#academic discourse

[a-lighthouse-bird]

The more I learn about academia the more I realize that fandom is just a modern face of the coin.

There isn’t a real difference between a dedicated fan picking apart the themes and narratives underlying Harry Potter and a professor studying Frankenstein…

…except that Mary Shelley would fucking beat J.K.R.’s TERF ass—

…sorry my thought got derailed, what was I saying?? Something about Gawain and Jason Todd—I can’t—can’t remember—

[ecthelion83]

Noam Chomsky is problematic.

(copy-pasta from my Wordpress blog; I'm gradually migrating my stuff from there to here)

Here’s the problem: Chomsky consistently relies on a very narrow and contextually-incorrect set of definitions to (possibly intentionally) misinterpret terminology and make critiques based on inferences that are totally unsupported by any relevant context.

For example, consider this piece in the Guardian from 2012. I direct you specifically to this statement in reference to the term “loss of China“: “The terminology is revealing. It is only possible to lose something that one owns. The tacit assumption was that the US owned China, by right, along with most of the rest of the world, much as postwar planners assumed.” Chomsky’s patently incorrect statement relies heavily on a single definition/usage of the word “loss” (the only one that is directly related to or implies ownership/possession) to make an inference that is completely unsupported by any context or policy discussions (and is indeed directly contradicted by the context in which the term was used). In fact, prior to the end of WWII, the leadership of the Allies assumed that China would become the fourth great power (alongside the US, the USSR, and the UK) following the conclusion of the war, which clearly contradicts any implication of “ownership” of China by the US.

This leads to a few possibilities: 1) Chomsky is unaware of other usages/definitions of the word “loss” (such as the “loss” of a loved one to a disease, a “loss” or defeat in a competition or military engagement, or the ruination/destruction of something regardless of ownership) which do not directly reference or imply ownership/possession, but this seems unlikely for an academic trained in linguistics; 2) Chomsky is intentionally, in the face of all evidence and context to the contrary, making an inference based on a definition/usage that is incorrect/inappropriate but seems to support his point; and/or 3) Chomsky is doing this intentionally in the hopes that the reader is a dunce and mindlessly follows along with his asinine line of argument. The correct/appropriate definition of “loss” in this context, by the way, is closest to “defeat in a competition or military engagement” but can also mean “succumbed to a disease or disaster” in which the disaster is a reference to Communism. It is notable that neither of these definitions implies ownership as (inappropriately) inferred by Chomsky.

This is not the only example of Chomsky making improper/inappropriate inferences where there are none or where they are directly contradicted by context, but this is one of the clearest.

[bellemorte79]

The Abject in A Song of Ice and Fire and Game of Thrones.

The abject status of Tyrion Lannister in his relationship with his father and sister (Cersei and Tywin).

His physical appearance is frequently used by his family to belittle and humiliate him. Tywin, in particular, is disdainful of Tyrion's physical disability and sees him as a stain on the Lannister family's reputation and his own personal curse.  He blames him for the death of his mother in childbirth, even though Tyrion is the only one that is completely blameless.  He did not ask to be brought into the world.  In one scene in A Clash of Kings, Tywin tells Tyrion, "You are an ill-made, spiteful little creature full of envy, lust, and low cunning." This shows how Tyrion's abject status is linked to his physical deformity, as well as his position within the Lannister family.

Cersei also uses Tyrion's abject status to undermine him, portraying him as weak and powerless. In A Storm of Swords, Cersei says of Tyrion, "He is a dwarf, a stunted twisted little monkey who's no fit consort for a queen." Cersei's use of animalistic language here further emphasizes Tyrion's abject status, as she portrays him as subhuman and less than fully human by representing him as a monkey.  This is similar to her father’s treatment of Tyrion in calling him a “creature.”  

Despite his family's efforts to marginalize and exclude him, Tyrion is a character who refuses to be defined by his abject status. He is highly intelligent and resourceful, and often uses his wit and cunning to outmaneuver his enemies. In A Clash of Kings, and on the show Game of Thrones in the Battle of the Blackwater, for example, he manages to repel an attack on King's Landing by using a hidden cache of wildfire to destroy a large portion of Stannis Baratheon's fleet.

By representing Tyrion as abject, Martin is able to highlight the often cruel and arbitrary nature of social hierarchies. Tyrion's exclusion from society is not based on anything he has done, but rather on factors outside of his control, such as his physical appearance and his family background. This serves as a critique of the unjust nature of social systems and the way in which they marginalize and exclude certain groups of people.

