> If you’re wondering which pills and how many of them Americans have relied upon to make ourselves feel better since Covid-19 arrived, the answer, in short, is yes.
Yeah I don't think I'm the target audience for this. Am I becoming an old man or has the NYTimes writing really dove off a cliff since ~2020?
"Benny, which of the girls would you take on a date?"
Benny - "Yes!"
"Two words to describe the WH response to the financial crisis: EPIC FAIL."
Sure, in the 2020s answering 'yes' to a question of quantity is a cheeky way to suggest hyperbole, but I feel like in 5 years it's just going to seem lame and dated.
Not an expert on media writing[1] (or writing/language in general), but I observed this to be true in at least a couple of languages. Dunno about the time spans involved, though. But I know that stuff from 90s and 80s sounds a bit "dated" to me (I'm a 90ies kid). This is true for at least English and a few Slavic languages[2].
I don't read a lot of media writing (helps with my mental health), but I do read a lot of fiction. And to me it feels like here's usually a bit of the author's era's "personality" (or memes, if you will) that inevitably bleeds through in writing (even in fiction). I mean, it's a core part of our day-to-day expression.
Going back to the time spans: I think that this is probably something that will keep happening more and more frequently. I guess a few factors contribute to this, but I think it just boils down increasing globalisation and speed at which information (incl [sub]cultures, memes) travels
[1]: By media writing I mean stuff written for magazines, blogs, news, etc.
[2]: Slavic languages are similar so most speakers have a degree of cross-understanding. FWIW, it feels to me the languages had sometimes different and sometimes similar trends in the 80-90s and they do today. These are just layman observations though
Edit: Some wordsmithing/formatting
Because this article is an ad for Prozac.
(disclaimer: this comment is not an ad for Prozac)
At the end of the day Shakespeare was the first to table a meeting and that must have sounded novel and too out there back then. Not everything will age well, but I would rather we try new things.
This is contingent on the capacity of a society to weather any bad outcomes from the new things. which given as they new, their outcomes are unknown.
I'm trying to get to how freedom is related to some kind of background wealth.
If people are (or feel?) wealthy, they're willing to accept risky behavior. Using a example:
"oh, there they go the village idiots burning down a barn..."
--"oh well, at least there's still enough of everything for winter, no problem."
In contrast with: "[...] now we're fucked. time to ration our provisions".
Enter global warming; and with it the rise of autocracies, tyrannies, and so on.
They seem to use a pattern of introducing an idea with an anecdote and then providing more objective information that supports the idea. It makes the article longer and gives a human touch while still remaining factual. I don't see the issue.
“Then pick a worthy goal”
As a comment it’s a distraction not unlike the very thing it’s criticizing. Seems hypocritical and self-congratulatory; but again, that’s just me.
No, I didn't.