Hey, NYT? "Existential" you say?
— Charles P. Pierce (@CharlesPPierce) May 26, 2019
Well, I happen to have Jean Paul Sartre right here and he doesn't say antyhing about blowing off congressional subpoenas.https://t.co/Qk1FL9OMfM
Hey, NYT? "Existential" you say?
— Charles P. Pierce (@CharlesPPierce) May 26, 2019
Well, I happen to have Jean Paul Sartre right here and he doesn't say antyhing about blowing off congressional subpoenas.https://t.co/Qk1FL9OMfM
I know it's off topic, but Sartre was a real silly-billy in that speech. His message was essentially regretting that he wasn't kewel in May 1968 and he would have given his status as an intellectual to be.
ReplyDeleteThat said, the NYT using the word that way was rather absurdist. I think it's a word that doesn't mean much anymore through too much unskilled overuse. I remember back in the late 60s or early 70s in magazine scribblage there would be a fairly unusual word that would appear in one place and the next thing you knew, you'd read ten or a dozen other magazine scribblers using it. I think it might be how "enormity" changed meaning.