Humanities majors

[Anonymous No.17544979]

Why do they all write like this? Why do professors let them get away with it?

[Anonymous No.17544985]

>>17544979
they been reading pomos

[Anonymous No.17545003]

>>17544985
is this pomo style? I find myself accidentally writing like this occasionally when I've had too much to drink, am I the next Joyce?

[Anonymous No.17545025]

They have nothing to say but they have essays to write.

[Anonymous No.17545035]

>>17544979
This would be interesting if it really came up with some new programming paradigm. Of course it won't and will just repeat the same self-referential logorrhea you see in all these -studies.

[Anonymous No.17545090]

How to master english?
I can't write like this yet
:(

[Anonymous No.17545107]

>>17544979
Because part of learning in uni is learning to isolate this or that phenomenon and using its proper name to reference it efficiently.
That being said, when someone's lecture is a compilation of buzz uni words, it of course means the lecturer only has a superficial mastery over it's subject. Case in point with your pic related.

[Anonymous No.17545133]

>>17544979
To be fair they're in a field filled with other faggots. If you don't write like a faggot people will assume you're an idiot. So you have to add a bunch of fluff to make the pompous faggots reading it feel like they're reading something important.

If you just went
>yeah i'm making a new programming language that works in feminists memes because i think it would be funny
it would just be rejected immediately.

over in the CS world though you can just go
>ching chang i made funny language with emoticons that's turing complete XD
and you're good.

[Anonymous No.17545148]

>>17545133
Yeah, this. Also, since feminism is a somewhat new field in academia, it's trying to make itself look serious by creating new points of reference and concepts, which in uni world means you have to invent new scientifical words.

[Anonymous No.17545162]

They are trained by the professors to talk that way. Read Academic Discourse by Bourdieu. There is an article about how students learn jargon through a kind of "play therapy" dynamic in their classes. They learn to mimic the professors' usage of idiotic jargon in a safe environment where subtle body language and response cues from the professor let them know when they've got the jargon wrong. Because it's not based on understanding or technical content, it's just a way of talking that any retard can pick up, it requires this kind of fluid training.

I wouldn't mind it if it had anything behind it or if it actually made it easier to talk about complicated subjects. Instead they use it to bury the simplest topics, like a boring fucking paper on medical pedagogy whose punchline is "women are excluded by language with masculine presumptions" (already a stupid thesis).

They aren't even good "neomarxists" or whatever, they're just midwit middle managers learning how to package bland progressive talking points (don't be mean to woman) in something that makes them feel like they're the intellectual vanguard for doing it. It's always the blandest progressive shit, there's never anything subtle, they don't even push the French pomo degeneracy to its interesting limits, they always stay safe with it.

[Anonymous No.17545170]

>>17544979
That isn't the humanities, it's "interdisciplinary" managerial jargon. I found this woman's CV but still have no idea what she actually studies. Wouldn't be surprised if she considers herself as working in a "STEM field," just because she's worked as a manager at some software company.
Technocracy was a mistake, if "STEM" majors think they're immune to this kind of shit they've got another thing coming.

[Anonymous No.17545174]

>>17544979
Reminds me of this, from Asimov's Foundation

[Anonymous No.17545184]

>>17545170
Technocracy was great because it ate itself, the early technocrats were capable but they suffered from the typical bourgeois sickness of wanting to coddle their mediocre children, and compel the formerly meritocratic world to worship their mediocre children for some reason. Every rich technocrat class guy for some fucking reason has four daughters that he lets spend all his money and run the family ragged, while they go off to college and get fake degrees so they can continue being a financial burden until they're 50. Or an effeminate son who wants to live like an up-and-coming twenty-something tech genius who travels a lot, despite having an IQ of 110 and a GPA of 3.0.

It's awesome, it means the technocracy voluntarily hung millstones from its own neck. If they had just instilled their children with the same drive as the establishers of their family in the upper class, they could have ruled the world.

[Anonymous No.17545196]

>always taught in English classes not to use passive voice for brevity & clarity
>academic articles I read in grad school all use passive voice for word padding & obfuscation

[Anonymous No.17545212]

>>17545148
Is feminism an actual field in academia?

[Anonymous No.17545220]

>>17545184
Strictly speaking "technocracy" refers to rule by managers and "professionals," not rule by people who made their money by selling technology.

[Anonymous No.17545224]

>>17545212
It's the same shit as any other humanitarian study. Just like how you have people getting "philosophy" degrees or psychology.

[Anonymous No.17545235]

>>17545212
Depending on where you live, it's starting to be. Small modules are being added here and there, studies are published, etc...

[Anonymous No.17545242]

Honestly I imagine hitting a certain word count has a lot to do with it. That’s how you’re trained, to just fill up the page with as many words as you can before having to present a new idea

[Anonymous No.17545245]

>>17545212
Slowly but surely it's becoming one.

[Anonymous No.17545272]

>>17545170
I'm a senior software engineer at a company you've probably heard of. I've been told to hire for women because department demographics were skewed male. Of the women that weren't pity hired, very few actually work directly with technology. They're social media managers, interface designers, human resource managers and worst of all: very mediocre programmers.

[Anonymous No.17545281]

>>17545242
>before having to present a new idea
Really, you're supposed to use excessive wordiness in order to hide that you don't have a new idea. If you have a theory or idea, you can be criticized and argued against. So the best way to "survive" in academia is not to put forward a new, coherent idea, but to use hedge words to prevent criticism. You can see it in the example, "to encourage and allow new ways of thinking about problems" means essentially nothing. But no one is going to disagree with it, because "new ways of thinking about problems" is something you can't argue against.

[Anonymous No.17545309]

>>17545196
this image is so comfy to me. what's it from? how can I watch comfy 90s lifestyle?

[Anonymous No.17545342]

>>17544979
why does she turn me on so much, bros?
something about girls who seem insufferable in this sense makes me go bonkers.. and the cute photo to go with it

[Anonymous No.17545350]

>>17545342
she's smart, she's sexy, she's independent, she's a keeper

[Anonymous No.17545357]

>>17545342
She's here, she's proud, and she's loud

[Anonymous No.17545360]

>>17545342
>>17545350
Good chance that's a tranny

[Anonymous No.17545365]

Obscurantist language to seem smarter than they are.

[Anonymous No.17545377]

>>17545309
The X Files

[Anonymous No.17545412]

>>17544979
I teach undergrads and would unironically give this a D if she turned it in like that.

[Anonymous No.17545442]

>>17545309
looks like californication, good show.

[Anonymous No.17545448]

>>17544979
Composition and grammar isn’t taught to early Cold War standard outside of the South. Bureaucratese like this becomes the equivocating cabbage speak standard for academic writing

[Anonymous No.17545450]

>>17545412
>I teach undergrads
You're a real teacher or you're a TA?

[Anonymous No.17545495]

>>17545281
True. Fuck academia

[Anonymous No.17545582]

>>17545377
>>17545442
thanks folks

[Anonymous No.17545604]

>>17545495
idk, if you can use it to your advantage, why not? If you're confident enough in your ability to hide any coherent message, you can get a tenured position making 6 figures while being a subpar writer. If that's the state of things, why not profit from it rather than fight against it?

