Best part of academic jargon is it's basically impossible to argue against it because none of these words mean fucking anything, and whoever writes it can always do a Petersonian claim that you "misrepressented" what they said if you do.
Current Affairs wrote a pretty good piece on the problems with Academic language
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/07/academic-language-and-the-problem-of-meaninglessness
Best part of academic jargon is it’s basically impossible to argue against it because none of these words mean fucking anything
This is also the chief problem Engels', Lenin's and Mao's view of contradiction/opposites.
Oh well, of course Chomsky Boy has a problem with humanities / continental philosophy.
I remember the Sokal affair or something. So a physicist wrote a bullshit paper with sociological jargon about some real physics shit (totally false) and the sociological journal totally published it
The journal that published Sokal didn't use peer review and they rejected him at first, then requested a bunch of changes that he refused. They published him because they were collecting articles dealing with the "science wars" between scientists and the humanities and he was one of only two scientists to submit papers for it.
It's less of a big deal than everyone makes it out to be.
The more I read about the Sokal affair the more I hate everyone involved honestly.
Exactly, a lot of defensive sociologists will point out that it's not hard to get fake papers published in predatory journals (I recall some papers about Midiclorians, from Star Wars, being published in a bio journal).
But Sokal got his completely bullshit paper published in Social Text, one of the leading American Sociology journals, which should have at least done enough verification to know that this is bullshit
Here my aim is to carry these deep analyses one step farther, by taking account of recent developments in quantum gravity: the emerging branch of physics in which Heisenberg’s quantum mechanics and Einstein’s general relativity are at once synthesized and superseded. In quantum gravity, as we shall see, the space-time manifold ceases to exist as an objective physical reality; geometry becomes relational and contextual; and the foundational conceptual categories of prior science—among them, existence itself—become problematized and relativized. This conceptual revolution, I will argue, has profound implications for the content of a future postmodern and liberatory science.
Ngl whatever he was writing, sounded convincing. The journal trusted in tje dude saying "there is a revolution in physiscs you don't need to understand, but here are the possible sociological consequences you should know about"
I fucking hate that I actually understand wtf she's hinting at.
She's saying in a lot of bullshit words that warfare is historically masculine due to it's trad-norm of "defending your home/family/stuff" or "getting a home/family/stuff" and that drone warfare, as she asserts, detaches itself from that traditional masculine role making it a lot more fluid in nature.
Yeah I feel like there's some interesting points there. (Like arguably this is a gradual shift that's been going on since weaponry developed from swords to anything that kills at a distance..?) But it's hidden under some exhausting jargon.
The Pussification of the American Imperialist: How I Stopped Worrying And Learned to Love Transgendered People Engaging In Genocide
Academese makes me want to light myself on fire. My MA definitely radicalized me on the topic of jargon.
Oh sorry, that's the abbreviation for Master of Arts, the degree that I got. I spent WAY TOO MUCH TIME reading deliberately obscure language that is designed (in my opinion) to gatekeep. And this is coming from someone who loves fun vocabulary words. But the way so much academic work is written, you have to "be in the club" to understand it at all, and now I have a kneejerk aversion to that type of writing, whether or not the content is good. It sounds like I'm anti-education, and I'm not! I really just think that academic writing has turned into some kind of acrobatics where you're just showing off for the other people in the "in crowd" rather than trying to convey an idea.
Fellas is it gay to drop bombs on innocent civilians remotely
TIL it's okay to not have more gay women drone pilots
because being a drone pilot makes you gay in the first place
My dyslexic brain will always and I mean goddamn ALWAYS read the name of that school as "Vagina Tech"
Ironic given the state was named after Elizabeth never using hers
Eh, better then, changing fields "when you could just sticked a little more" is harder regardless of age. I had a friend which I urge him against giving up, now he has his degree but hates his profession. Ooops
Lol this reads like someone replaced random words with "queer", "sexual" etc in a normal article.
Let's see if i understand this right
drone strikes make the murderers question their sexuality/gender expression(?), because killing things and fighting is traditionally a masc thing, and that makes it easier for their brains to decide if they are morally in the right(? )...for some reason
but with drones because they are very far away, they don't feel masc when levelling a school with high explosives, and that makes them question their gender or some shit
"You don't have a moral problem with killing civilians, Private Drone Pilot #347. You're just questioning your sexuality and gender because drones naturally make you do that - if don't believe me, just read this liberal arts paper on spatiotemporal phenomenological binaries. The strong soldiers are able to keep killing without succumbing to this, but if you're weak and make another peep about it being "just a wedding" or some other bullshit, we're gonna have to revoke your straight male card."
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
putting the emphasis on liberal in the liberal arts arent we
Found an interesting critique of this article: https://www.peachtreepeartree.com/blog/2018/3/11/drones-are-not-queer-bodies-and-other-sentences-i-cant-believe-i-have-to-write
