“Medium chill” is maximum wrong.

Posted on by Pastabagel and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Add this to the ever-growing list of incredibly bad ideas. The article proposes a way of life called “the medium chill.” Medium chill is a lifestyle in which once you decide that you’ll never win the rat race, never get all the best stuff or even more than your neighbors, then there is no point in working hard, and instead you should just coast. But don’t take my word for it:

If we wanted, we could both do the “next thing” on our respective career paths. She could move to a bigger company. I could freelance more, angle to write for a bigger publications, write a book, hire a publicist, whatever. We could try to make more money. Then we could fix the water pressure in our shower, redo the back patio, get a second car, or hell, buy a bigger house closer in to town. Maybe get the kids in private schools. All that stuff people with more money than us do….

But … meh. It’s not that we don’t think about those things. The water pressure thing drives me batty. Fact is, we just don’t want to work that hard! We already work harder than we feel like working. We enjoy having time to lay around in the living room with the kids, reading. We like to watch a little TV after the kids are in bed. We like going to the park and visits with friends and low-key vacations and generally relaxing. Going further down our respective career paths would likely mean more work, greater responsibilities, higher stress, and less time to lay around the living room with the kids.

So why do it? There will always be a More and Better just beyond our reach, no matter how high we climb. We could always have a little more money and a few more choices. But as we see it, we don’t need to work harder to get more money to have more choices because we already made our choice.

TL;DR–the author declares that he feels he is working too hard, and doesn’t want to work harder. He rationalizes this with a protracted attack on consumer culture because consumerism always leaves everyone wanting more. He cites a number of the pop social science books and “life coaches” to support this thesis that less is more, but he extends their advice to include working less. His whole these is that people work more to get all the things they want, and if we didn’t want all these things, then we should work less.

I’m all for downsizing, simplifying, minimizing and reducing one’s material imprint on the world. I’m all for consuming less. I think advertising is a pernicious, invasive, and damaging psychological force. If you want to be the flag bearer in the march against consumerism, I’ll be right there behind you, firing the plasma cannon into Spencer Gifts and The Sharper Image.

“What upsets people is not things themselves but their judgments about the things.” Epictetus said that 2000 years ago, when frankly there weren’t all that many things around.

But the author of this article isn’t really rejecting consumer culture. He says quite clearly that he likes reading and watching TV. But aren’t those forms of consumption? They aren’t material consumption, true, but so what? More crappy furniture clutters up your house, but crappy books and movies clutter up your mind. In my opinion, that’s worse. And take note: he isn’t “laying around” thinking, writing, doing or creating. He actually explicitly rejects writing more in the excerpt I quoted above. What he is in fact advocating is consuming more. Consuming more media. He somehow wants to reject working long hours and to pursue more TV watching. All in the name of being less of a consumer, which is ironic, given that TV is the primary means by which consumer culture is conveyed and promoted.

He is actually arguing for being more of the kind of consumer he already is. Which is fine. People generally try to rationalize inertia and the status quo, because (surprise!) changing your life is a lot of work. But as an individual, he is free to choose to live he life as is best for him (and he’s free to change it later).

But then he says things like this:

The U.S. is slowly dividing into two nations, one that can’t get what it needs and one that has everything and always wants more.

Then maybe those in the group that can’t get what it needs and who “just don’t want to work that hard” should instead “try to make more money.” That’s just me.

But now consider the politics of “the medium chill.” Do you think this author supports universal healthcare? Does he support expanding Social Security? Raising taxes on the top 5%? If so, doesn’t that amount to demanding that society enable his lifestyle choice at the expense of those who make a different choice?

This is the flaw in the argument. You want to work less because you don’t want all that superfluous stuff. But what about the stuff you need? Who pays for that? I’m not saying that “medium chill” is merely hidden socialism. At least socialism advertised itself as “From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs.” This guy clearly says he has the ability to do more, but he chooses not to. So this is a philosophy that even a socialist would consider freeloading.

But it doesn’t matter, because he isn’t following this idea through all of its logical conclusions. He makes it clear that he is thinking about maximizing his happiness and he’s concluded that he can do that by working less and consuming less. Undoubtedly, this happiness maximization strategy includes supporting political ideas in which the government or some other external entity provide for him those things that his “medium chill” work ethic can no longer afford. And that in turn means that the people who make the opposite choice from him–the people who choose to stay on the treadmill, who choose to work longer hours for the money–will have to pay for, albeit indirectly through some institutional intermediary.

And that is what this article is really about.