[Anonymous No.17545638]

>>17545604
the thing with academia is you are more likely to being an adjunct making 40k a year than tenured one who gets to write schizo babble about YAAAAS QUEEN.

[Anonymous No.17545639]

>>17545604
Because ghandi said to be the change in the world you want to see. I shall not indulge in academic sophistry for this reason

[Anonymous No.17545667]

>>17545442
delet this

[Anonymous No.17545671]

>>17545639
>Because ghandi said to be the change in the world you want to see. I shall not indulge in academic sophistry for this reason
But if you stay outside the academy then you'll never be able to instigate any sort of actual change. So you're admitting that the change you want to see in the world is none?

[Anonymous No.17545691]

>>17545667
fuck you no californication is funny

[Anonymous No.17545699]

>>17544979
I feel bad that these people waste their lives so much.

[Anonymous No.17545706]

>>17545133
So she's basically just making the Shakespeare Programming language but with Naomi Wolf excerpts instead of Shakespearean dialogue?

[Anonymous No.17545714]

>to succinctly sum up

[Anonymous No.17545716]

>>17545035
There are non-normative programming paradigms like functional programming. Why would you try to fundamentally change a programming paradigm that works like an ontology to get the same result instead of switching the programming paradigm

[Anonymous No.17545717]

>>17545090
You don’t want to write like this. This is academic, over-intellectualized gobbledegook. No sane English speaker, no English speaker with anything of substance to say, speaks or writes like this.

[Anonymous No.17545719]

>>17544979
>Doesn't know the difference between paradigm and programming language
>Doesn't know the difference between hard sciences and umanities
>Nothing of values added
K Y S

[Anonymous No.17545729]

>>17545003
No. Joyce is not pomo and you likely drink too much.

[Anonymous No.17545732]

>>17545090
>>17545717
This. This is pseud-speak for overeducated 110 IQ academics/bureaucrats

[Anonymous No.17545734]

>>17545170
I work in University Admin and you have no idea how many of these people there are. They make working life a living hell. Most of them have graduate degrees in things like “Organizational Leadership and Development” or “Learning Design and Technology”. In lieu of those, it’s M. Education or MBAs.

[Anonymous No.17545777]

>>17545671
I cannot change academia, I can only refuse to participate

[Anonymous No.17545779]

>>17545003
Joyce is modernist. The OP looks like PoMo theory writers like Roland Barthes or Michel Foucault, but even they have some good meat to them behind the annoying language.

[Anonymous No.17545814]

>>17544979
>Alternative methods of abstraction.
There are only two faculties capable of abstraction in the human psyche: thought and feeling.

So, I'm inferring an avocation for feeling based abstraction? To what end?

[Anonymous No.17545865]

>>17544979
Is she saying object oriented programming is misogynist because it teaches you to objectify women?

[Anonymous No.17545884]

>>17545865
She's an introverted feeling type person and is very confused by extroverted thinking type logic.

[Anonymous No.17545896]

>>17545865
She says it is normative. Her problem is that there are hierarchies of objects and rules to create objects

[Anonymous No.17545918]

>>17545896
so she wants to institute spaghetti code on ideological grounds?

[Anonymous No.17545937]

>>17545918
do you have a better solution?

[Anonymous No.17545947]

>>17545729
you misunderstood what he said

[Anonymous No.17545956]

>>17544979
Idk if philosophy is considered humanities but at UCLA we were explicitly told to write as clear and concise as possible. Prof even enforced a word limit per sentence. I mean jargon is rampant, but I suppose thatd unavoidable.

[Anonymous No.17545964]

>>17545937
Yes. Everyone should switch to HolyC.

[Anonymous No.17545966]

>>17545639
you don't have to people write like this to compensate the fact that they are saying nothing

[Anonymous No.17545990]

>>17545671
>>17545777
Here's an idea for positive tangible change, bomb academia.

[Anonymous No.17546001]

>>17545990
Calm down Ted.

[Anonymous No.17546039]

>>17545966
the sentiment expressed in your post is disagreeable to my conception of the world and i presume you state it from an advantaged position in this world, one that is ignorant of the struggle those of us from disadvantaged positions live. language, such as that which you are describing, is a semantic tool of the oppressed--it is a way to alleviate and make serious the experience of underrepresented people by presenting it in an agreeable format to the oppressors

[Anonymous No.17546070]

>>17546039
That's still too comprehensible of a shitpost to be modern academic discourse.

[Anonymous No.17546078]

>>17546070
i thought so too, desu

[Anonymous No.17546097]

it's really an art form to write so much and say nothing at all

[Anonymous No.17546107]

>>17546039
>presenting it in an agreeable format to the oppressors
The only language our oppressors understand is money. If you're not dedicating your time to commit financial terrorism to dethrone the rich from their high seats of power, then everything else is a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.17546110]

>>17545814
>to what end
Obtaining a doctorate

[Anonymous No.17546125]

>>17546039
I read that once and understood it. Needs more jargon

[Anonymous No.17546135]

>>17544979
bitch probably dont understand for loops anyway
and programming is dead 20 years, and AI will do everything, whatever bitch

[Anonymous No.17546172]

>>17546070
and it repeats to many words
>>17546078
it needs a long ass question and change conception of the world to something like "eurocentric settler congnoscitive process of spiritual subjugation"

[Anonymous No.17546174]

>apply to jobs as female
>almost instantly get interviews
My first one is tomorrow, I'm just gonna speak in a higher pitch and if they ask claim im trans and act like I dont understand the question. Not even gonna shave my goatie wish me luck

[Anonymous No.17546203]

>>17546174
>>apply to jobs as female
I have to do this

[Anonymous No.17546218]

>>17546174
kek, this is how you play the game

[Anonymous No.17546258]

>>17545003
You guys think you're intelligent but you're really fucking stupid

[Anonymous No.17546268]

>>17546258
>You guys think you're intelligent
no, I don't think that

[Anonymous No.17546317]

Lol. This makes makes want to write more misogynist code. I will java because it treats women as objects:

import java.util.Scanner;
class woman{
private String size_a;
private String n;
private int size_t;
private int a;
private int intelligence=0;

public woman(int a, int size_t, String size_a,String n){
this.n= n;
this.size_a=size_a;
this.size_t=size_t;
this.a= a;
}

public void greet(){
System.out.println("Hello, I am " + n +", my tits have a size of "+ size_t+" inches and my ass is "+size_a+". I am " + a+" and my intelligence is " + intelligence);
}

public void make_sandwhich(){
System.out.println("I will make you a sandwhich because I am good a whore with "+ intelligence+" intelligence");
}

public void blowjob(){
System.out.println("I will suck your dick");
}


}
class main{

public static void main(String args[]){
int age;
int tits_size;
String name;
String ass_size;

Scanner s= new Scanner(System.in);

System.out.println("Enter name:");
name=s.nextLine();

System.out.println("Enter age:");
age=s.nextInt();

System.out.println("Enter ass size:");
ass_size=s.next();

System.out.println("Enter tits size:");
tits_size=s.nextInt();

s.close();

woman whore = new woman(age,tits_size,ass_size,name);

whore.greet();
whore.make_sandwhich();
whore.blowjob();
}

}

[Anonymous No.17546335]

>>17546317
Very "intro to Java" tier code, well done.

