Graeber, as well as being a horrible human being wasn’t much cop as a scholar. Bullshit jobs was tested empirically and it’s bullshit[1]. If you’re going to read Debt at least do yourself a favour and read some negative reviews first so you can see where he tries to put one over on you. See critical reception on Wikipedia[2] or the seminar on Crooked Timber where the discussants do back flips trying to be kind but can’t bring themselves not to challenge it[3]. His last book “The Dawn of Everything” is similarly careful, with experts realising that where they know what ours taking about it’s horseshit but giving the benefit of the doubt elsewhere[4].
> Graeber, as well as being a horrible human being
Whenever I hear or see such descriptions, I start discounting the opinions of those who made them, because they're often hyperbolic. I'd put someone like Genghis Khan at the level of being a "horrible human being," not some random author, because it indeed is a very high insult to levy against someone. That, or the person is just engaging in semantic drift [0].
Anyway, why was he a "horrible human being?" I couldn't find any controversy regarding his views or actions that would classify him as "horrible," at least in my limited search.
Whenever I hear or see such descriptions, I start discounting the opinions of those who made them, because they're often hyperbolic. I'd put someone like Genghis Khan at the level of being a "horrible human being," not some random author, because it indeed is a very high insult to levy against someone. That, or the person is just engaging in semantic drift [0].
Anyway, why was he a "horrible human being?" I couldn't find any controversy regarding his views or actions that would classify him as "horrible," at least in my limited search.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change