I think this political cartoon is worth discussing as it is all side that do this

[Toni]

Posts #84 and #86 seem to be in conflict with one another.

How?

Post 84:

You're right. ........

I would hate to imagine your response if we were "done" as you said.

I'm done trying to convince you that American academia is in the grip of CRT. If you believe you do not have enough evidence to make that judgment of Princeton, then no evidence that could possibly be produced could convince you.

Post 86

I'm done trying to convince you that American academia is in the grip of CRT. If you believe you do not have enough evidence to make that judgment of Princeton, then no evidence that could possibly be produced could convince you.

No rational person would take the example of one American university as evidence that American academia is in the grip of ______ (you fill in the blank). You handwaved a shift in your the goal post from undefined "hegemony" to the undefined "in the grip of" and failed to present evidence of some alleged widespread problem in American universities/American academia, so you really never started.

I have explained more than once that I did not intend to generalise from Princeton to all of academia, so your repeated insinuation that that's what I wanted to do is dishonest.

"In the grip" or "hegemonic" are simply two different but equivalent expressions of what I am talking about. It was not a goal post shift.

The bolded parts seem to conflict. In #84 you speak of 'being done with trying to convince you (ld) that American academia is in the grips of CRT' and in #86 you claim that you 'did not intend to generalise (sic) from Princeton to all of academia.'

It’s always interesting and often informative to get the perspective of non-Americans on any aspect of American culture. It’s something else to have a non -American and I believe, a non-academic who has never set foot in the US much less on the campus of an American University asset that he’s more informed about American academia than a current academic at an American university (as I believe that ld is).

Yes, Toni, your continual appeals to authority are noted.

Yes, it is very, very foolish to prefer informed sources rather than someone with a stick up their arse and an internet connection.

 

[Rhea]

Not really. Professors are not generally bossed around. Particularly those covered by faculty unions.

Universities can and do function without presidents. It is not uncommon for the office of president to be vacant when the sitting president decides to leave their position. And yet, the university continues to function.

Okay Toni. A university president isn't the boss, has no authority or influence or power, sets no direction, and has to raise her hand to ask to go to the toilet if it isn't recess.

“Has no authority, no influence”?

Ton didn’t say that. You took what she said and changed it to an absurd extreme that she neither said nor intended.

That’s a straw man, right? Why do you feel you need to stoop to that?

 

[Metaphor]

The bolded parts seem to conflict. In #84 you speak of 'being done with trying to convince you (ld) that American academia is in the grips of CRT' and in #86 you claim that you 'did not intend to generalise (sic) from Princeton to all of academia.'

The bolded parts neither appear to conflict nor do they actually conflict. "I am done trying to convince you of the hegemony of X in Y context" does not conflict with "Do you think this institution is X".

Nice use of 'sic' on my correct Australian spelling of 'generalise'. You, and many of your American brethren on this board, are so casually culturally imperialist it is actually sometimes breathtaking.

Yes, it is very, very foolish to prefer informed sources rather than someone with a stick up their arse and an internet connection.

Are you naturally nasty or do you work at it?

 

[Metaphor]

Not really. Professors are not generally bossed around. Particularly those covered by faculty unions.

Universities can and do function without presidents. It is not uncommon for the office of president to be vacant when the sitting president decides to leave their position. And yet, the university continues to function.

Okay Toni. A university president isn't the boss, has no authority or influence or power, sets no direction, and has to raise her hand to ask to go to the toilet if it isn't recess.

“Has no authority, no influence”?

Ton didn’t say that. You took what she said and changed it to an absurd extreme that she neither said nor intended.

That’s a straw man, right? Why do you feel you need to stoop to that?

It would be a straw man if I intended to pretend Toni said it and then argued against it. It isn't a straw man. It's straight-up mockery of Toni's claim.

 

[laughing dog]

That is neither what I did nor what I just claimed I did.

Of course it is. You admitted you did not use Princeton as an example to support your claim. Your claim to date is unsupported even though you have had plenty of opportunity. Hence, you admitted tacitly you pulled it out of your ass.

 

[Toni]

The bolded parts seem to conflict. In #84 you speak of 'being done with trying to convince you (ld) that American academia is in the grips of CRT' and in #86 you claim that you 'did not intend to generalise (sic) from Princeton to all of academia.'

The bolded parts neither appear to conflict nor do they actually conflict. "I am done trying to convince you of the hegemony of X in Y context" does not conflict with "Do you think this institution is X".

Nice use of 'sic' on my correct Australian spelling of 'generalise'. You, and many of your American brethren on this board, are so casually culturally imperialist it is actually sometimes breathtaking.