[Anonymous No.17546364]

>>17546335
I did it in hurry and I don't actually want to create a good code for this kind of shit. Just a shitpost.

[Anonymous No.17546370]

>>17546364
Well it was shit, and technically a post - so yeah well done.

[Anonymous No.17546393]

>>17546370
Thanks. Do you want to create a unironically good piece of code to shit on women? lol no.

[Anonymous No.17546398]

>>17545671
Bad faith argument.

[Anonymous No.17546404]

>>17546268
>I'M THE NEXT JOYCE
>I don't think I'm intelligent
Sure

[Anonymous No.17546408]

>>17546393
I wouldn't attempt it in the first place.
Underage b&.

[Anonymous No.17546474]

>>17546404
joyce wasn't intelligent

[Anonymous No.17546516]

>>17544979
LOL

[Anonymous No.17546596]

>>17546404
you didn't think that post was serious, did you?

[Anonymous No.17547513]

>>17546258
This. I could write like this when I was 14 and had too struggle hard to unlearn it. Any collegefag can write like this what's the big deal?

[Anonymous No.17547540]

>>17545003
kek

[Anonymous No.17547572]

>>17544979
this is retarded. americans make being a liberal so embarrassing

[Anonymous No.17547588]

>>17544979
If she means what she says this would be a great thing. You know those charts where men have placed things on a scale and it is clearly following a curve function or logarithmic scale? And then the female chart shows that they are all over the place with repeated and erratic peak and valleys that follow no pattern wtf ever?
Her little spiel here means she is going to find the code to translate those. If more of you could fucking read you'd realize how big if true that is.

[Anonymous No.17547614]

>>17545090
Why? So that we can make fun of you?

[Anonymous No.17547623]

>>17547614
To be fair, anon, we're not going to stop making fun of anon regardless of merit.

[Anonymous No.17547640]

>>17544979
None of you can understand this? Thinking things you can't understand are dumb and bad is not a position that I would be very proud to admit to - unless among other retards.

[Anonymous No.17547677]

>>17547588
Can you post the graph you’re talking about?

[Anonymous No.17547693]

>>17547572
They have converted it into a quasi religion as replacement for their lost puritanism.

[Anonymous No.17547698]

>>17544985
>>17545003
But pomos are actually skilled and interesting writers.
>Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation is required reading for anyone interested in understanding modern society,
>Foucault had a number of extremely interesting ways of looking at justice and institutional bureaucracy, and
>DFW wrote Infinite Jest

Getting tired of people shitting on pomo. it's primo content

[Anonymous No.17547723]

[Anonymous No.17547768]

>>17547640
>None of you can understand this?
If you think that's the problem with the writing in the OP, you're either ESL or retarded.

[Anonymous No.17547970]

>>17547677
It's most graphs. The ones you'll see on this site the most are about dating attractiveness, but graphing men and women to a norm is very hard. You get a lot of charts where they're also abnormally normal (IQ charts are probably the most seen of those), but they also manage to be abnormal outliers more often too. If someone managed to write an IQ test which made women and men follow the same curve, it would be big shit. The proposal is much bigger than that though, because it could potentially solve not just that chart, but hundreds of others where our estimates of the norm are thrown off by differences between sexes.

[Anonymous No.17548026]

>>17544979
You learn a style first then you develop your voice after you are exposed to more and more writers/arguments in your academic career

[Anonymous No.17548042]

>>17545162
That's how change is made buddy. Middle lane it til the older generation die off

[Anonymous No.17548290]

>>17547698
Infinite Jest isn't pomo, it's neomo.

[Anonymous No.17548376]

>>17548290
It is pomo though, pic related

[Anonymous No.17548487]

>>17545716
I'm not sure what normative means in the context of a programming language, but maybe a language with a Bool?-equivalent type, so that binary representations can be disrupted

[Anonymous No.17548535]

>>17547588
Elaborate please, what will entanglements enable us to do

[Anonymous No.17548801]

>>17545170
What the fuck are those degrees

[Anonymous No.17548820]

>>17544979
Ever since the denormalization of the partriarchy, non-normative abstractions have become permissble in non-demonstrative society in which queer-positive bodies can freely perform ostensibly by performative choices in dress and speech without which the white supremacists would continue their smothering of non-normative queers folx.

[Anonymous No.17548826]

>>17548535
>will
What she's saying is very unlikely to happen. If it did, theoretically you could choose optimal ways of displaying or collating information to/from both genders much faster. Think Cambridge Analytica on Brexit, except for everything with a male/female split. It's like a holy grail of data sifting if you could do it. It would be huge if anyone did it, and one of the reasons it would be huge is because it would mean there is a function to find in the noise. That function might very well not exist.

[Anonymous No.17549454]

>>17548820
kek

[Anonymous No.17550636]

>>17546174
B A S E D
A
S
E
D

[Anonymous No.17550671]

>>17545937
Kek

[Anonymous No.17550728]

What does “normative” even mean, I’m a team lead at a software company and this bitch wouldn’t be allowed to get anywhere near our code based just on this retarded description of whatever the fuck she researched. Feminist programming language lmao what a cunt

[Anonymous No.17550748]

>>17545025
3PBP

This is the answer right here.

[Anonymous No.17550764]

>>17546039
This post makes too much sense.
I give this post an F- and ask that you take a semester off to check your privilege.

Your Professor,
Rebekka Schlomosteinberg

[Anonymous No.17550767]

>>17544979
She's writing informally, and the jargon is really the most succinct way of saying what she means. I see no major problem here. Pursuits like this seem like sophistry but throughout history weirdos have tried to work out a language that proves God exists, or derive a language that will never create an image in the mind, and this is a logical one for the current zeitgeist. Good luck to her, this is an amusing pursuit. I mean, there are other non-Object based languages, so she'll be injecting other weirdness into it. When I was younger I tried to come up with a universal language for writing up medical papers diagrammatically so each paper was a single diagram. I obviously have the same brain parasite as this poor woman.

[Anonymous No.17550797]

>>17545025
Bingo.

[Anonymous No.17550798]

>>17544979
programmer here. this is retarded. She believes the "Object Oriented Programming is successful because it's easy to model the real world in objects" meme. (Hence why she's saying she's trying to find a different way of "abstracting," meaning modeling objects.) That is a myth. OOP did not become ubiquitous in the industry because of this. OOP became the industry standard for one reason: polymorphism.

You know how an iphone generation 2 can detect your airpods? it's because of polymorphism: your airpods use what is called an interface, and the iphone gen 2 knows that interface. the airpods inherited from that interface, but can change the interworkings. So in other words, when the iphone says "play music" the airpods will run that method, but do whatever they want.

