• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

wholly bullsh*t academic speak...

If you're really interested in bullshit speak, read anything that falls under the category of urban studies. I'm pretty sure authors in pseudo-academic field go through a dictionary, pick out 20 random words, and work them into their article no matter how little sense it makes to use them.
 
heh, i think this qualifies as torture. mighta been useful in Guantanamo bay.

listen to her drone on for 5 minutes and u just want to punch her in the face.

Originally posted by: Bibble
If you're really interested in bullshit speak, read anything that falls under the category of urban studies. I'm pretty sure authors in pseudo-academic field go through a dictionary, pick out 20 random words, and work them into their article no matter how little sense it makes to use them.
Click to expand...


yea they certainly aren't choosing words/language for the benefit of the listener/reader.
 
partway down the page is March 6, 2009
Podcast: "Gendering Robots: Posthuman Sexism in Japan"

sounds interesting doesn't it.

then u listen ...and its another full of fail.

 
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
partway down the page is March 6, 2009
Podcast: "Gendering Robots: Posthuman Sexism in Japan"

sounds interesting doesn't it.

then u listen ...and its another full of fail.
Click to expand...
So whats the fancy-pants way of saying "full of fail" or "failboat"?

 
Originally posted by: Bibble
Originally posted by: shortylickens
So whats the fancy-pants way of saying "full of fail" or "failboat"?
Click to expand...

Insufficiency of redeeming attributes?
Click to expand...

plenitudinous nonperformance?

lol🙂 just raiding the thesaurus. meh u win for length.

 
Unfuckingbelievable, OP. That woman is a sick freak. She's beyond parody. I couldn't believe my ears, and actually spent some time trying to transcribe her drivel.

First of all, your main point that hers is a teeming thicket of academic jargon so obtuse as to be whole cloth bullshit is spot on.

Additionally, there are other "tics" of hers that scream BS. At the beginning, she twice uses the word "index" in referring to her experience of the conference in a way that is not actually grammatically wrong but SO stretched and obscure as to be intentionally dense.

I can hardly bear to index that it is almost over. But in indexing how wonderful it was.
Click to expand...

Then, she pronounces both "temporal" and "epcochal" in a way I don't, but which is probably the 2nd or 3rd allowable pronunciation, things being what they are with the language these days.

BUT THEN she completely and utterly whiffs on "Maginot" as in the French Maginot Line. She's a fraud and a 'tard.

Below are excerpts from my attempted transcription. All I can say is: EPIC and CLASSIC. :shocked:

I frame my comments as a mashup, aggregated from a cluster of questions and observations, that I sketched out over these three days.

The comments are, of course, constrained by my theoretical preoccupations, democratization difference and public media, and in particular the critical project of unthinking neoliberal stories of a progressive modernity, a project that I've taken to calling adventures in deconstruction in honor of the late Eve Kesovsky Sedgewick (sic).

I hope that my comments point to emergent edges of scholarship, places of persistent stuckness, massive disagreement, and sometimes awkward silences and gaps, all of which are likely good to think with as we make our way into the present of the future imperfect of media studies.

My initial read on this iteration of the media in transition conference was that it was specifically focused on the tropes of transitions and temporalities of media generally, and in relation to storage and transmission, questions about what Stuart Hall profitably discussed as encodings and articulations.

One way to think about a big picture is to ask what time is it here? How do temporal politics underwrite major axes of the political life of objects, object stories, and the folks who offer them, and whose time is it that animates our primary preoccupation as theorists of media. So how should we begin to talk about what or whose time is it here?

[...]

He must roll his eyes lineal, sequential fashion. We have only succeeded in grafting the new righthandedness on his lefthandedness in order to win our point.

[...]

Lines of flight for thinking about the complexity of media within the transitive spheres of globalization. How to theorize historical disjuncture in relation to. . .

How shall we think our way into the present, given that we are, of necessity, navigating global and multiple temporalities?
Click to expand...

Wow. Just, wow.
 
Originally posted by: Perknose
Unfuckingbelievable, OP. That woman is a sick freak. She's beyond parody. I couldn't believe my ears, and actually spent some time trying to transcribe her drivel.

First of all, your main point that hers is a teeming thicket of academic jargon so obtuse as to be whole cloth bullshit is spot on.

Additionally, there are other "tics" of hers that scream BS. At the beginning, she twice uses the word "index" in referring to her experience of the conference in a way that is not actually grammatically wrong but SO stretched and obscure as to be intentionally dense.

I can hardly bear to index that it is almost over. But in indexing how wonderful it was.
Click to expand...

Then, she pronounces both "temporal" and "epcochal" in a way I don't, but which is probably the 2nd or 3rd allowable pronunciation, things being what they are with the language these days.

BUT THEN she completely and utterly whiffs on "Maginot" as in the French Maginot Line. She's a fraud and a 'tard.

Below are excerpts from my attempted transcription. All I can say is: EPIC and CLASSIC. :shocked:

I frame my comments as a mashup, aggregated from a cluster of questions and observations, that I sketched out over these three days.

