"How can we label people as "blind," when we all are, in fact, as sightless as our fellow "blind" men. Is blindness itself not a fallacy. How can one be blind or "unaware" to that which one cannot bear witness to firsthand. Only after receiving the gift of vision can one be cursed with blindness. Elsewise, it's not a curse but merely a state. A poor merchant grows to resent his lot if himself has been blessed with luxuries he has no longer. Likewise, if he has been forever poor, he may not be so resentful of what he doesn't have and, if he is bestowed with gifts the rich man knows not of, may be entirely content with his meager existence. A blind man is blind, yes, but is he not unlike the long- impoverished merchant. His abilities to hear and sense must be honed if ever he is to complete his transformation into a man. A man can be blind in soul surrounded by no others, but a man cannot be "blind" unless surrounded by those who may see. In short, the other perspective must also present itself for a lack of perspective to exist for another. The blind man is blind, but not in the way commonly recognized by the larger populus. He is blind the way all men are. Blind to reason and purpose."
The over the top, convoluted "philosophy" stuffed with all sorts of nonsense. anything that contains the aside , yes, is likely insufferably smug. By the way, I don't think my example piece is good writing. I tried to copy the faux-intellectual Youtube comments. I think it's a fair example of bad writing.
Type your own passage that represents your idea of "bad writing." (unnecessary quotation marks are another pet peeve of mine.)