That’s how you get people in the U.S. making $200,000 a year — unquestionably rich relative to the median — whining that they’re just humble middle class. They look with bitter envy on those making a million, just as those making a million aspire to the tens of millions, and so on. That’s how you get a media and political class at once privileged and put-upon, swimming in wealth relative to the average American but forever rubbing shoulders with those who are even richer. [Emphasis mine.]

This is an article by a guy who can’t stop looking at other people, can’t stop wanting to keep up with the Joneses, but also knows he can’t compete with them. This guy is bought into one of the biggest lies of the consumer society, that it can all be yours and you don’t have to work hard. And only upon discovering the truth, that in fact you do have to work exceedingly hard just to climb a rung or two, he wants out. That realization fosters a resentment, a kind of class envy, which fuels the fantasy of a complete moral and ethical readjustment of society in which the people “making $200,000 a year — unquestionably rich relative to the median — whining that they’re just humble middle class” end up supporting his leisure time by providing him with everything he needs but chooses not to work for. It’s an angry, bitter man’s fantasy. That’s why his medium chill article only discusses wants and not needs. The needs will be obtained from the bitterly envious, the shoulder-rubbers and the privileged, to use his words.

No true rejection of consumer culture argues for working less, because work and consumerism are not tied together. In fact, the consumer society is marked by the transformation of leisure–hobbies, sports, community activity, etc–into the consumption of media and particularly television, and by the representation of work as fun, social, exciting, and interesting, but never hard.

And I remind you again, it’s the author of the “medium chill” lifestyle who wants to spend more time watching TV.

Where this author goes wrong is conflating the American work ethic with consumer culture. The American work ethic is how we got to the moon. Consumerism is the reason we won’t go back. He argues from the assumption that the only reason we work harder and longer is to get more stuff or get fancier stuff, because if he doesn’t assume this, then everything is all on him. He rationalizes his desire to work less by claiming he doesn’t want the stuff that he assumes people who work a lot are working for. But what about the stuff he needs?

Perhaps people work hard because they find happiness in achieving things that are difficult. Perhaps they work hard because they feel that it ensures that they will keep working when those around them who work less may be laid off. Perhaps they think their work matters. Perhaps they work hard to accumulate for a better future for their children, or to insure against an unexpectedly unemployed future. Perhaps they work hard now so they won’t have to work hard, or at all, much later. Perhaps a million other things. That this guy can only see one reason to work harder–for greater consumption–is a reflection of his “judgments about things”, not those of society.

These are hard times. But the way forward individually and collectively is not medium chill, it’s maximum effort.  

Related posts:

  1. Exactly the wrong response to the Norway bombings
  2. Noam Chomsky is Wrong on Bin Laden (and Foucault Won That Debate))
  3. Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: No titles of nobility?
  4. Academically Adrift in the Free Market
  5. Why can’t asian men get laid?

41 Responses to “Medium chill” is maximum wrong.

  1. qubitman says:

    I’m the son of rich people. I’m working a meaningless job and I’m quite content here. I’m protected by my family’s wealth so there’s no incentive to take on a greater life mission, and you expect me to put in maximum effort? Why? What is that going to get me that I don’t already have? I’m freeloading on my parents, and I’m not proud of it, but what’s some health insurance and a few dollars to help cover the cost of rent? My first instinct is to say that plenty of people do that. That’s a cop out. Why should one add value to society? Also, a cop out. Simple fact is it’s a lot of work, and even more humiliation to get anywhere in life. It’s a painful, unpleasant experience that really doesn’t seem worth the effort. Then the question becomes what would make it worth the effort?

    • mwigdahl says:

      Then the question becomes what would make it worth the effort?

      If your parents cut you off someday, or events otherwise nullify your family’s wealth, you might find this out firsthand.

    • JMiller says:

      “I’m quite content here… I’m not proud of it…”

      I’m confused — how can you be quite content if you have no pride in how you’re living?

    • DataShade says:

      Don’t you have anything inside yourself that cries out for something other than comfort? An urge to create, to achieve, to perform, to build, to help? That’s what makes it worth the effort.

      • qubitman says:

        If I let myself get swept up in my compulsion to pursue what I “know” I must do I will be burnt out in 5 years or less. I am convinced I want to become a doctor in emergency medicine. Whether or not this pans out is not relevant right now because I know myself well enough to go for something so serious so quickly. If I do it I do it but it will not be by direct conscious effort. That is a lie I no longer believe in.

    • Guy Fox says:

      If you didn’t exist, who would miss you?