In short, she completely missed the point of OOP, and good luck to her creating a programming language without the main pillar of OOP, polymorphism (or inheritance or scope for that matter)

[Anonymous No.17550810]

>>17550798
Why can't she just write an article about polymorphism and transgenderism? Inheriting a wrong body with wrong functions, but able to change them or whatever?

[Anonymous No.17550816]

>>17546135
If anything like "AI" actually comes into existence it might very well cause the demand for programming explode. It'll basically make everyone in the service industry into a programmer (or a jobless perosn).

[Anonymous No.17550825]

>>17544979
She was told to 'learn how to code'.
This is where we are at.

Next time she can't find a job tell her to learn how to clean.

[Anonymous No.17550835]

>>17550798
in fact, to continue, her best bet getting rid of what she called "subject-object theory" is just getting rid of scope, thus breaking down the divisions between your programming objects, which IMO is useless. We had scope even in the times of COBOL, for a reason

>>17550810
>Why can't she just write an article about polymorphism and transgenderism? Inheriting a wrong body with wrong functions, but able to change them or whatever
that would be way more worthy of her time, still retarded, but it already has the word "polymorphism" in it, which is as superficial as her current project.

class Tranny : Human
{

public void HaveSex(object sexPartner)
{
DoSomePostModernistThing();
throw new KillSelfException();
}

}

[Anonymous No.17550837]

>>17544979
Since the soft sciences ultimately have no tie to reality stronger than "well, that makes sense," people competing for prestige within them have no objective metrics for correctness, or even accuracy. In the absence of said metrics, the standard for success instead becomes how well you pantomime profundity. I don't think obscurantism by nature implies profundity, but postgrad social science types evidently do. It's a cultural thing that's emerged in the West.

[Anonymous No.17550866]

Imagine properly socializing and educating a girl into adulthood, shoving her towards academics path (probably some easy entry-level shit like Anthropology or History no doubt), then she spends most of her free time talking about the fucking Adventure Time show and having sex with dogs on Twitter and Discord.

[Anonymous No.17550873]

>>17550767
Shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.17550889]

>>17550767
>She's writing informally, and the jargon is really the most succinct way of saying what she means

Quote:
>To succinctly sum up my research thus far I will outline the decomposition of my question below:

[Anonymous No.17550913]

>To succinctly sum up

if you were truly being succinct you wouldn't use that FUCKING RETARDED construction.

false advertising, resume trashed

[Anonymous No.17550921]

>>17545947
He really didn't

[Anonymous No.17550937]

>>17547970
>If someone managed to write an IQ test which made women and men follow the same curve, it would be big shit. The proposal is much bigger than that though, because it could potentially solve not just that chart, but hundreds of others where our estimates of the norm are thrown off by differences between sexes.

Jesus fucking christ. Next you'll be saying:
>If an astronomer could just come up with a model of the solar system where the sun revolved around the earth again, it could solve not just that problem, but hundreds of other problems where our estimates in the bible are thrown off by empirical data.

[Anonymous No.17550962]

>>17550866
Youre a fucking sicko, what the fuck are you doing thinking of shit like that

[Anonymous No.17551027]

>>17550962
Joke's on you, it's reality.

[Anonymous No.17551049]

>>17545956
>word limit per sentence

[Anonymous No.17551078]

>>17551049
I would actually try out low word counts for essays, though. People would quickly find out how actually writing succinctly is extremely hard.

[Anonymous No.17551091]

We all unironically have to learn from her how to make ourselves look smart.

[Anonymous No.17551094]

>>17545224
What's wrong with a psychology degree?

[Anonymous No.17551107]

>>17545170
I wonder what it must be like to be in debt over absolutely worthless degrees. Those two papers are essentially the equivalent of working middle management job in some office.

[Anonymous No.17551109]

>>17551078
Agreed, it's very good training.

[Anonymous No.17551115]

>>17545814
Perception is an abstraction of reality.

[Anonymous No.17551119]

>>17551107
>the equivalent of working middle management job in some office
That's a lot of STEM jobs these days. Our economy seems to have an ever unsated need for middle management jobs.

[Anonymous No.17551140]

>>17551094
Psychology is not a science and in many regards more harmful than philosophy.

[Anonymous No.17551146]

>>17551091
jesus christ this makes me cringe

[Anonymous No.17551200]

>>17545090
You don't write novels like this

[Anonymous No.17551206]

>>17544979
>Trying to build an alternative to OOP or Procedural programming
>Building it using feminism because mathematics and computer science is sexist I guess?
>entanglements, whatever the fuck that means
I can guarantee this woman doesn't know how to program or any computer science theory.

[Anonymous No.17551227]

>>17546317
Learn to give your variables proper names you fucking amateur.

[Anonymous No.17551262]

>>17545170
It's tike for beta males to bring back the Patriarchy

[Anonymous No.17551267]

>>17551262
Does this mean what I think?

[Anonymous No.17551723]

>>17551140
t. sexually repressed

[Anonymous No.17551730]

>>17551091
'Knowledgeable' in the 19th century: "I spent a month in the library reading textbooks and seeking out experts in the field for further research."
'Knowledgeable' in the 21st century: "I spent my coffee breaks reading 5min articles on medium so I obviously know what I'm talking about."

[Anonymous No.17551732]

Continental philosophy and its consequences have been a disaster for all communication.

[Anonymous No.17551771]

>>17551140
How can psychology, and for that matter, philosophy, be considered harmful in any regard? To the contrary, they should have a beneficial, regenerative effect on the individual. Perhaps you simply dislike the idea of introspection completely.

[Anonymous No.17552125]

>>17551771
>How can psychology, and for that matter, philosophy, be considered harmful in any regard
Read
>>17551723
That's the kind of shit their mind gets infected with.

Philosophy is not harmful when done right, but I assume modern college will make it harmful.

[Anonymous No.17552137]

>>17551732
Nah, it's jews who popularised this cringespeak

[Anonymous No.17552577]

>>17544979
Because it's the terminology commonly used in academic environments and is run of the mill stuff to anyone in it. You wouldn't bitch at physicists for it.

[Anonymous No.17552590]

>>17551140
>Psychology is not a science and in many regards more harmful than philosophy.
Do explain.

[Anonymous No.17552621]

>>17551115
Perception is equivalent to sensation, which is an irrational faculty and therefore not subject to rational manipulation; it cannot be abstracted.

[Anonymous No.17552636]

>>17550937
>no please don't let there be problems with norms in human surveying
>that has to be like demonic shit not shit that's a major crisis in biometrics and science in general
It's fine anon, you're already paying for the military studies and refurbishments which have no solution in sight for this problem, and will be paying for them and other consequences of this problem until you die. You can believe it's the demons or Pluto not being a planet that's taking that money if you like, but the money is going to keep going to it.

