCIATIVE STRUCTURE: Moves by “this reminds me of…” logic rather than a disciplined argumentative sequence.
7. PARATAXIS OVER LOGIC: Stacks adjacent claims that sound connected through tone, not reasoning.
8. HEADING-DRIVEN ILLUSION OF STRUCTURE: Uses section titles as decorative scaffolding without real analytical progression.
9. SCOPE CREEP: Expands outward (Raskin → counterculture → corporate inevitability) without controlling relevance.
10. CONCEPTUAL INFLATION: Broadens terms (“humane,” “open,” “liberation”) until they lose operational meaning.
11. RHETORICAL SIGNPOSTING TICS: Relies on “you might call,” “the point is,” “read that way” instead of precise transitions.
12. PHATIC, CHUMMY NARRATION: Uses rapport-maintenance chatter that displaces informational density.
13. WINKING ESSAYIST VOICE: Performs insider cleverness through asides, nudges, & knowing tone.
14. HEDGE CLUTCHING: Overuses “sort of,” “maybe,” “you could argue,” which signals uncertainty without analysis.
15. EVALUATIVE ADJECTIVE DEPENDENCE: Substitutes taste-words (“thoughtful,” “radical,” “strange”) for substantiated claims.
16. AXIOLOGICAL PERSUASION: Pushes value judgments as the engine of conviction instead of evidence.
17. METAPHOR AS ARGUMENT: Uses figurative language (“branches,” “rhizomes,” “cul-de-sac”) as if it proves causality.
18. PERFORMATIVE ERUDITION: Name-checks thinkers & systems to project authority rather than clarify mechanisms.
19. ORNAMENTAL THEORY DROPS: Inserts high-theory references that add prestige but not analytical necessity.
20. AUDIENCE MIS-CALIBRATION: Assumes niche literacy (Forth, 68k, 9front) while intermittently “explaining” basics.
21. REGISTER INSTABILITY: Shifts between casual snark & grand historical pronouncements, producing tonal whiplash.
22. GLIB REDUCTIONISM: Uses flattening labels (“weird white guys”) that gesture at critique without precision.
23. TOPICAL RECIRCULATION: Repeats the same claim in cycles with minor rephrasing rather than developing it.
24. SEMANTIC DRIFT: Changes wording & metaphors while the argument stays essentially static.
25. RHETORICAL QUESTIONS AS SUBSTITUTES: Asks questions to simulate inquiry instead of answering with structured reasoning.
26. CADENCE OVER CLARITY: Prioritizes rhythm, em-dashes, & long-flow sentences over clean propositions.
27. PARENTHETICAL DIGRESSION: Overuses asides that fracture focus & degrade argumentative force.
28. QUOTE AS THEATER: Deploys quotations for color & narrative flair more than evidentiary burden.
29. UNDER-ATTRIBUTED ASSERTION: States large claims about companies, history, & incentives without sourcing or delimiting.
30. MONOCAUSAL DETERMINISM: Treats “scale” as a single master explanation, ignoring alternative causal factors.
31. ARGUMENT BY DECLARATION: Presents sweeping conclusions (“constitutionally incapable”) as self-evident truth.
32. JOURNALISM–ESSAY IDENTITY CONFUSION: Wears journalistic clothing while practicing opinionated synthesis without reporting discipline.
33. INADEQUATE DEFINITIONAL CONTROL: Uses key terms (“humane,” “open,” “hermetic”) without rigorous definition or criteria.
34. WEAK COUNTERARGUMENT HANDLING: Mentions tensions but avoids systematically testing opposing cases or exceptions.
35. FADE-OUT ENDING: Ends in sermon-like generality rather than a crisp, verifiable, reader-actionable conclusion.