    • wisegirl says:

      Quit the meaningless job and donate your time to helping others through charity work.

  2. Dan Dravot says:

    …2000 years ago, when frankly there weren’t all that many things around.

    Heh. That was pretty good.

    But as for “maximum effort”… To what end?

    • mwigdahl says:

      Thanks so much for the link to Fred’s site! I’d never read the man before.

    • DataShade says:

      I went to public schools and a university; I completely agree with the first half of everything that man says and vehemently disagree with the second half. “He will be savagely bored, regard his teachers as imbeciles, and learn nothing that justifies his being there but much that justifies being somewhere else.” True, sometimes true, not really true, somewhere else? Else where, with his parents – with you? Fuck you, you don’t even like you, how is your by your own admission intelligent child going to like you? Give your kid six hours a day to play with his friends, the kid’s already going to unconsciously ape everything you do, let them at least have a few hours a day where when they don’t have their thoughts and conduct reinforced with or conformed to all your mistakes.

      “Second, universities these days, with exceptions I hope, are citadels of intellectual darkness. They teach little, and chiefly serve to force the young to borrow backbreaking sums from colluding banks.” Um, the university’s not supposed to teach you what you want in life. If the school’s decent it’ll show you where to go and what to do to learn whatever you want, but if you’re waiting for them to teach you, I got news for you: you don’t have to try to disengage anymore, you’re done.

      • Dan Dravot says:

        I completely agree with the first half of everything that man says and vehemently disagree with the second half.

        That’s pretty much my reaction to everything I’ve ever read by Fred Reed. He restates my prejudices and I’m like “dude, genius!” and then he restates somebody else’s, and I’m all like “WTF Fred, I thought you were smart?”

        My halves may differ from yours, though.

        • DataShade says:

          My halves may differ from yours, though.

          Really? I’d like to hear a little more about that, because I think I agree with his suppositions/observations and disagree with his conclusions/reasonings, and I don’t see how you could like the opposite. xD

  3. JMiller says:

    It’s a strong rebuttal and I’m in favor of it in as much as it applies to the people it describes — especially private art college students who think they can “choose to be poor” as long as there are social safety nets under them. And I somehow doubt that the author is economically independent enough for me to trust his contented austerity — it sounds like he’s got tax-deductible kids in a tax-funded public school (bets on if they’ll be able to fund their higher education?) and probably a tax-deductible mortgage on a house that they’re not working too hard to increase the value of.

    But I have no debts, no kids, enough invested already to be irked when the USFG plays chicken with the monetary system, and a plan to be socioeconomically independent in 17 years. To that end, I do trust myself to be reasonably chill on relentless career advancement. But I’m apparently an anomalous freak and probably not the target audience for this particular rebuttal.

  4. barrkel says:

    Bullshit. I can make well over 100K USD equivalent without a whole lot of effort, but at some major inconvenience to my lifestyle. I can make somewhat less than that, but with a better lifestyle – i.e. more flexibility in how I spend my time. How I spend that time could be considered “consuming” – currently, it would be consuming petrol, as my current hobby is motorbikes and travel – but I don’t think that’s what you have in mind. Above all, it’s important to get out of the idea that you have to work 50 weeks a year, 40+ hours a week, putting the best hours of your day into a mere job, especially if it only pays you on the order of 100K or so. Maximum effort in this direction is a sure path to regret in older age, if you’re working for someone else.

    Maximum effort in something you own is different. I’ll agree to that. But climbing the rungs of that ladder – that stuff is easy (in my position at least). What’s hard to live with is selling your life to someone else. I say don’t do it.

  5. claudius says:

    Self interest is fine, and is absolutely essential to getting yourself alfoat. But once people are afloat they can forget that others are drowning around them. They start to sunbathe. But their ship is rotting, and maybe a storm hits. They were unprepared so they’re drowning again. There’s something Rotten about this picture.

    As PB points out, first we must build our vessels, and then we must fortify them and constantly repair them. In doing so we set an example for others as to how a ship should be built, and if our ship is strong enough we can save them. That author does not understand what it means to work towards a greater cause. The missing key is altruism.

  6. hanba says:

    Is making money a dichotomy? Either you make as much of it as you can to fulfill your basic needs as well as a bigger house, car, boat and then some – or you don’t make enough, using other people’s money (welfare etc) for survival? Why is the pursuit of the middle road presented as so unthinkable and provocative?

