13 ms·
It feels like this kind of language use only came into vogue during the last few decades, but is now extremely common in humanities academia as well as pseudoin
by voldacar 4y ago
It feels like this kind of language use only came into vogue during the last few decades, but is now extremely common in humanities academia as well as pseudointellectual "cultural" publications such as the New Yorker and this one.
- "an active process of aid" etc. Trying to describe simple or obvious things using vague language with a sort of "conceptual" flavor or affectation. It reminds me a little bit of the "translation" of Ecclesiastes in Orwell's Politics and the English Language but it also has its own distinct flavor. The French are probably to blame, somehow.
edit: Blah blah blah Foucault a few paragraphs in. You can't make this shit up
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago> but is now extremely common in humanities academia as well as pseudointellectual "cultural" publications such as the New Yorker and this one And from there it runs downhill to the rats living in the bilge of the comments section. I can't recall the number of times I've heard some simple concept churched up with all manner of 7-10 letter adjectives in an effort to sound sophisticated.
- _a_a_a_ 4y agoIt's words used as a smokescreen to hide that what you've got to say is neither profound nor interesting. Pisses me off too. My favourite hate-phrase is "what it means to be human". Never explained because it doesn't mean anything.