Профиль

I don't think there's necessarily incompatibility, but sometimes there is! My concern is that we have far less of a problem turning to disciplinary authority as a defense, and closing ranks, than we do seriously regarding external critique.

A not small number of academics conceptualize the performance of intelligence as the performance of cruelty. A subset of those value the review precisely as the venue for such a performance.

Is it not also the scholar’s professional responsibility to care for the integrity of their field, even in the face of incoherent defenses?

Was my first thought as well

'I'm sorry sir, I can offer you a wired headset but I can't stop her from waving her hands in front of your seatback monitor and screaming THIS IS A SIGN FROM JESUS TAKE HEED. If this makes you uncomfortable please try to ignore it.'

The airline business model is fundamentally 'let's put people into uncomfortably close contact and in competition over finite spatial resources and let them sort it out themselves,' so this is just a logical escalation.

Indeed, that's one of the most important lessons to take from 'STEM': most people have no more than rudimentary ideas about how a vaccine works or a plane flies, but we trust processes and systems with our lives.

There are days--at present fewer than not--when I think I should give up on the idea that anyone in literary studies or the humanities wants a better vision than....this. Today is one of those days.

Again I'd make a distinction btw staking credibility on public sentiment about contested political matters, reflected in op-eds, & understanding that 'aboutness' or topics are not where credibility comes from. It comes from trust in process, from transparency and dialogue, within systems.

I mean you can just tell me that's your flippant opinion and not resort to folk psychoanalysis when I reply in kind.

I.e. your dismissing a reasonable case about priorities for US voters and leaders as a matter of feelings or cope deserved the same in return.

I think also most people who are against data centers could not last a week without playing video games, streaming video, or going on social media for hours, much less drinking coffee.

She's also explicitly referencing 'most Americans,' and I used flippant shorthand to respond to a flippant reply.

You need more than a bit of both realism and belief to overcome fascism in your own backyard. What's unrealistic is the idea that the people engaged in that fight should instead by thinking about how allies feel about trade policy.

I literally wrote a book on the history of US exceptionalism dating back to the early 17th century, but thanks for your opinion.

Considering I've been living in Europe for the last 14 months I think I have a pretty good perspective on these issues, actually. But I think the fact of justifiable anger is not the same thing as a realistic idea of the order of priorities for people fighting authoritarianism in their own backyard.

Indeed, this is what I find indulgent about that part of the argument. I think if US Americans can't prioritize defeating authoritarianism and Trumpism, it's not gonna matter how we feel about trade policy, not for us, and not for our allies.

Again it seems obvious to me that this is foremost an order of operations issue. It would be odd for US Americans who are fighting for our lives against an would-be authoritarian regime to be more vocal about impact of trade policy on allies than, like, blatant attempts to rig the election.

In fairness when I typed that word it occurred to me I might have chosen a different one for just that reason, so I'm sorry too.

It is actually.