    Why should a person’s full 100% capacity per definition be used for the pursuit of more dollars? Are there other forms of capital than money? We all can use our time and efforts to pursue different goals and forms of capital. The author describes he wants to spend time with his children and wife, for him this includes hanging out in the living room with the family, reading. You can call this something fancy like social/interpersonal capital, put it in a pie chart next to the monetary capital. PB is asking why the author does not do anything creative. Maybe this guy does not place a value in creativity, so in his little pie chart “creative capital” would get only a very small sector. (Most people aren’t that into being creative.)

    With the so called emancipation, women have entered the labor force. Frequently, both mom and dad work, often away from the home. This is great and awesome, but i think it’s fair to ask who now spends time with the children? I use ‘spends time’ instead of ‘raise’ or ‘look after’, because the latter can be outsourced to a nanny or a daycare. Maybe for the author ‘spending time’ with the children simply takes priority over house, boat etc. PB argues that somebody must make income to provide for social security etc. This is true, but I believe somebody needs to spend time with the kids, too, and that earning enough and being with the kids aren’t mutually exclusive. Live and let live, you and the “medium chill man” may choose differently. What I don’t get it is why choosing to spend time with the family is so provocative.

    One more thing – I don’ think the guy is necessarily ‘consuming’. Is everything consumption? Say he’d have gone to the art museum to be inspired? You do need to get a ticket to do that, so I guess this would be called consumption as well? He wants to be in the living room reading. Maybe he bought the book, but is he therefore a part of consumer society? It is very hard to live without using any money for goods and services.

  7. change says:

    Spot on.

    The article’s purpose is to make excuses for his refusal to move out of his comfort zone and his failure to provide more for his family. He is rationalizing. Poorly. If he does believe he could provide a better future for his kids, why doesn’t he do it? Narcissism.

  8. xylokopos says:

    There is some merit to both sides and arguments, however, it is difficult to get over how improbable “I could make more money easily if I chose to, but I choose not to” sounds. Actually, it sounds exactly like a shy 20-year old engineering student with no dress sense saying ” I could fuck supermodels if I chose to, but I choose not to”.

  9. heysherri says:

    I’m an RN. I work three 12 hour shifts a week. That’s full time, but nurses can work as little or as much as they want. Nurses can work 2 shifts a month or 7 shifts a week, and easily and fluidly switch back and forth between the two extremes with options like going PRN at different hospitals, working for agencies, picking up extra shifts, or volunteering for cancellation. It’s fascinating to see who works when and why. I like to generalize so here goes. Nurses who work more than 3 shifts a week tend to be:

    1) Supporting an extended family without much help (think grandmothers raising children and grandchildren and caring for aging parents)
    2) Energetic, enthusiastic youths who get bored with 4 day weekends and need more to do
    3) People who can’t keep to a budget, or have spouses who can’t, and are constantly picking up extra shifts to cover their frivolous spending and stay ahead of debt
    4) People who just want that one more thing they are saving up for: new refrigerator, new carpet, a vacation, etc.

    So wouldn’t it be nice if all nurses were number 2. Young and energetic and eager to work 60 hours a week. They have vision. They have drive. They are working for SOMETHING.

    Nurses who work less than 3 shifts a week also fall into a few groups.
    1) Nurses who are burnt out
    2) Nurses who have other sources of income (husbands) and don’t really need to work anyway but could use some pocket money
    3) Older nurses who’ve mostly retired but get bored and like to feel useful (young) a few times a month

    So how do we make all nurses young and energetic and eager to contribute? I’m sure there is a product for that. An energy drink maybe or a workout routine? All nurses should buy it whatever it is. It would be good for the economy. Except healthcare is just a parasite on the economy…. Too deep for me. I’m out.

  10. heysherri says:

    I’ll add my personal story in a separate post. By working my 3 shifts a week as an RN I make 3 times more money than I spend. I’m middle aged, have no kids, and live in a small apartment with my boyfriend. I live so cheaply I suppose because I’m too busy consuming cheap media off the internet that I don’t have time to go to the mall. I also work nights so all the places I’d spend my money are closed when I’m actually awake. I could pay for all I “need” with one shift a week. And you can bet if census at my hospital is low I’m the first person with my hand up volunteering to be canceled.

    I do not buy into aspirational consumerism. I do not need half the money I have. It’s hard being this comfortable and satisfied with my life.

  11. Guy Fox says:

    Great post, Pastabagel. Your presentation of socialism is much more accurate and agreeable than most of what you hear on the interwebs, your general thesis is spot on, and your critique is well aimed. (I also appreciate that you preserved the efficiency and practicability of meritocratic ideas while throwing out the consumerist bathwater.)