[Anonymous No.17552711]

I have a potentially fun idea for the direction of this thread (or should this be a new thread?)
Can you share a screenshot of research descriptions for a field you are somewhat knowledgeable in? Other anons can rate the jargon and you can perhaps defend and explain the writing, or agree that it is obfuscating. Any field would be interesting I think.
I'll start.

[Anonymous No.17552730]

>Why do professors let them get away with it?

I think many professors don't feel like it is their place to correct one's style.

[Anonymous No.17553017]

>>17552711
grug make animal lab, ask many questions for tribe
grug ask, when tribe make camp, why many dog come but not hyena? do hyena not like tribe?
grug also ask, if ancestor-tribe hunt mammoth herd many moons ago, where mammoth now? if mammoth herd gone, will same happen to buffalo herd once many moons pass?
grug ask many questions and count on fingers and toes to make sure answers correct. when grug finished, grug make pretty cave painting and rock-scratches to explain answers to tribe.
grug think animal lab good for tribe. all grug need is small grant of ten rocks.

[Anonymous No.17553152]

I wonder how fewer the number of faggots would be on this board, and in the US academic, if they were given a classical education, like the type British grammar schools used to give.
Would it have reduced the number of Marxists in education?

[Anonymous No.17553465]

I found this on /g/
https://github.com/TheFeministSoftwareFoundation/C-plus-Equality
Fucking shit doesn't use 0 and 1 or have logical operators because they are "sexist". Incredible retarded.

[Anonymous No.17553599]

>>17544979
i want to lick her face for some reason.

[Anonymous No.17553634]

>>17553465
>https://github.com/TheFeministSoftwareFoundation/C-plus-Equality/blob/mistress/examples/PrivilegeCheck.Xir
oh wow, they actually wrote some programs with it. wait...
>// If this program fails to operate, it is due the Patriarchy backfiring upon itself, and no refunds will be issued.
AHAHAHAAHAH

[Anonymous No.17553647]

>>17553634
That one is taking the piss

[Anonymous No.17553679]

>>17553465
Pretty sure that one is a parody. I remember hearing about that one a while ago.

[Anonymous No.17553686]

>>17553679
It's obviously a parody, the person you're replying to is a legitimate dullard for missing it.

[Anonymous No.17553695]

>>17552636
>no please don't let there be problems with norms in human surveying
Lol. My point is that you're assuming there's a problem when every survey of every kind reports the same results. The logical conclusion is that there's no grand conspiracy showing men's averages/distribution to be different from women's, it's just human nature.

[Anonymous No.17553727]

>>17544979
Bet you she's never written a line of code in her life, but anyone who points out the fact is "mainsplaining." She'll be given a six figure job as a "diversity compliance officer" at a big tech firm too.

[Anonymous No.17553735]

>>17552730
>I think many professors don't feel like it is their place to correct one's style.

Why even grade papers at that point?

[Anonymous No.17553747]

>>17553686
>dullard
I don't know, the stuff in the OP is dangerously close to the parody. The world these days has shown me that common sense no longer exists and many things are basically equivalent to their parodies.

[Anonymous No.17553765]

>>17553735
They're probably asking themselves the same thing. I remember writing a paper that was somewhat obtuse and wordy (I was an undergrad) of about 15 pages. The professor made one correction/comment on the first paragraph and gave me an A. It was clear that he didn't read the other pages.

[Anonymous No.17553777]

>>17553747
>The world these days has shown me that common sense no longer exists and many things are basically equivalent to their parodies.

I mean, a reality TV star led the free world. It doesn't get more "living parody" than that.

[Anonymous No.17553793]

>>17545990
based

[Anonymous No.17553823]

>>17553747
>The world these days has shown me that common sense no longer exists and many things are basically equivalent to their parodies.
Evidently your common sense doesn't exist either, if statements like "Instead of "running" a program, which implies thin privilege and pressure to "work out", programs are 'given birth'" are too subtle for you.

[Anonymous No.17553856]

>>17553599
>t. dog

[Anonymous No.17553899]

>>17544979
I'll give you an example; I'm an anthropology student, 95% of my class size are women, and this leaves a very small minority of men (most of whom up their agreeableness to kiss the ass of women in the class and their professors). In all likelihood, my major has only about a 2% male demographic. This is not an exaggeration, of every class I have ever taken there have only ever been two or three other guys in class sized ranging from 20 to 50. There is no real other reason beyond the fact that women are agreeable and verbose, and are incredibly good at sucking up to professors as their "in" into academia which is run by more agreeable people. Almost done with my undergrad and it has completely turned me off of going to graduate school, I can't stand the level of uncreative regurgitation and cock-sucking necessary to succeed in such an environment.

[Anonymous No.17553934]

>>17544979
every academic writes like this because of the norman invasion

[Anonymous No.17553950]

>>17551107
those aren't worthless degrees considering how have them can get you guaranteed employment with clout. it's ironically your CS major who's got to compete with $9 an hour pajeets

[Anonymous No.17553978]

>>17553777
it's only a parody from the perspective of a professional-managerial technocratic aristocracy

[Anonymous No.17554033]

>>17553823
>>17553679
Parody or no is probably the closet attempt I found for a femminist programming language.
>Evidently your common sense doesn't exist either, if statements like "Instead of "running" a program, which implies thin privilege and pressure to "work out" programs are 'given birth'" are too subtle for you.
There could be people who genuinely believe in this kind of shit. Even if it starts as joke there could a feminist retard that may take this shit seriously.

[Anonymous No.17554083]

>>17553950
The only people getting degrees in "Human-Centered Computing" are young women from upper-class families who are well-connected to begin with.

[Anonymous No.17554367]

>>17548376
>wikipedia

[Anonymous No.17554378]

>>17553950
>it's ironically your CS major who's got to compete with $9 an hour pajeets
There's no competition with pajeets, they're incredibly unskilled and are only hired as a way of padding billable expenses to clients. You hire 3 of them for the price of one developer in the west, tell the client that you've 3 billable developers working on their project and charge them western rates, keep the profit.

[Anonymous No.17554406]

i was a humanities major (admittedly, not a good one, as i got blackpilled when i realized the state of the contemporary university) and i write in meandering sentences which misuse/abuse em-dashes and other asides to sound like A Person Talking To You

[Anonymous No.17554407]

>>17554367
You go follow the trail of sources if you care, it's a pretty well agreed-upon point. I won't object to neomo because I think some works are part of multiple eras, syncretically, but it's at minimum unmistakeably pomo.

[Anonymous No.17554437]

>>17553695
>every survey of every kind reports the same results.
That's not the case though. Women have weird results across the board where the logical conclusion does not work. For example, women should technically make better fighter pilots. They don't. What's more, redesigning planes to fit male optimum biometrics and averages does not result in better male fighter pilots. According to the surveys of female and male norms, male pilots should do worse on planes which better suit a female norm, but they don't, and do worse on planes designed to a male norm. The logical conclusions of norms do not work in any pragmatic sense for many things, and, worse, don't even work in a mathematical sense for many others. That's one case in an industry with billions of funding. They are very concerned the math does not work and if you could make it work for them they would pay you like an arms dealer.

