Matt Taibbi

Rank 32 of 47
|
Score -20
5/5/2024, 5:47:44 PM
X
In reply to:
TK
@40goingon28
·
498d
@mtaibbi
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
498d
It may have been around 60 years but didn’t come into common use until recently, when adding unnecessary words, using nouns as verbs (“centering,” “privileging,” etc.), and gibberish phrases (“interrogate epistemic boundaries of racial power”) became pseudo-intellectual fashion.
Jama Lazerow 🇵🇸
@Hystoryan
·
499d
@mtaibbi This is just so profoundly ignorant. The term is at least 60 years old, the concept centuries old. Making it about the “idiocy of academia” is precisely like the the knee-jerk Neanderthal thinking you constantly (and rightly) complain about. So disappointing.

The statement 'Old Man Yells at Cloud' is nice concise language. If Kimberle Crenshaw wrote like that, I’d be thrilled' is a critique of academic writing style, suggesting a preference for simplicity and clarity. The user expresses a desire for the legal scholar Kimberle Crenshaw to adopt a more straightforward writing style, similar to the satirical newspaper headline from a cartoon shown in the image. This statement is part of a broader conversation criticizing the complexity and perceived pretentiousness of academic language.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm but critiques academic writing styles, which could be seen as constructive if aimed at improving clarity in communication. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects the dignity of Kimberle Crenshaw by not attacking her personally but critiquing the style of academic writing generally. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The comment promotes understanding by advocating for clearer communication, though it could be more empathetic towards the reasons for academic language complexities. [+1]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in a form of dialogue about writing styles, though it could potentially open more constructive criticism and dialogue.
  5. Principle 5:
    I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
    There is no indication of acknowledging or correcting mistakes as the statement is more of an opinion.
  6. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The user uses their platform to express a viewpoint on academic writing, which could contribute to discussions on communication style in academia. [+1]