    My only beef is that the guy explicitly says the point of working less than possible is to cultivate social relationships, which is hollow but not foolish. The side-effects of his proposal are as self-serving as you say, but he was at least aiming at something better.

    Thanks, dude.

  12. TheDevastator says:

    Pastabagel, very interesting stuff lately. Small objection:

    This is the flaw in the argument. You want to work less because you don’t want all that superfluous stuff. But what about the stuff you need? Who pays for that?

    He and his wife are still working, they’re just not going for promotions and so on. Presumably they can still afford the necessities with no assistance. But the feasibility of his plan wasn’t your point, I think. It’s his philosophy and attitude, which, I agree, are troubling.

  13. John R says:

    Great line:

    “The American work ethic is how we got to the moon. Consumerism is the reason we won’t go back.”

  14. Pingback: “Medium chill” is maximum wrong « This is something that happens.

  15. statelymulligan says:

    I don’t understand all the vitriol over this guy’s decision to work as hard as he needs to instead of as hard as he can. PB, you go out of your way to label this guy a jealous, lazy mooch; but I don’t see how he’s any of those things.

    You point out correctly his false assumption that anyone who is intensely career driven is only in it for the money; ironically, though, you make a similarly biased assumption several paragraphs before that he *must* want to be one of the upper/middle class, but can’t. Both are assumptions based on unfathomable alternatives (or simply hyperbole used to make a point). I think you’re confusing smugness for bitterness, but it shouldn’t be that difficult to see. He spends none of the article complaining about how much work it is to get a promotion or get rich. He doesn’t even mention that he wants those things.

    He and his wife both have established careers, and kids. I don’t know what world you live in but that doesn’t classify as lazy. They’re not on the government dole, they work to support their needs. I’m not sure how you came to the argument that he’s an unproductive socialist dependent, either, but I guess it’s a very satisfying straw man in terms of knocking to the ground with a righteously indignant bitch-slap.

    It comes down to the question “what do I really want out of life?” He doesn’t understand your answer, and you don’t understand his. Perhaps his most valid point is that we should all consciously ask that question.

    • philtrum says:

      Co-sign on this. There’s no indication in the article that he and his wife are unable to pay for the things they need with the money they earn. As for the use of public roads and public schools, there is no indication that they don’t pay taxes.

      Then maybe those in the group that can’t get what it needs and who “just don’t want to work that hard” should instead “try to make more money.” That’s just me.

      That’s nice, if simplistic, but has nothing to do with this guy. He can get what he needs without working that hard. This puts him in a privileged position, and it would be nice if he acknowledged that, but why is it offensive for him to choose time over money? And why make the assumption that everyone who has a lot of money has it because they work long, punishing hours at a hard job?

      I wonder what PB thinks of the union movement that pushed for the 10-hour day and then the 8-hour day. Were they all lazy, jealous narcissists? How about stay-at-home mothers, past and present? Are they cheating their kids by spending time with them?

      He says quite clearly that he likes reading and watching TV. But aren’t those forms of consumption? They aren’t material consumption, true, but so what? More crappy furniture clutters up your house, but crappy books and movies clutter up your mind. In my opinion, that’s worse.

      Why this straw person? What leads PB to the belief that the guy reads crappy books or watches crappy movies? If he was reading and watching only the jewels of the Western canon, would that change the analysis?

      Furthermore, this “cluttering up your mind is worse” thing is just silly, idealistic nonsense. Using large amounts of non-renewable resources? That’s bad. Spewing pollution into the atmosphere is bad. Hurting people is bad. Reading a page-turner from the library doesn’t even rate.

      • philtrum says:

        I mean, yes, he’d like to fix the leaky plumbing, just like I’d like a bigger apartment, and would be able to afford one if I got a second job. But one full-time job is enough for me right now, so I stay in my small apartment. I know, I’m a terrible person.

      • ThomasR says:

        Completely agree with philtrum and statelymulligan. This guy’s attitude may not suit everyone, and most people cannot relax quite like he may be able. But that does not justify nearly any of PBs complaints.

        Perhaps he just wants to spend more time with his kids. Maybe he doesn’t believe money is everything. It’s not such a new concept. His article is written in a really pretentious/condescending way, but it doesn’t require such a broad, fierce, and somewhat misguided rebuttal.

  16. Methossa says:

    This is my favorite piece I’ve ever seen on this site. Very nicely done.