[Anonymous No.17554455]

>>17544979
Grad students are like this and it's obnoxious but forgivable. Any discipline has a jargon that you have to learn to be able to navigate the profession. For someone who wants to be a grad student in the humanities, there's a heady thrill in defining your research using the jargon, so you go overboard, like this chick has, assuming that you are staking out a place in the field.

A responsible supervisor would challenge her to rein it in and simplify (even correct the damned typos). But there's not enough of those around. Or this student is too in love with her idea to listen. Anyway, it's shite.

[Anonymous No.17554554]

>>17544979
It's because most of these people likely didn't have a distinct voice when they entered into these programs and in all likelihood never wanted one. This style lets them borrow Post-Modern jargon--OP's image reads like something out of a Walmart-brand Baudrillard--and use it to paint over the gaping, desperate tone they would have otherwise.

Funnily enough, this type of speech could also be taught by upper-level educators as an effective means to hide meaning from both readers who aren't interested enough to comb through the gunk of what's begin said, as well as from the student who's writing whatever's being said.

This means that one of them comes up with an interesting idea, it will be so drenched in faux-programmatic technical managerial speech that only the professor will readily be able to pick out what their student is actually saying--and if that's something interesting, and something that could potentially set warning bells off for the wrong people, no one will ever know, because no one wants to read pages and pages of this garbage unless, like the professor, they're getting paid to do so.

This is of course high, almost outlandish, speculation, and I doubt that university lecturers are teaching their students to think and write unintelligibly so as to mask a certain kind of programming that might be taking place on college campuses.

But it does make one think, doesn't it?

[Anonymous No.17554585]

>>17554437
>According to the surveys of female and male norms, male pilots should do worse on planes which better suit a female norm, but they don't, and do worse on planes designed to a male norm.
Maybe the reason is because the concept of male and female norms is bullshit? Maybe piloting doesn't benefit from things such as male/female ergonomic design or whatever the fuck a male/female norm is and instead relies on innate talent?

Who am I kidding? It's clear you don't come from a technical field based on your muddled writing/thinking.

[Anonymous No.17554668]

>>17553899
It's funny--I was in similar situations in Undergrad. I personally found, though, that if you were able to voice your own opinions soundly enough, that group mentality--both men and women--works in your favor, and in a woman-dominant environment, doubly so, because the minute one begins to agree with you, more and more will follow suit.

The next great dictatorship will be led by one charismatic man with a bureaucracy staffed by only women.

[Anonymous No.17554805]

>>17551730
It be that way.
To be fair though, reading old law school diplomas, for example, you can tell internet is a huge advantage.

[Anonymous No.17554855]

>>17545090
You don't. You want real mastery of English, look up Cormac McCarthy. Succinctly simple, absolutely anyone can read it and understand what's going on. The writing in the OP is degenerate pseud faggotry, solely used to hide the fact they have absolutely nothing to say behind confusing and excessively academic language.

[Anonymous No.17554918]

>>17545003
Depends how you mean.
The post-structuralists didn't write like this.
The post-modern literary authors didn't write like this.
Over-educated nitwits in graduate programs with nothing of value to say often write like this.
Are the last group "post-modern"? If post-modernity is being used for periodization and we are living in the post-modern period, then I guess this writing style could be described as post-modern.

[Anonymous No.17554926]

>>17544979
This is pretty compositionally sound. It isn't clunky or anything. Unless you're talking about the content, in which case you should have made that clear.

[Anonymous No.17555273]

>>17554585
>instead relies on innate talent?
Then the ergonomic changes wouldn't affect it. It's very clear that you don't come from a technical field above code monkey if you think every unanswered question is a result of shoddy experimental design. Do you really think everyone in the field forgot to investigate those questions?

[Anonymous No.17555299]

>>17545196
Passive voice is fine when used appropriately.
If I say "Canada was founded in 1867", this is better than saying "John Alexander Macdonald founded Canada in 1867" most of the time. It's more important to show that Canada received the action than it is to show who performed the action, so we use passive voice.

[Anonymous No.17555314]

>>17555273
>Do you really think everyone in the field forgot to investigate those questions?
Link to papers or you're full of shit.

[Anonymous No.17555337]

>>17545196
Grade school is teaching you how to write a story, like a fiction. Highschool prepares you for the passive voice of higher academia.

[Anonymous No.17555365]

>>17555299
This. Passive voice is important for keeping focus on the subject. It is absolutely abused by people who can't for a coherent thought though.

[Anonymous No.17555433]

>>17555314
>No I can't be wrong about something I didn't even think about until today.
Okay you can start in 1946 with Francis E. Randall et al., "Human Body Size in Military Aircraft and Personal Equipment" (Army Air Forces Air Materiel Command, Wright Field, Ohio) and from there do your own research since you're so well versed. I presume you're able to provide a paper where
>lol human nature
was accepted by anyone to explain all the phenomena you're handwaving. I especially look forward to you finding one from a mathematician.

[Anonymous No.17555471]

>>17555433
>can't cite a single paper for his bullshit
You can't just make a broad claim about "studies which show/don't show x" and not point to a single goddamn paper which substantiates your claim. You're actually dumber than /pol/, you realize that? At least /pol/ cites their sources.

>1946 with Francis E. Randall et al., "Human Body Size in Military Aircraft and Personal Equipment
Is not a fucking source for your claim.

[Anonymous No.17555515]

>>17553017
kek

[Anonymous No.17555536]

>>17554926
Don't forget, /lit/ is a pseud board

[Anonymous No.17555556]

>>17555515
This is fairly comprehensible as someone who doesn't know what you're researching. I do think the whole concept of a Partisan Conflict Index is a little suspect, but let's assume for the moment something like that can be accurately measured.

This sounds like firms which have a higher rate of partisan conflict have more cash to total assets. I assume this means they have more money to burn, which makes sense since they can afford more ideological stances as a result.

I can definitely see this being true of places like twich, which are given blank checks by daddy Amazon.

[Anonymous No.17555625]

>interested in archaeology, archival, and museum studies

>considered humantiies for some stupid reason and gets no funding even though it's as much STEM as biology is

[Anonymous No.17555641]

>>17555555

[Anonymous No.17555654]

>>17555625
Maybe zoology, but biology as a field has some hard mathematics in it. I wouldn't put an archivist on the same level as a bioinformatics major, for example.

[Anonymous No.17555693]

>>17544979
This is just standard academic writing.

[Anonymous No.17555717]

>>17555654
I would when it comes to shit like imaging and digitization

[Anonymous No.17555746]

>>17555625
archaeology and linguistics definitely have some weed out courses that separate the women who want phds from the autistic men who look at PIE urheimat theories in their spare time

[Anonymous No.17555981]

>>17555746
Give examples, I'm keking

[Anonymous No.17555985]

>>17545090
this isn't english, the author couldn't explain what it means if you asked them to their face

[Anonymous No.17556045]

>>17555746
>looking at PIE urheimat theories in their spare time
How is there anything wrong with this?