Nice backtracking there- I posted the entire posts and bolded the parts so everyone can see for themselves.

And wow, what absolute lack of self recognition, there. Yes, I realized that your spelling was the Australian spelling. But since you are all certain that you are an expert on American academia, then you should at least attempt to follow the appropriate conventions.

Yes, it is very, very foolish to prefer informed sources rather than someone with a stick up their arse and an internet connection.

Are you naturally nasty or do you work at it?

What?

 

[laughing dog]

“Has no authority, no influence”?

Ton didn’t say that. You took what she said and changed it to an absurd extreme that she neither said nor intended.

That’s a straw man, right? Why do you feel you need to stoop to that?

It would be a straw man if I intended to pretend Toni said it and then argued against it. It isn't a straw man. It's straight-up mockery of Toni's claim.

Ironically, your mockery indicates a real ignorance of American academic power structures. Presidents of universities typically have much less power than outsiders imagine, especially when it comes to curriculum and academic freedom.

 

[Metaphor]

That is neither what I did nor what I just claimed I did.

Of course it is. You admitted you did not use Princeton as an example to support your claim. Your claim to date is unsupported even though you have had plenty of opportunity. Hence, you admitted tacitly you pulled it out of your ass.

I admitted I was not making the claim "at Princeton, CRT is hegemonic, and therefore, CRT is hegemonic in American academia:, because I never made that claim. I claimed Princeton was an example of what CRT hegemony in an American university looks like.

 

[Metaphor]

“Has no authority, no influence”?

Ton didn’t say that. You took what she said and changed it to an absurd extreme that she neither said nor intended.

That’s a straw man, right? Why do you feel you need to stoop to that?

It would be a straw man if I intended to pretend Toni said it and then argued against it. It isn't a straw man. It's straight-up mockery of Toni's claim.

Ironically, your mockery indicates a real ignorance of American academic power structures. Presidents of universities typically have much less power than outsiders imagine, especially when it comes to curriculum and academic freedom.

My mockery indicates nothing of the kind. I never imagined Eisgruber to be the absolute monarch of Princeton. I correctly identified him as the boss.

 

[laughing dog]

Ironically, your mockery indicates a real ignorance of American academic power structures. Presidents of universities typically have much less power than outsiders imagine, especially when it comes to curriculum and academic freedom.

My mockery indicates nothing of the kind. I never imagined Eisgruber to be the absolute monarch of Princeton. I correctly identified him as the boss.

I did not say anything about absolute monarchies or absolute power. I said they have less power than outsiders imagine. Bosses have power.

Your response simply provides more evidence of your real ignorance of American academic power structures.

If you refrained from portraying your opinions as fact, much of this dispute/discussion would disappear.

 

[Metaphor]

Nice backtracking there- I posted the entire posts and bolded the parts so everyone can see for themselves.

There is no backtracking anywhere, or at least, none by me. The highlighted parts of the post do not conflict.
You highlighted:

I'm done trying to convince you that American academia is in the grip of CRT.

and

I have explained more than once that I did not intend to generalise from Princeton to all of academia

Toni, you are going to have to do the work of explaining to me how they conflict. Explain it to me like I'm even dumber than you already think I am. I cannot begin to comprehend how you think they conflict.

And wow, what absolute lack of self recognition, there. Yes, I realized that your spelling was the Australian spelling. But since you are all certain that you are an expert on American academia, then you should at least attempt to follow the appropriate conventions.

What 'conventions' are you talking about? Why the fuck would I follow the conventions of American academia on a fucking atheist message board? When the fuck did I claim I was an 'expert' on American academia? When the fuck would even an expert on American academia be required to follow (an apparently American academic convention) to be casually culturally imperialist?

What?

I don't know. The stick up my arse asked me to ask you that.

EDIT: Genuine request. If Toni does not explain why she thinks the two bolded statements above conflict, can somebody else explain it to me?

I have racked my brain. I have tried to steelman Toni's claim. And I cannot figure out how she perceives a conflict.

 

[Metaphor]

Ironically, your mockery indicates a real ignorance of American academic power structures. Presidents of universities typically have much less power than outsiders imagine, especially when it comes to curriculum and academic freedom.

My mockery indicates nothing of the kind. I never imagined Eisgruber to be the absolute monarch of Princeton. I correctly identified him as the boss.

I did not say anything about absolute monarchies or absolute power. I said they have less power than outsiders imagine. Bosses have power.

Your response simply provides more evidence of your real ignorance of American academic power structures.