By portraying Tyrion as both abject and heroic, Martin is able to challenge the dominant narratives of heroism and villainy in fantasy literature. Instead of being a typical hero who embodies strength and perfection, Tyrion is a flawed and vulnerable character who is forced to navigate a hostile world in order to survive. Through his character, Martin is able to explore the complexities of power, politics, and identity, and to challenge readers' assumptions about what it means to be a hero or a villain.

Further Reading:

Young, J. R. (2021). Useful little men: George R. R. Martin's dwarfs as grotesque realists. Mythlore, 39(137), 77-95,77A

Felluga, D. (2011) "Modules on Kristeva: On the Abject." Introductory Guide to Critical Theory.  Purdue U.

[system-of-a-feather]

McLean Hospital DID Video Controversey; Our (+ our Fiance's) Take

I'm really going to probably primarily summarize our takes in this post. If you want to see my raw chicken scratch notes (changes from scratch to REALLY scratchy due to me putting back on my finger brace for my sprained pinky) you can try to decipher them here. If there is any part you want me to translate, reblog and/or send an ask or something, but ya know

I have a saved copy of the video here.

Anyways some context to mine and my fiance's background and relevancy to this topic that reflect our opinions and biases on the topic

Me: I have been diagnosed with DID for a while. I've been on social media (briefly on twitter for 2 seconds, but arguably I think one of the larger DID blogs on tumblr maybe? *bless invisible follower accounts*) and use it with a DID focus on one of my social medias. Used to follow DID Youtube. I am also a research nerd and actually, back in university, would try to find time to come out to seminars like this at the place I used to be a research intern on. I very much enjoy these environments and seminars that summarize present concerns and ideas in the research community. I've also basically cleared "stabilization" phase of DID and according to some have achieved what might be considered "functional multiplicity" yet am still progressing with my recovery.

Fiance: He's my partner since 2016 and has been actually living with us for about a month now. He's a communications major with specialization on advertising and marketing and as a decent part of his education focused on how social media is being used and how that stuff plays into effective advertising. He also has a close relationship with his mom that - until he started dating me and I got diagnosed - did he not know that she also had DID as she is of the type that is very ashamed, confused, and embarrassed by it. Between the both of us though, when his mom, him, and I go out to dinner, he is really the only one checked in and its kinda really funny cause he looks like the weird one for not entirely spacing out.

Yes, we made this a mini date night.

Anyways, the point.

The seminar had a lot of really good points, a few alright points, and a few really EHHH points. They also did directly use videos without censoring the users or doing much to protect their identity / reduce risk of harassment which I do feel is problematic cause he did - in part of his discussion about social media and DID - acknowledge that harassment is viral in the DID community for both people who have it and people who don't. I think that in itself is the largest issue and the largest fuck up that he really should honestly put an apology out for imo cause he really did comment on how huge of an issue it is, and did little due diligence to not add to it. While I don't think that is "malpractice" it is unprofessional. Do I think we should take his license for it? No. Do I think he should be held accountable / he owes an apology for that? Yeah probably.

Beyond that huge fuck up, the overall take away I got was that his concern for malingering / maladaptive use on social media on people who DO have DID and those that don't but might think they do / might be faking is absolutely valid and I do think it is someting that needs to be talked about; however he presents it in a kinda problematic way with a clear attitude and perspective that is both very (ironically) trauma stuck and - as my fiance and I started putting it in our conversations - "Boomer Takes"

He comments on how a lot of it is very flashy, performative, and sensationalized and comments on how that can be harmful / dangerous and I do agree, but I also don't think that inherently has anything to do with validating or invalidating how their diagnosis.

I DO absolutely agree with him calling out the trend of monetizing the disorder which I have strong opinions against and I do find it extremely uncomfortable for people to be trying to monetize the disorder outside of genuine extreme situations where support is needed.

I had a lot less of a notable take on the comment on the switches being overt because I actually never seen someone switch in person (his mom is very covert and not the most talkative about hers), but my fiance had a very loud laughing fit over how dramatic and weird they were commenting that neither of the ones he showed looked anything like either of how me or his mom show things.

There was a REALLY good S tier section on the Fantasy Model VS Trauma Model as well as how DID forms and the nature of it in the middle that I think was actually VERY well done and informative and I would like to chef kiss the air at it.

Again, there were a lot of good points to it and it was informative but I do have a few complaints.

