Top Blogs + Top Bloggers vs. The Enlightenment + Illiterate People

Paul Krugman is confused — he declares that he is anti-social:

I don’t use any social media; the only legit Twitter account is the robot announcing new posts on this blog. Oh, and I don’t post comments on other peoples’ blogs, either. Anyone posting other than in the column and on this blog claiming to be me is a fraud, and probably malicious.

I do admit that I myself have often said that using someone else’s website (such as Google or Twitter or Facebook) to “hide” your identity is completely ludicrous: The only people anyone would hide from by doing that is illiterate morons (yet granted: there are quite a few of these). Most reasonable people don’t pay attention to mainstream media, because they know it is mostly propaganda.

“Ah, but why do you say Paul Krugman is against The Enlightenment?” you may ask — oh, yes: thank you for asking! Kant’s Categorical Imperative is often translated as:

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

(note that my source for the text was actually a Google snippet of the wikipedia.org page)

So, if Paul Krugman supported this central Enlightenment ideal, then he would not pay any attention to people who comment on his blog (perhaps he would not even permit comments on his blog — seeing as he views them as a complete waste of time and energy, he might want to support the improvement of the global economy by not enabling people to fail so miserably) — but he does. He pays a lot of attention to people who comment on his blog — as does the “community management” team at the nytimes.com (a lot of information gets removed / censored — primarily for prudish “foul language” reasons).

So what Paul Krugman says and what Paul Krugman does contradict each other — that’s confusion.