(I know some of the theories are pseudoscientific/insane, but this line of study is still pretty cool)

t. dreams of reading Sanskrit ;_;

[Anonymous No.17556068]

>>17555981
I recently took a historical linguistics class that involved a lot heavy papers and I couldn't imagine taking that class if I weren't interested in the topic. Lots of kids dropped the class, but those that stuck with it got to learn a lot about PIE theory (which I already had an interest in) and involved lots of linguistics-archaeology cross over. Most anthropology majors I've met are either very serious or retards who decide to focus on ethnography because archaeology, linguistics, and bioanth are too hard for them. Flashback to my intro to linguistics class (4 men in class size of 51) almost none of the students understood that IPA is used to transcribe things phonetically and has nothing to do with alphabets. There's just a lot of horrid shit going on in academia and I both don't understand it and love fucking with people by finding loopholes in their faggotry. As one anon said earlier there's a lot of room for mobility in fields like anthropology if you can think by yourself and know what interests you. Lots of people just run through university being interested in what they're told to be interested in.
>>17556045
No, I was saying that we're the people who thrive in those upper level weed out classes. I "autistically" hate colin renfrew and suck the pontic-caspian steppe hypothesis' dick. I'd fuck the shit out of marija gimbutas.
t. would friends with you

[Anonymous No.17556255]

>>17555433
>>17555471
I googled it and it looks like it's legit a major military expense that was fucked up at the time. It's an air force report which details repeated problems with ergonomic designs using a variety of measurements. If he's saying all those problems continued past this report, then he's right that providing the right way to measure for ergonomics in one of the sections would be worth billions. I don't know if he's specifically focusing on the cockpit design section alone, but I do know ejection design was definitely fucked long after that report. The ACES II seat was big news and it worked so well because it took into account women. Nobody designing an ejector for men is going to think "Let's design it to get a 105lb load clear, and put the activation system near your dick on smaller craft".

[Anonymous No.17556728]

>>17556255
Super interesting history, but it also has nothing to do with that guy's central thesis.

You don't have to sell me on the perks of ergonomic design or design-oriented thinking in general. Like half of my job is basically design. What I question is the meme idea that women are somehow untestable, that's why they score worse than men. It's dumb and the modern day equivalent of geocentric thinking.

[Anonymous No.17557122]

>>17556728
If he's the guy saying putting in female measurements instead of male measurements for things that men only use is a good idea, he's right when it comes to ejection seats. The ACES II is the first ejection seat that the engineers got the design right so it was a real escape plan. They did that by expanding the range down to tiny chicks and giving no fucks about larger guys. They tried downward ejection before they tried designing it for chicks to make it work for 240lb men.
>What I question is the meme idea that women are somehow untestable, that's why they score worse than men.
I don't think he's saying that, man. I know the meme argument you're talking about but if I'm reading the chain right, this guy's argument is different. He says they're too normal. If he's making a meme argument it's women are normies/NPCs. Unless you're the guy saying they're abnormally normal like you're Donald Rumsfeld in his poetic moments and I fucked up reading the thread.

[Anonymous No.17557168]

>>17557122
Yeah you misread the thread, I was originally responding to this guy (the abnormally normal guy) >>17547970

It's absolute nonsense that he backed up with a dubious study here >>17554437

He never mentions ergonomics, that's my interpretation of this puzzling phrase:
>male pilots should do worse on planes which better suit a female norm, but they don't, and do worse on planes designed to a male norm. The logical conclusions of norms do not work in any pragmatic sense for many things, and, worse, don't even work in a mathematical sense for many others.

When he didn't clarify on his response, I realized I was dealing with a non-technical pseud because any technical person worth their salt would have clarified precisely what they meant by male/female norms.

[Anonymous No.17557213]

>>17557122
Well, regardless of what his central thesis is (I don't even think he knows it himself), my problem is with his handling of this factoid at face value:
>According to the surveys of female and male norms, male pilots should do worse on planes which better suit a female norm, but they don't, and do worse on planes designed to a male norm. The logical conclusions of norms do not work in any pragmatic sense for many things, and, worse, don't even work in a mathematical sense for many others.

Assuming this is 100% true, you don't throw out mathematics just because it doesn't produce a result you want. The first point of contention should be, "What is a male norm?" If men are doing worse at whatever the fuck a male norm is, then maybe it isn't a male norm.

He never offers further explanation as to what a norm is, male or female, so I realized I was dealing with a non-technical person. In my experience, non-technical humanities type people are very loose with terms, even when they're being sincere. They do accidental word play and don't see the mistakes they're making conflating two terms together.

Is a norm an ergonomic standard? Is a norm a distribution? Is a norm a social expectation? The fact he doesn't clarify this very important point in his claim is a huge mark against hi.

[Anonymous No.17557219]

>>17545003

Sounds very close to corporate jargon. Although that idea is novel and interesting (if not totally pointless and inconsequential)

[Anonymous No.17557381]

>>17557213
I get you want me to believe that guy is non-technical, but he gave you a couple hundred pages worth of>>17557213
>Is a norm an ergonomic standard? Is a norm a distribution? Is a norm a social expectation? The fact he doesn't clarify this very important point
from just the AF.
I don't think you're into technicalities of this to be honest, brother.
Shit like >>17556728
>Super interesting history, but it also has nothing to do with that guy's central thesis
when I explained really entry level shit about the technology makes me think your eyes would glaze over if I started talking about ejector seat model numbers and which planes you can retrofit which into. I think Donald Rumsfeld anon probably cares more about technical shit than you if he's reading old Air Force ergonomics reports.

[Anonymous No.17557623]

>>17553152
I would have liked to have had this. Instead i had to go to catholic school and learned jack shit. I m realising how big the gaps in my knowledge are now as an adult. Used to think it was just me because i didnt go to university. I am now realising that is not the case.

[Anonymous No.17557967]

>>17545196
I never thought I'd be nostalgic about CRT monitors but here I am

[Anonymous No.17557980]

>>17546474
So what does that make you?

[Anonymous No.17557982]

>>17544979
Reading Land is such a breath of fresh air because he writes like this but somehow makes it exciting and (somewhat) meaningful. PoMo with a pulse.

[Anonymous No.17558039]

>>17551732
Philosophy was good
Nose was bad

[Anonymous No.17558045]

>>17557623
Catholic schools are the saving throw for poorfags. If you couldn’t get on with their curriculum you’re probably just stupid.

[Anonymous No.17558063]

>>17557982
Schizophrenia filtered through academia. Touching, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.17558383]

>>17545025
Unironically the best answer. It's using unnecessarily complicated language for the sake of taking up space. It's like they have to do something to attempt to validate their terrible decision to become a humanities major, something to project their value to society, but they paradoxically show how valueless they actually are in the process.