The overall issue I find with his rhetoric are

a lot of his points sound mostly anecdotal which is not really the best (he did have some studies but, a lot of "this is not what we see"

he really has a set mindset that seems to summarize to "if they are not completely shocked and traumatized when they switch and are used to it, then they are faking / malingering" which is pretty problematic

he doesn't leave room for the fact that some people with DID do heal and recover from trauma and while most might be experiencing it in a way that is horrifying, people DO heal and discounting the lack of shame and acceptance as reasons to suspect malingering / faking is kind of problematic and against healing ideas

he doesn't leave account for generational gaps in how mental health is approached and while he focuses a lot on how people are inappropriately using DID "content" he only brushes over and vaguely hand gestures at what he would suggest "healthy" usage to look like which once again doesn't serve to be the most productive of conversation

his very understanding of the disorder in short is very dependent on the idea that people with DID "are usually ashamed" and "very traumatized" which the latter is true but again, healing exists

a point my fiance brought up is that while he has a lot of good concerns and points, a lot of his points come from anecdotes and how he "doesn't see these things in his practice" but he never really talked to any of the people he is commentating on the behavior of and the thing with social media is those with the largest following tend to be the extreme ends of whatever niche they are in so it is likely that those with extreme followings likely have extreme (ie atypical) experiences of the disorder simply by the nature of how the disorder is

Anyways, theres probably a few more details worth commentating on or transcribing from my notes but my pinky is sprained and i already wrote a shit ton for this so Imma give it a break and not type it all up.

TLDR: its not the best delivered video but it does have its merrit and the overall concept / concern is valid and important, but the dudes a boomer and has an issue of "poor traumatized and broken meow wows" about people with DID that is kinda annoying and out of touch

TLDR 2: Guys he didn't do fucking malpractice. People who are saying he did malpractice honestly need to get off the internet and learn how to use those words correctly cause yall are watering it down. (insert world heritage meme on the word 'gatekeeping' and 'gaslighting')

Absolutely feel free to reblog/send asks for more elaboration and all on it, but thats just my notes and take from it.

[ecologie-txt]

been frustrated lately at the way people try to remove themselves from bias in their academic writing or teaching. acknowledging bias is important, similarly not penalizing grades based on bias, but communicating withOUT bias just feels… empty??

like if its acknowledged so the reader is aware, it should be okay to include a biased tone. if anything it informs me more about the topic of conversation and relevant opinion and discussion.

research doesn’t exist in a vacuum, of course people have opinions. it’s frustrating to hear professors and academics avoid mentioning their own opinions. like— I’m an adult, I know not to adopt your opinion as my own.

[makingtheroadbywalking]

- Academic Discourse: Linguistic Misunderstanding and Professorial Power,  Pierre Bourdieu et al ‘systemic’ concerns plaguing the university include systems we’re a part of. teaching is a system. classroom learning is a system. that said, how do we cultivate this understanding collectively? how to not feel like you’re powerless, that this is how it’ll be?

[smugpuffin]

I don’t think they realize just how fucking dystopian and elitist In 2021, Facts Aren’t Free sounds.

Trusted, peer reviewed, expert publications and facts are all hidden behind paywalls, subscriptions, or don’t allow ad block. Sites that are free but ask you to turn off ad block just bombard you with so many ads the site is unusable. All the expert facts have barriers between them and the public

However, Breitbart, QAnon, InfoWars, and the like, all have their “facts” for free and happily send them out to the public. There are no barriers between these “facts” and the public. They are the most easily accessed and shared news online.

People love to snarkily say, “Google is free” but none of the reliable information is!! You say, “google is free” to dismiss conversation about social (in)justices, but they’ll go to google and land at Fox New and Breitbart because that’s what's unrestricted. Now, they have more information from the direct opposition of your cause.

If we really want people to educate themselves, to understand the sociocultural nuances, to be able to actually make use of “Google is free,” then Facts Must Be Free! 

We cannot expect people, who lack the lived experience or perspective, to be able to accurately tell the facts from disinformation on a topic that’s totally foreign to them. Easy, open access to fact-checked information is critical.

The best way to combat disinformation is to tear down the barriers and open the circulation of expert information! 

So share those textbook pdfs! Post those AdBlock work-arounds! Leak those Academic Journals that screw their contributing researchers! Join the efforts already underway of amassing public databases of expert information!  .     

[evelizard]

Who you are is more important than your grades

How you feel is more important than your grades

What you learn is more important than your grades

What you believe is more important than your grades

knowledge is a good within itself. grades are just an administrative tool. pursue knowledge. pursue virtue