1. Sweeping assertions without benefit of evidence.
1a. Especially sweeping and inaccurate historical assertions that demonstrate total and utter ignorance of decades of well-established, careful research by large numbers of historians.
1b. Not to mention when a simple 5-minute Google search would have corrected the aforesaid sweeping assertions. (And I know because I went and did one!)
2. Bloggers who haven’t actually read anything by X but feel qualified to criticise* X based on something Y wrote about X.
2a. Especially when Y is a hack journalist and X is a respected and experienced specialist in whatever the subject is under discussion.
3. Bloggers who haven’t actually read anything by X but feel qualified to criticise* Y (who has read X) for what Y has written about X.
4. When a blogger writes a post about some large scale social or economic trend or pattern, and most of the ensuing comment thread consists of people agreeing or disagreeing with the blogger based purely on personal anecdotes.
5. People who use ‘that’ when they should use ‘who’ (as in: people that use ‘that’ when they should use ‘who’). For some reason, this has been driving me absolutely crazy lately.
No links to protect the not so innocent, but don’t tell me you haven’t encountered them. Anyone got any more to add? Get ’em off your chest! (Or if your guilty conscience has anything to confess…)
*Perhaps I should note that I didn’t mean ‘criticise’ in the judicious academic sense. I meant it more in the sense of ‘vicious attack’.