Reading this book makes my blood boil and I’ll tell you why: it was written by a college professor.
I respect college professor as felling human beings, but as teachers, they’re pretentious fucks.
We write to convey thoughts, so our fellow human beings can understand. To write in an easy to understand manner is to stay humble.
College professors, on the other hand, write like diarrhea is coming out of their mouths; they use big words and long sentences to convey simple ideas.
Here’s an example from the book.
Neil Postman wrote:
“I believe, a wise and particularly relevant supposition that the media of communication available to a culture are a dominant influence on the formation of the culture’s intellectual and social preoccuptions”
He could had simply wrote:
“TV can influence how people think.”
Reading this book is like having shit flung into my eyes.
College professors have big egos because there’s nobody to tell them:
“Listen, you pussy lickers, your writings suck. Stop using flowery, big words and write in a simple manner so people can understand. Express your ideas simply, you fuck nuts. Also, stop jerking each other off in the office, it smells like semen.”
Same reason why I don’t read business books by college professors because the book is 1,200 page – YET – the college professor never opened or ran a successful business.
>
Same reason why I don’t read business books by college professors because the book is 1,200 page – YET – the college professor never opened or ran a successful business.
But that's decidedly not the same reason.
>>7441273
> I believe
assuming a posture of subjectivity to avoid passing unsupported thesis as fact too early
>a wise and particularly relevant supposition
emphasizing both the aptness and relevance of his postulation
>the media available to a culture
Not just tv, any artificial entertainment materials that a person may come across
>are a dominant influence on the formation
explaining the degree which media informs culture
>intellectual and social preoccupations
draws attention to the fact that media can encourage an antiintellectual sentiment in the culture it effects (something that is a widely documented problem by now)
Your suggested stand in doesn't convey nearly as much and is at best the engine in an inevitable freight-train iteration of the above
>>7441273
>implying complex language isn't a presupposition for complex reasoning
Your version doesn't exactly mean the same thing; it's just a rough paraphrasing, at best. You must know this, so I think your whole thread is disingenuous.
You can actually go word-by-word describing the differences between your version and his. Media, for example, is plural, so he's clearly referring to more than just your "TV"—he's referring to different forms of media, beyond just TV. "Dominant influence" is not just "influence", and I shouldn't have to explain why. "Intellectual and social preoccupations" is not mere thoughts but also encompases things like culture, ethics, taboos, and other mores.
As an aside, I just want to mention that a lot of high-paying jobs require one to pay attention to such things as these slight differences. Lawyers, for example, are often paid for nothing more than reading the fine print and arguing about the inclusion or omission of a single word. Professors likewise argue about particular (specific) phrasings of texts and what they mean.
If your attitude is to bitch about it and liken it to shit in your eyes, you're may be destined for really low pay at some job that doesn't really matter.
>>7441312
>Professors likewise argue about particular (specific) phrasings of texts and what they mean.
>not taking practical steps to make a world a better place like Elon Musk
College professors are like high level shit posters.
>>7441333
How old are you?
>>7441299
Fine.
How about:
TV, newspaper and radio can influence how people think and occupy their time with.
>>7441292
>But that's decidedly not the same reason.
Hah! I think our OP tripped at every step.
literally
i'm not the target audience and im mad about it: the post
>>7441353
Not even close. Read his post again you utter pleb.
>>7441273
read 'medium is the massage'
its simple and has pictures
>>7441353
>TV, newspaper and radio
Media are more than these three. Billboards, magazines, advertisements, shop signs, illustrations, graffiti, books...
>can influence
He says they are a "dominant influence". We've already been over this. In your version, it's possible that it's not an influence at all (can just means it's possible, not that it is) and the phrase "can influence" is weak and equivocal where "are a dominant influence" is unequivocal and strong. He's saying they are and that it is significant.
>how people think and occupy their time with
Prepositional ending aside, you've not captured the emphasis nor scope of "intellectual and social preoccupations". Your language is throwaway and unexact whereas his specifically points to the culture and behavior of the populace.
