TIL: Today I Learned

[James Stuart]

Academia are basically dead and beyond any saving.

Says the guy whose handle claims he's guarding a monarch who lost his throne a century ago.

Your above post is laughable. There isn't even any point debating it, as its stupidity stands on its own merit.

 

[Tahuti]

There isn't even any point debating it, as its stupidity stands on its own merit.

Well, convince me otherwise: You seem pretty confident of your own viewpoints and this wouldn't be the first time I swapped views.

Though I foresee the problem is that there is nothing to convince about when you simply define your views in contradistinction of mine.

 

[James Stuart]

Well, convince me otherwise: You seem pretty confident of your own viewpoints and this wouldn't be the first time I swapped views.

Though I foresee the problem is that there is nothing to convince about when you simply define your views in contradistinction of mine.

Firstly, that is not how argumentation works. You made the claim that academia was "worthless" and "beyond saving." It is therefore your job to back up such claims. Secondly, as such a claim is manifestly ridiculous a refutation would be a waste of time. If you had singled out a particular university, I might believe you; the history department at Harvard is a running joke in the profession, and is openly funded by the CIA. But to make a blanket statement regarding academia is as stupid, if not as offensive, as making a blanket statement about blac people.

The real issue here is seemingly that, as a self-proclaimed reactionary, academia is a threat to your worldview, and you therefore feel the need to attack it as unnecessary, self-perpetuating, and worthless. Like monarchy.

 

[Tahuti]

Firstly, that is not how argumentation works. You made the claim that academia was "worthless" and "beyond saving." It is therefore your job to back up such claims.

Which I did by pointing out that most students tend to study to gain employment outside academia. Another point is that the remainder do not stimulate new ideas. Thankfully, you gave a case in point:

If you had singled out a particular university, I might believe you; the history department at Harvard is a running joke in the profession, and is openly funded by the CIA.

Most universities are openly funded by government and corporate institutions of sorts. Therefore, preciously few if any universities can be considered completely independent of anything.

The real issue here is seemingly that, as a self-proclaimed reactionary, academia is a threat to your worldview, and you therefore feel the need to attack it as unnecessary, self-perpetuating, and worthless. Like monarchy.

The bolded part is a correct perception. However, I hardboured a significant distrust of academia well before I labelled myself a reactionary. I do not advocate a complete abolition of academia, to be replaced by nothing. It more correct to summarise my views on modern-day academia as being in a state in which it is increasingly enslaved to corporate, bureaucratic and government interests. In this process, it will eventually fail to live up to its stated goals, and academia may have to be rebuilt from scratch.

 

[James Stuart]

Which I did by pointing out that most students tend to study to gain employment outside academia. Another point is that the remainder do not stimulate new ideas. Thankfully, you gave a case in point:

Academia is worthless because most students are not pursuing jobs in academia? By that criterion, school is worthless because most students aren't doing it to become teachers. It's a ridiculous, indefensible statement; a job's worth is not defined by how many people choose to enter it.

Most universities are openly funded by government and corporate institutions of sorts. Therefore, preciously few if any universities can be considered completely independent of anything.

If you are making an argument against public funding of any institutions, I will disagree, but not argue, as our political views are too different for compatibility. If you are making an argument specifically regarding public funding of universities, you must defend that argument. For the record, I don't like the idea of corporate funding of universities, which isn't really a thing in my country. Corporations fund research, not universities.

The bolded part is a correct perception. However, I hardboured a significant distrust of academia well before I labelled myself a reactionary. I do not advocate a complete abolition of academia, to be replaced by nothing. It more correct to summarise my views on modern-day academia as being in a state in which it is increasingly enslaved to corporate, bureaucratic and government interests. In this process, it will eventually fail to live up to its stated goals, and academia may have to be rebuilt from scratch.

No one is more distrustful of academia than academics. But you have essentially revised your claim here from "academia is worthless" to "academia controlled by vested interests is worthless." Few except those vested interests would disagree with that.

 

[Tahuti]

Academia is worthless because most students are not pursuing jobs in academia? By that criterion, school is worthless because most students aren't doing it to become teachers. It's a ridiculous, indefensible statement; a job's worth is not defined by how many people choose to enter it.

Institutions of higher learning should, in the first place, exist for their own sake. Right now, it is for the sake for someone else, and more specifically that of wealth and/or promoting a managerial ideology.

No one is more distrustful of academia than academics. But you have essentially revised your claim here from "academia is worthless" to "academia controlled by vested interests is worthless." Few except those vested interests would disagree with that.

I said that "Academia are basically dead and beyond any saving". Precisely because these have been corrupted by vested interests. It almost impossible to reform academia since corporate and bureaucratic interests have become the raison d'etre of academia in general. Remove them from the equation and you basically have nothing except the past.

 

[James Stuart]

Institutions of higher learning should, in the first place, exist for their own sake. Right now, it is for the sake for someone else, and more specifically that of wealth and/or promoting a managerial ideology.



I said that "Academia are basically dead and beyond any saving". Precisely because these have been corrupted by vested interests. It almost impossible to reform academia since corporate and bureaucratic interests have become the raison d'etre of academia in general. Remove them from the equation and you basically have nothing except the past.

Such normative statements would never be tolerated in academia, which implies that it is far more vibrant and independent than you think. Now, if you want to argue that universities themselves suffer from poor maanagement due to vested interests - the current head of Universities Australia, a group that lobbies on behalf of major universities, is a former oil lobbyist - I will agree.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

TIL the current pope was once a bouncer.

 

[Takhisis]

And football fan, and political demonstrator, and subway-rider, and washing-machine user, and… well, a lot of things other popes weren't.

 

[madviking]

til: lyndon b johnson had big balls (not figuratively)

 

[Takhisis]

You really shouldn't venture into some parts of the Internet alone.

 

[Civ'ed]

You really shouldn't venture into some parts of the Internet alone.

There are parts of the internet one should not venture into with all the humans alive right now.

 

[madviking]

You really shouldn't venture into some parts of the Internet alone.

2:05 on


Link to video.

(warning hbo language contained therein)

 

[Takhisis]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaa I had to watch it all! I can't resist John Oliver! He's too good!

btw thanks for the link.

 

[cybrxkhan]

TIL the last known widow of a civil war veteran died in 2008.

 

[Phrossack]

TIL the last known widow of a civil war veteran died in 2008.

President John Tyler was born in 1790, and his grandsons are still alive

 

[Hygro]

President John Tyler was born in 1790, and his grandsons are still alive

wtflol

 

[cybrxkhan]

President John Tyler was born in 1790, and his grandsons are still alive

Yeah, heard about it a while back, pretty interesting.

wtflol

I don't remember exactly but I believe Tyler had a kid when he was really old, and then that kid had a kid when he was really old too.

 

[Takhisis]

Wikipedia says:
John Tyler (March 29, 1790 – January 18, 1862)
Lyon Gardiner Tyler (1853–1935)
Lyon Gardiner Tyler, Jr., was born in 1924, and Harrison Ruffin Tyler was born in 1928.

63 years, then 71-75.

 

[Arakhor]

Who has children when they're 75? That's just flat-out disrespectful to your children.