Baseball trade deadline came and went when July turned to August; following the news and analysis (more than I should) meant going to that part of the internet, Saberland, where woke AF spergies reign and good writing is considered the ultimate in bad taste.
I found this at Fangraphs:
Because of the superhuman circumference of his biceps and his generally muscular physique, Frazier is most often body-comped to Popeye the Sailor Man, a reference I hope doesn’t elude the youngest of our readers.
FFS. I hope there is a bit of sarcasm here but I doubt it (usually their sarcasm is aimed — and most vituperatively — at traditionalists who are the New Deal liberals to statheads’ neocons). More likely this is a straightforward, virtue signalling attempt to show inclusiveness but comes across as infantilizing – and more than a little paranoid that the reader will think the author old or possibly smug in the obscure reference-dropping hipster sense. That statheads are the among the most insufferably smug people on earth is a nice irony; their arrogance plainly varies depending on which theater the culture war is being fought in. Anyway, Popeye’s pop culture heyday was several generations before the birth of the piece’s author (and my own; the Robin Williams bomb of a movie doesn’t count) but he knows it because — Popeye is not obscure.
The Fangraphs post above wouldn’t be worth bitching about on its own but at about the same time I came across this post titled ‘Crop Rotation’ at Viva El Birdos, which took my breath away:
My preference to sell, though, is actually not about the Cardinals’ record, and how they’ve put themselves in a hole with shoddy play thus far in 2016. Rather, it’s a larger matter I’ve had on my mind for a while now, and it relates to agriculture.
I don’t know the backgrounds of most of the readers of this site. I can make some assumptions, based on the fact we’re all fans of a Midwestern baseball team, that the majority are probably from a region similar to that from which I hail, but that’s certainly not a hard and fast rule. We have people from all over the country, a couple of Brits (at least a couple; I can actually think of three offhand, and there may be more for all I know), a couple readers from Asia, people from cities, people from rural areas, men and women, and I hope some decent amount of racial diversity. So I cannot assume common knowledge of things that are not baseball, and I will therefore explain briefly about crop rotation.
It takes another five paragraphs and over 500 words but, by God, he explains what crop rotation – a major component of farming, which is after all only the fucking basis of every civilization ever – is to his readers so they can understand his utterly obvious analogy before he goes back to baseball in the essay. Why use a hyperlink when 500+ words of virtue-signalling inclusiveness and writerly self-love will do?
The author is a purveyor of ever more complicated and specialized alphabet soup stats but assumes that crop rotation is so obscure it needs ploddingly over-explained to ignorant readers who might feel Othered by the reference. Nevermind that the more dark-skinned, more “Third World,” more poor the reader — the sort that woke AF people like the author are ostensibly reaching out to — the more likely they are to instantly understand the analogy and resent the patronizing, verbose explanation — even more so considering its precious tone. Even lifelong (multigenerational, too) urban people either have gardened themselves or knows someone who has; and if not, have the ability to look up such basic information in a book or on the internet — and enrich themselves.
Finish them, David Mitchell:
. I am convinced their antipathy to ‘narrative’ isn’t merely a resistance to media-driven, “agreed-upon” explanations of events but real disgust with and distrust of the components of narratives, words, which of course can be ambiguous and are always under evolutionary pressure.
. cf., the title of this post.