The comments are, of course, constrained by my theoretical preoccupations, democratization difference and public media, and in particular the critical project of unthinking neoliberal stories of a progressive modernity, a project that I've taken to calling adventures in deconstruction in honor of the late Eve Kesovsky Sedgewick (sic).

I hope that my comments point to emergent edges of scholarship, places of persistent stuckness, massive disagreement, and sometimes awkward silences and gaps, all of which are likely good to think with as we make our way into the present of the future imperfect of media studies.

My initial read on this iteration of the media in transition conference was that it was specifically focused on the tropes of transitions and temporalities of media generally, and in relation to storage and transmission, questions about what Stuart Hall profitably discussed as encodings and articulations.

One way to think about a big picture is to ask what time is it here? How do temporal politics underwrite major axes of the political life of objects, object stories, and the folks who offer them, and whose time is it that animates our primary preoccupation as theorists of media. So how should we begin to talk about what or whose time is it here?

[...]

He must roll his eyes lineal, sequential fashion. We have only succeeded in grafting the new righthandedness on his lefthandedness in order to win our point.

[...]

Lines of flight for thinking about the complexity of media within the transitive spheres of globalization. How to theorize historical disjuncture in relation to. . .

How shall we think our way into the present, given that we are, of necessity, navigating global and multiple temporalities?
Click to expand...

Wow. Just, wow.
Click to expand...

lol🙂 its hard to keep your mind from just shutting off just reading the transcription, never mind listening to her babble lol
 
I remember a famous prof. saying that each soft field invents or uses obscure words to legitimize their university intellectualism instead of using simple words to explain easily understandable concepts.

It's a way they try to spin words to separate themselves from the rest.

The worst offender is IMO: Art History......man, talk about hot air!!

 
Originally posted by: Perknose
Unfuckingbelievable, OP. That woman is a sick freak. She's beyond parody. I couldn't believe my ears, and actually spent some time trying to transcribe her drivel.

First of all, your main point that hers is a teeming thicket of academic jargon so obtuse as to be whole cloth bullshit is spot on.

Additionally, there are other "tics" of hers that scream BS. At the beginning, she twice uses the word "index" in referring to her experience of the conference in a way that is not actually grammatically wrong but SO stretched and obscure as to be intentionally dense.

I can hardly bear to index that it is almost over. But in indexing how wonderful it was.
Click to expand...

Then, she pronounces both "temporal" and "epcochal" in a way I don't, but which is probably the 2nd or 3rd allowable pronunciation, things being what they are with the language these days.

BUT THEN she completely and utterly whiffs on "Maginot" as in the French Maginot Line. She's a fraud and a 'tard.

Below are excerpts from my attempted transcription. All I can say is: EPIC and CLASSIC. :shocked:

I frame my comments as a mashup, aggregated from a cluster of questions and observations, that I sketched out over these three days.

The comments are, of course, constrained by my theoretical preoccupations, democratization difference and public media, and in particular the critical project of unthinking neoliberal stories of a progressive modernity, a project that I've taken to calling adventures in deconstruction in honor of the late Eve Kesovsky Sedgewick (sic).

I hope that my comments point to emergent edges of scholarship, places of persistent stuckness, massive disagreement, and sometimes awkward silences and gaps, all of which are likely good to think with as we make our way into the present of the future imperfect of media studies.

My initial read on this iteration of the media in transition conference was that it was specifically focused on the tropes of transitions and temporalities of media generally, and in relation to storage and transmission, questions about what Stuart Hall profitably discussed as encodings and articulations.

One way to think about a big picture is to ask what time is it here? How do temporal politics underwrite major axes of the political life of objects, object stories, and the folks who offer them, and whose time is it that animates our primary preoccupation as theorists of media. So how should we begin to talk about what or whose time is it here?

[...]

He must roll his eyes lineal, sequential fashion. We have only succeeded in grafting the new righthandedness on his lefthandedness in order to win our point.

[...]

Lines of flight for thinking about the complexity of media within the transitive spheres of globalization. How to theorize historical disjuncture in relation to. . .

How shall we think our way into the present, given that we are, of necessity, navigating global and multiple temporalities?
Click to expand...

Wow. Just, wow.
Click to expand...

Amazing. All of that babble boils down to saying essentially nothing. And I thought corporate buzzword speak was bad...
 
Someone should email this to the Prof. so they see how they're viewed by the rest of the world. 😛
 
Originally posted by: dr150
I remember a famous prof. saying that each soft field invents or uses obscure words to legitimize their university intellectualism instead of using simple words to explain easily understandable concepts.

It's a way they try to spin words to separate themselves from the rest.

The worst offender is IMO: Art History......man, talk about hot air!!
Click to expand...

I completely agree with what that professor said. I just took the worst class of my life this semester (not by choice) on urban studies and had to put up with article after article of pointless word crafting. That being said, my professor was the best bullshitter I have ever met.
 
I wonder if people like that really think they are smart, or if they laugh inside at how they get away with being paid to babble nonsense.

Because that's nonsense, pure and simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top