You have no idea how much 'power' I think Eisgruber has. He certainly has the power to make statements on behalf of and that represent Princeton, because he's the boss.

 

[laughing dog]

That is neither what I did nor what I just claimed I did.

Of course it is. You admitted you did not use Princeton as an example to support your claim. Your claim to date is unsupported even though you have had plenty of opportunity. Hence, you admitted tacitly you pulled it out of your ass.

I admitted I was not using Princeton to claim that CRT is hegemonic in American academia, because I never made that claim. I claimed Princeton was an example of what CRT hegemony in an American university looks like.

Riiight.
Your claim to date is unsupported even though you have had plenty of opportunity. Hence, you admitted tacitly you pulled it out of your ass.

 

[Metaphor]

I admitted I was not using Princeton to claim that CRT is hegemonic in American academia, because I never made that claim. I claimed Princeton was an example of what CRT hegemony in an American university looks like.

Riiight.
Your claim to date is unsupported even though you have had plenty of opportunity. Hence, you admitted tacitly you pulled it out of your ass.

You have already admitted you would reject any possible evidence that is reasonable to produce. If you don't think the publically available evidence is sufficient to support the notion that CRT is hegemony at Princeton, you could not possibly be convinced by any evidence available.

Also, an unsupported claim is not the same as a claim "pulled out of one's ass". For example, you made the claim that outsiders generally overestimate the power of college presidents, a claim you have not supported. Does that mean you pulled it out of your ass?

 

[laughing dog]

I did not say anything about absolute monarchies or absolute power. I said they have less power than outsiders imagine. Bosses have power.

Your response simply provides more evidence of your real ignorance of American academic power structures.

You have no idea how much 'power' I think Eisgruber has. He certainly has the power to make statements on behalf of and that represent Princeton, because he's the boss.

While he does have the power to make statements on behalf of Princeton and that represent Princeton, but as the boss, he does not necessarily have the power to insure statements about policy (especially when it comes to curriculum and academic freedom) are carried out.

 

[Toni]

There is no backtracking anywhere, or at least, none by me. The highlighted parts of the post do not conflict.
You highlighted:



Toni, you are going to have to do the work of explaining to me how they conflict. Explain it to me like I'm even dumber than you already think I am. I cannot begin to comprehend how you think they conflict.

I will just let your words stand for themselves.

And wow, what absolute lack of self recognition, there. Yes, I realized that your spelling was the Australian spelling. But since you are all certain that you are an expert on American academia, then you should at least attempt to follow the appropriate conventions.

What 'conventions' are you talking about?

Spelling.

Why the fuck would I follow the conventions of American academia on a fucking atheist message board? When the fuck did I claim I was an 'expert' on American academia?

You certainly are claiming that Americans do not know as much as you do about whether or not "American academia is in the grips of CRT." All I'm suggesting that you would do better to be consistent. If you are going to claim superior knowledge and understanding of American academic institutions, you should at least spell correctly.

When the fuck would even an expert on American academia be required to follow (an apparently American academic convention) to be casually culturally imperialist?

I have no idea how cultural imperialism figures into this.

I don't know. The stick up my arse asked me to ask you that.

You're hearing voices from inanimate objects up your arse?

 

[laughing dog]

I admitted I was not using Princeton to claim that CRT is hegemonic in American academia, because I never made that claim. I claimed Princeton was an example of what CRT hegemony in an American university looks like.

Riiight.
Your claim to date is unsupported even though you have had plenty of opportunity. Hence, you admitted tacitly you pulled it out of your ass.

You have already admitted you would reject any possible evidence that is reasonable to produce.

That is an outright falsehood.

If you don't think the publically available evidence is sufficient to support the notion that CRT is hegemony at Princeton, you could not possibly be convinced by any evidence available.

Not only is your premise false, your conclusion does not follow from it.

Also, an unsupported claim is not the same as a claim "pulled out of one's ass".

True. But when a person persistently refuses to support a claim or clearly fails to support it, it has been pulled out of one's ass.

For example, you made the claim that outsiders generally overestimate the power of college presidents, a claim you have not supported. Does that mean you pulled it out of your ass?

Not necessarily. I have not been asked to support it nor have I refused to do so.

I suspect you will next ask for support. I am going to bed now. If asked, I may get to it tomorrow. But I doubt I will see any actual evidence from you to support your claim of fact.

 

[Metaphor]

I will just let your words stand for themselves.

So, you cannot explain why they conflict, but you remain adamant that they do conflict.

The floor is open. Can anybody on this board explain why the two bolded statements conflict?

