Dissecting Rudra Reddy
Note: This piece is based on the Daily Californian column ‘Dissecting Robert Reich’ by UC Berkeley student Rudra Reddy, as seen at goo.gl/Zl6mJG. Please read his exceptional work before proceeding.
In the past week, Rudra Reddy (pictured above in his final form ‘Rude-Ra’, after the Egyptian God of the Underworld) took to the internet to launch a “shitty prose” argument against Professor Robert Reich [LINK] for his views on Trump. Just recently, I listened to President Trump, who would undoubtedly be a Rudra fanatic, rant about how the dishonest media is the enemy of the people. The only problem with that principle is that, if it was applied with any uniformity, then Rude-Ra wouldn’t even have his platform to begin with.
Rude-Ra is a brown Republican, a fact that he wants you to know so much that he’s made it the name of his Twitter account [LINK]. His feed serves as a re-tweet base for great Americans such as Ann ‘Original Sin’ Coulter, Bill ‘Oh Shit’ O’Reilly, Laura ‘Graham Cracker’ Ingraham, and of course President Donald ‘Number 45 or Number 2 on Any Given Day’ Trump himself. If you were to print out his feed and put it between two walls, it might even meet the literal definition of an echo chamber. This prolific twatting has earned him 38 whole followers, including the infallible @wsredneck (World’s Strongest Redneck) and @zesty_cruz (Zesty Ted Cruz News, or as I like to imagine, bits of Ted Cruz’s face with a lemon pepper garnish). Instead of complaining about people complaining about income inequality, he should be complaining about Twitter inequality – I’d know, because only 100 people are dumb enough to follow me (including Lil B for some reason). Notably absent from his feed are regular non-retweeted tweets, because who really needs original ideas? That is, until you scroll back a tenth score to the year twenty-ought-fifteen, where you come across his WordPress account.
It’s called ‘The Rudraveer Hypothesis’, though I haven’t managed to find what his hypothesis is after ten minutes of scrolling through his website while taking a dump. He claims that ‘words are the most silent ways to speak’ (which sounds like something pretentious I might have said five years ago), fitting since he does manage to waste a whole lot of words to say nothing. He professed that “it is ridiculously self-important of us to think that a few plastic bottles and aluminium cans can change anything,” but for some reason chooses to write crappy op-ed pieces in the hopes that they can change anything. In his own words, this kind of behavior “highlight Man’s arrogance and his need to repeatedly assert his influence on the planet.”
This ‘dissection’ of Robert Reich is actually the second dissection he’s performed. He tried to dissect the phenomenon of Creativity itself! He uses the example of a test where doctors were asked to clear a pig’s airway without medical equipment, and an exceptionally creative doctor used a ballpoint pen to do it – neglecting, of course, the fact that doctors do routinely have surgical tools available, and that we’re not living inside a Jason Bourne movie.
But what are his credentials, you might wonder. Surely a master dissection artist would have some? Well, he did represent the great nation of Bhutan (in Model United Nations) and won the prestigious Super Scribe Award (no, I didn’t make that up) for Notable Journalistic Skills [LINK]. The trophy looks like a block of ice, apt as it represents his rapidly melting career. He even took on the pinnacle of journalistic endeavor, attempting to answer the question, ‘Does God Exist?’ where he concluded that “we are all deluded in life,” increasing my genuine admiration for his introspective abilities. He even penned the revolutionary thought: “To perform a thorough analysis of any topic or subject, one must look at both sides of the argument.”
‘But, Uday!’ you exclaim. ‘All you’ve done is reach into the past to dig up things that specifically help your argument. You’ve presented generalities, you haven’t even engaged in his arguments!’
Sounds familiar, right? In Rude-Ra’s piece, he went all the way back to 1949 to cherry-pick some stat to contradict Reich’s view on the cause of the Great Depression. (By the way, there is no consensus on what that cause actually was – of the dozen theories, some align with his.) Rude-Ra employs the ‘shut up rich boy’ tactic that’s only effective in Disney Channel movies. Rude-Ra generalizes Reich’s point of view by a single issue that he’s talked about. Rude-Ra misinterprets a Reich theory-based op-ed that he cites in his own piece! Rude-Ra claims to write a column on “resisting indoctrination,” which is what he slams Reich for doing to Trump. And Rude-Ra enjoys calling others hypocrites, when he once called Donald Trump “a dishonest trickster at best and a racist, misogynistic, narcissistic misanthrope at worst.”
There are legitimate criticisms of Reich. For example, is he sincere in his claims to present both sides of the argument and let his students decide for themselves? (Not really) Is he prone to theories that make him look paranoid? (You could say that) Does he want to push his views on to those who listen to him? (Most definitely) Is his name pronounced ‘Rike’ or ‘Ra-eesh’? (I’m leaning towards the latter).
But Rude-Ra isn’t interested in engaging the argument – he’s not Reddy for that level of critical thinking. He claims to want “an innate worth to the expression of [his] opinion,” which is where he gets it wrong. The expression of his opinion is allowed. But wanting your words – remember, words are the most silent way to speak, or something – to automatically have worth? That sounds like a snowflake to me. Let’s call Wiktionary for that one.
Disclaimer: I got an A in Reich’s class, but don’t worry, I did it without blowing him. And his semen doesn’t taste like propaganda.