  17. boeotarch says:

    I think the “Medium chill” attitude is just the product of people realizing the flaws of straight materialism but still lacking the vocabulary to define value in a way that isn’t materialistic. There’s nothing wrong with having a job that isn’t super important or prestigious, only a very few people get to have those jobs and the world will never stop needing mechanics, plumbers and data techs. Sometimes there are much more important things than chasing the wage or the in-company status. The problem I see with medium chill is that instead of being about defining value in different ways and redirecting that effort into something else (“I don’t give a shit about being great at my job, but FUCK do I want to be great at _____”), it’s about giving up. It shows a pretty serious lack of magnanimity, using Aristotle’s meaning of the word. “Bigness of spirit.”

    This may be hypocritical of me, but while I think it’s forgivable to not be magnanimous, I don’t think it’s forgivable to be okay with not being magnanimous.

  18. Mylrea says:

    Good Article.

    What strikes me is that Medium Chill is in no way new. Its a rebranded Bohemianism, which has been neutered of any ties to the arts or counter culture. It offers fufillment, and freedom from craven materialism; things most reasonable people would agree with. By lessening the time and anguish of the rat race one will have more time for their self. Like traditional bohemianism, its fiercest advocates and a plurality of its adherants come from affluence.

    But what is interesting is who this being sold to. “Medium chill” is being advocated largely by middle aged professionals who have either burntout or hit a professional brick ceiling. Said individuals are almost always upper to upper middle class before downsizing their lifestyle. But Medium Chill is being advocated to the young, namely recent college graduates. The subtext of this is clear. In other era’s the young educated and privelged would almost always be guaranteed a slot the upper echelons of the socio-economic bracket. This is no longer the case. Medium chill to a recent college graduate is a nice way of saying, look at bright side of downward social mobility.

    Of course this doesn’t even touch upon the subject of the truly poor. When one is struggling to get by survival trumps such concerns as status or self fufillment. But I degress…

  19. Fifi says:

    This is all a bit TLP-lite without any of the social or psychological insights.

  20. Red says:

    “No true rejection of consumer culture argues for working less, because work and consumerism are not tied together.”
    I always thought that people worked more so they could consume more. Do we really need to work Forty plus hours a week to get everything we need? Upon the rejection of consumer culture you may find yourself with a lot of excess capital. You are then left with two options, save it and keep working the same amount, or, work less because you want less. I find the latter much more alluring.

  21. Kayode says:

    Maybe he doesn’t like his work and he projects that attitude on others, “they hate their jobs and they must be working more hours to buy more stuff.” Given the state of job satisfaction he’s probably right if he thinks this, but it’s not really the case with everyone. If he could find work he enjoys then he might stop calling “overtime” a product of consumerism. You mentioned this though so i’m repeating the obvious.

  22. lemmycaution says:

    In a lot of professional jobs, you not only have to work hard, you have to like working hard or at least pretend you like working hard. Not liking to work hard is a sign of the doomed (what thomas pynchon and apparently no one else calls the “preterite”). Those not destined for salvation.

    Stepping back from that viewpoint can be hard. But face facts. People work so they can consume. If you don’t consume as much you don’t have to work as hard.

  23. hiyousuckatwriting says:

    I didn’t even finish this post it’s so terrible. It definitely is an example of medium chill seeing as it has a ton of proof reading errors. Can’t you edit your posts on this site? If you really believe in hard work and bettering yourself how about fixing this abomination. You’ve only had two years to do so. Up to the point I realized this was giving me cancer it’s so bad; your point seemed to be that the dude who wrote the original article doesn’t care about society and is a hypocrite. Simply because he enjoys reading or tv occasionally, and is therefore not able to say that we as a society might possibly be consuming a bit too much. The guy who wrote the article says in the article that it’s his way of living and gives his reasons why. He doesn’t say live like me or you’re wrong if you see things another way as you, the poster, do in this article. Once again terrible, godawful writing. Should have stop reading after “his these” instead of thesis sentence. Who gave this under average intelligence, slightly literate chimp a computer? Next time do us all a favor and occupy your hands with a banana and your own feces instead of typing. All this post is is poop slinging anyway. I you put maximum effort into this post then you should try something more your speed like coloring inside the lines,

    • hiyousuckatwriting says:

      And yes I I know I said stop instead of stopped because I actually proof read.

      • hiyousuckatwriting says:

        And I instead of if. My comments may seem like poop slinging as well but if you actually take a minute to read them you’ll realize I’m just being a dick to try to make you maximize your potential and evolve into someone who can actually write a coherent rebuttal.

Leave a Reply