Spelling.

Why the fuck would claiming to be an expert on American academia (which I didn't do in the first place) require me to use American spelling on an atheist message board?

You certainly are claiming that Americans do not know as much as you do about whether or not "American academia is in the grips of CRT." All I'm suggesting that you would do better to be consistent. If you are going to claim superior knowledge and understanding of American academic institutions, you should at least spell correctly.

I am claiming I know more than some Americans about American academia.

I do spell correctly. Your ongoing American cultural imperialism is noted.

I have no idea how cultural imperialism figures into this.

Cultural imperialists like yourself don't have to realise what they're doing to be cultural imperialists. In fact, your casual obliviousness is a sign of the imperialism.

Right now, the word 'realise' above has wavy red lines below it, indicating that the message board software thinks I've misspelled something, just as you indicated you thought I'd misspelled 'generalise'. You don't have wavy red lines below your spelling of 'generalize', because of the hegemonic pervasiveness of American culture across the Anglosphere.

Your use of the word 'sic' was cultural imperialism. You think I had some kind of obligation to use American English instead of Australian English. I don't. Fuck your imperialism.

You're hearing voices from inanimate objects up your arse?

Sure. I mean, it's imaginary since you imagined it there, and having the power of speech is often something imaginary objects have.

 

[Metaphor]

That is an outright falsehood.

It is no more a falsehood than when you say I "tacitly" admit to "pulling things out of my ass".

Not only is your premise false, your conclusion does not follow from it.

My premise is not false. You said you had "no idea" if CRT was hegemony at Princeton, despite my having linked the very evidence that convinced me it was hegemony at Princeton. If the evidence I produced was not enough for you to awaken from your epistemological slumber, then no evidence possibly could.

True. But when a person persistently refuses to support a claim or clearly fails to support it, it has been pulled out of one's ass.

I disagree with what you think 'pulled out of one's ass' means. Just as I'm sure you disagree with me on what hegemony means.

Not necessarily. I have not been asked to support it nor have I refused to do so.

I suspect you will next ask for support. I am going to bed now. If asked, I may get to it tomorrow. But I doubt I will see any actual evidence from you to support your claim of fact.

Would it not be reasonable to ask for support for your claim that people generally overestimate the power of university presidents? But even if I did ask you to support the claim and I was convinced that you had supported it, what's the point of making the claim? You appeared to imply I made a claim inconsistent with your claim, but I can't see how I did.

 

[Toni]

So, you cannot explain why they conflict, but you remain adamant that they do conflict.

The floor is open. Can anybody on this board explain why the two bolded statements conflict?



Why the fuck would claiming to be an expert on American academia (which I didn't do in the first place) require me to use American spelling on an atheist message board?

You certainly are claiming that Americans do not know as much as you do about whether or not "American academia is in the grips of CRT." All I'm suggesting that you would do better to be consistent. If you are going to claim superior knowledge and understanding of American academic institutions, you should at least spell correctly.

I am claiming I know more than some Americans about American academia.

Perhaps you do. That is open for debate. But in this thread, you have claimed that you know more about American academia than...an American academic (unless I misremember laughing dog's profession). And other people who attended multiple American universities and have worked for American Universities.

I do spell correctly. Your ongoing American cultural imperialism is noted.

You're the one with the queen, bub.

Cultural imperialists like yourself don't have to realise what they're doing to be cultural imperialists. In fact, your casual obliviousness is a sign of the imperialism.

I apologize if my small attempt at humor went over your head or past it. Humor is often difficult to convey over the internet.

Right now, the word 'realise' above has wavy red lines below it, indicating that the message board software thinks I've misspelled something, just as you indicated you thought I'd misspelled 'generalise'. You don't have wavy red lines below your spelling of 'generalize', because of the hegemonic pervasiveness of American culture across the Anglosphere.

I could be wrong--I am not terribly well versed in the history of this forum but I believe it is using an American product to host. That would explain why the default is for American spelling. I'm certain that if I were in Australia, I would be expected to follow Australian conventions in spelling, driving, etc. And if I were using Australian software to type out words, or if I chose Australian English as the convention I wished to follow, I'm certain that I would be prompted to use the Australian spelling.

Your use of the word 'sic' was cultural imperialism. You think I had some kind of obligation to use American English instead of Australian English. I don't. Fuck your imperialism.

No, it was a joke. I'm sorry it didn't land.

Sure. I mean, it's imaginary since you imagined it there, and having the power of speech is often something imaginary objects have.

I described a shoe and you decided it was your size. OK.