18 signs you are not having a productive conversation about economics

Inspired by Beatrice Cherrier's tweet thread containing both Chris Auld's "18 signs you’re reading bad criticism of economics" and UnlearningEcon's "18 Signs Economists Haven’t the Foggiest", I'd like to present my "18 signs you are not having a productive conversation about economics":

1. Contains any discussion about the usefulness or lack of usefulness of mathematics that does not reference empirical data

2. Makes claims about assumptions' realism or lack thereof without reference to empirical data

3. Contains any reference to "all models are false", pro or con

4. The cause of recessions is assumed or claimed to be known

5. Elides the difference between macro- and micro-economics

6. Uses the elision of macro and micro-economics as an argument against a critique of economics or ignores the fact that most people think of macroeconomics when they think of "economics" in their daily lives

7. Places any significant meaning on the words "neoclassical", "neoliberal", or "mainstream" except as a historian of economic thought or via citing one

8. Assumes accurate forecasting is the only use of macroeconomic theory

9. Insinuates inaccurate forecasting is not a problem for macroeconomic theory

10. Ignores the fact that existing DSGE models are no better than simple regressions or stochastic processes for forecasting

11. Ignores the fact that the finite difference equations used in the DSGE framework are sufficiently general so as to encompass nearly any dynamic model

12. Uses the existence of autoregressive models, use of microeconomic data, or estimating parameters of structural models to argue that macroeconomics is sufficiently empirical

13. Elides the difference between "not rejected" and "useful"

14. Elides the difference between academic and popular economics  

15. Uses the elision of the difference between academic and popular economics as an argument against a critique of economics 

16. Makes a claim about the history of economic thought without referencing a historian of economic thought

17. The cause of inflation is assumed or claimed to be known

18. Mentions "money", or critiques a mention of "money" by asking what is meant by "money"