[Anonymous No.17558495]

>>17545342
because you know you won't feel bad after beating the shit out of her to get off

[Anonymous No.17558539]

>>17551730
'knowledgeable' in 500 BC: "i spent a lifetime away from society and family testing myself in the wilderness, meditating for years in a cave and memorizing and contemplating the scriptures"

[Anonymous No.17558553]

>>17551206
>>entanglements, whatever the fuck that means
it means spaghetti
then saying it's not a bug it's a feature

[Anonymous No.17558821]

>>17554437
>For example, women should technically make better fighter pilots. They don't.
Women aren't as good pilots because of the same reason they aren't as good at athletics. Their hand eye coordination and ability to maintain calmness under pressure isn't as good as it is for men.

[Anonymous No.17558984]

>>17545025
Correct, they learn how to sound like an intellectual, but skip all of the crtical thinking steps.
No study allows as little discourse with your teacher as a social study. You disagree with the teachers dogma? You fail the course.

[Anonymous No.17559076]

>>17544979
This kills the humanities major
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism_Generator

But seriously, did you mean 'major' as in BA? Then that thesis is fucking nothing and it is very unlikely that she will go higher than a fourth rate feminist theological school from the Unitarian Universalists.

[Anonymous No.17559402]

>>17544979
>to succintly sum up my research thus far I will outline the decomposition of my question below
Is there a minimum length they need to reach? this looks like shameless padding

[Anonymous No.17559420]

>>17553017
I would give grug 10 rocks. I trust him. He seems to know what's up.

[Anonymous No.17559428]

>>17548820
It's too clear and actually makes sense. Not good.

[Anonymous No.17559431]

>>17550767
woman hands typed this post

[Anonymous No.17559438]

>>17550889
Well that is informal, insofar as it is not what you'd write in a paper, and it is succinct.
"To quickly sum up my work so far I will summarise the parts of my question below" uses more basic language, but I really hope that the difference between these words is not what made it so jarring to you. If you'd read her sentence in an old book you'd not be stropping about it, you are piping up solely because you think her work is stupid, but my point was I think it is on par with stupid work that has happened throughout history.

[Anonymous No.17559482]

>>17553899
Forced online classes has shone a light on this. Every weekly discussion thread you get to see just how full of themselves your classmates are, and of course since you have to respond to the discussions, everybody is in agreement with everyone else out of not wanting to rock the boat. At least in a live classroom setting, you need to vocalize your thoughts and back them up or keep your mouth shut. Either way, academia is a fucking joke, but what else is new?

[Anonymous No.17559490]

>>17550866
>History
>entry level
It's one of the more rigorous subjects.

[Anonymous No.17559556]

>>17547723
based and tolstoypilled

[Anonymous No.17559703]

>>17556068
Would you recommend in search of the Indo-Europeans by JP Mallory?

[Anonymous No.17559706]

>>17557122
>>17556728
Isn't this just basic anthropometrics?

[Anonymous No.17559763]

>>17544979
I would fuck her

[Anonymous No.17559766]

>>17544979
I want to punch that bitch in the face till I break all her teeth

[Anonymous No.17559779]

>>17559763
>>17559766
Duality of man
Or is it?

[Anonymous No.17560077]

>>17559706
>basic anthropometrics
You'd think, brother, but the AF only plans to have its first craft based around current measurements of the AF in 2022. Fuck knows if it'll work.

[Anonymous No.17560810]

>>17545090
There's nothing special or creative about her style of writing

[Anonymous No.17561377]

>>17557219
It is corporate jargon. It is inculcated into the corporate drones through academia.

[Anonymous No.17561481]

>>17545003
What the duck is pomo

[Anonymous No.17561491]

>>17545090
This kind of language isn’t meant to communicate anything of value

[Anonymous No.17561497]

>>17545717
Douglas Murray has some solid points to make about this kind of thing.

[Anonymous No.17561542]

>>17561481
Post modern

[Anonymous No.17561841]

Post-modernism in philosophy IS NOT the same thing as post-modernism in literature.

Post-modernism in literature: Joyce's Finnegans Wake, concrete poetry, oulipo group, Thomas Pynchon etc.
Basically the development of modernism, when things become even weirder than they previously were.

Post-modernism in (pseudo-)philosophy: Foucault, Derrida, etc.

[Anonymous No.17561998]

>>17561841
finnegans wake is peak modernism

[Anonymous No.17562042]

>>17555654
conservation is an integral part of archiving and that requires chemistry at the bare minimum

[Anonymous No.17562046]

>>17544979
Stop replying to threads like this wtf
Sage

[Anonymous No.17562335]

>>17554855
I mean I agree with you that Cormac is a good writer and that the academic writing is trash, but I'm also not sure that McCarthy is the benchmark of plain and legible style for people still learning to find their own.

[Anonymous No.17562703]

>>17544979
the more i learn about academia the less i want anything to do with it

[Anonymous No.17563434]

why would you purposely obfuscate your point if you're in the business of "education"? (other than you not really having a point to begin with ...)

my background is in software and i work in blockchain (yea, i primarily post on g and biz) -- whenever i explain anything, i'm always conscious of my audience and use the simplest language and analogies available because i actually want to communicate and have people understand what i'm trying to say ...

[Anonymous No.17564363]

>>17545174
I read Foundation in third grade on the recommendation of my 2nd grade teacher.
This passage was the most memorable thing in it and gave me a valuable head start on being a horseshit detector.

[Anonymous No.17564380]

>>17544979
Professors told us to do it. We get As. We get honored. We get cushy well paid professor job.

[Anonymous No.17564600]

>>17554668
>The next great dictatorship will be led by one charismatic man with a bureaucracy staffed by only women.

That sound's pretty hot.

[Anonymous No.17564656]

>>17556728
>>17555314
>>17555471
Why do Women always inject emotion into arguments like this?

[Anonymous No.17565728]

>>17562046
bump

[Anonymous No.17565992]

>>17545184
>muh IQ

[Anonymous No.17566035]

>>17545090
You don't want to write like this. I went to a university with more ESL students than native students, and they were all fantastic at reproducing stilted, ugly, overwrought academic language, and terrible at producing anything of beauty that English is capable of.

[Anonymous No.17566078]

>>17556068
Ahh yes. A fellow lingfag. I took a theoretical syntax course and 3/4 of the women in the class dropped it for sociolinguisitcs.

[Anonymous No.17566279]

>>17553152
>Would it have reduced the number of Marxists in education?

No, it would increase them of course, since they'd actually be capable of reading Marx and seeing how well he refutes most criticisms of him. Of course it would crimp SJWs though.

[Anonymous No.17566295]

>>17544979
i want to strangle that woman while screaming feminism can't make you breathe

[Anonymous No.17566356]

>>17545309
Damn.
I remember thinking the 90s were so crazy compared to the simpler 80s I grew up in.
Fuck this clown world we are in now.
t. GenX

[Anonymous No.17566396]

>>17550835
Imagine thinking that this was a good idea to take this fucking photo.

[Anonymous No.17566407]

>>17559420
Can only afford to give grug 2 rocks, have family to feed. When my children die in infancy and I'm freed of obligations I'll contribue 2 more rocks.