>>7441273
I can almost sense your surprise that this was written by a college professor. It's as if the shock that college professors write technically is the main thing fueling your irrational anger. The fact you keep saying "college professors" makes me think you're underageb&.
Have you ever been in the same room with a professor? Or even a graduate student?
>>7441273
>thinks those are big words
come back when youve read serious /lit/
kiddo
That wasn't a particularly difficult book to read. I'm not even sure if I remember him using any particularly big words.
>>7441428
I read it a few years ago, but remember it being very basic and easy to follow.
>>7441273
>>7441299
w e w lad
I contest that your irate condemnation of literature analysis was indeed utterly ursurped by both your ignorance and anon's intellect.
i.e. REKT MATE
>>7441467
haha
>>7441273
"this is above my reading level/attention span"
"this is pretentious"
You're in luck, OP, most entertainment is written at a 4 or 5th grade level. "Just Do It' is an effective slogan not only because it is concise, but it can be understood by a very young child or an illiterate. This is why there is pop culture and academic culture. Which is part of (I am guessing) the point of this book, which looks interdasting.
It's not like cohesive writing, backed with citation and fact checked is on the rise in this country. Simplistic nonsense is the lingua franca (if you will indulge me) and we are becoming a more visual and less literate culture every day. If this book makes you feel stupid, maybe the burden is on you-learning is challenging sometimes and---oh fuck this, I dont have to explain shit to your spoiled, anime devouring, lazy ass. Go shoot yourself, faggot.
>>7441540
I fucking lost it over this, thank you
Bump so everyone can read and appreciate the good job Anon did.
>>7441273
I think this is the most pleb post I've ever seen
>>7441273
>>7441540
B-but, haven't you all felt like OP at some point in your lives? I think philosophy is doing itself a great disservice by making up a jargon, which immediately alienates the majority of potential readers. Take, for example, political philosophy. Matter at hand concerns absolutely every member of the democratic society. However, because of the way the fuckers write, only a handful of academics will ever be able to comprehend the new idea's, let alone participate in the discussion. I think this is somewhat of a shame. Philosophy is making itself irrelevant by limiting itself to such a small number of specialists.
>>7441273
neil postman is good but not brilliant
his ideas aren't wrong but he doesn't come up with the strongest of arguments or solutions
>>7441273
Neil Postman was an antiscience faggot and he is the waster-down American version Debord. More pseudo-intellectual Continental type crap, don't waste your time with this intellectual pap. If you want to understand sociology or culture you are better off learning statistics.
>>7441343
I've been here since two-thousand and fucking two.
>>7442815
>haven't you all felt like OP at some point in your lives?
Sure. Yet I never felt irrationally angry at the works written similar to what OP posted. He should take his complaining elsewhere.
If OP had posted Joyce's Ulysses, then I can maybe understand where OP is coming from.
>>7442815
ok, yes, there is some Ivory tower bullshit going on and yes, that is damaging us as a culture.
But to a certain extent , I am an elitist...I dont think everyone in the USA needs to or deserves to have a college degree. The problem is the less educated feel like their ill-concieved opinions carry the same weight as the more rational analyical ones.
This is because information has been 'edu-tainmented' and we can passively occupy our leisure time playing Angry Birds or Candy Crush or whatever.
Is acadamia up its own ass? Sure. Is Joe Six-Pack full of beans when he tries to opine about foreign policy or science? You betcha'.
The above example is not to my mind an example of the kind of impenetrable double speak that is commited in Academic journals, it just typical journalistic patter. The fact that many people just want the literary equivalent of breakfast cereal: brightly colored, sugar coated, well, it rustles my jimmies.
>>7442957
>waster-down
you say that like it's a bad thing. postman could actually write and express his ideas cogently. something debord and other french intellectuals fail at doing. compare baudrillard and boorstin. one is actually worth reading and is enjoyable, the other is a hack.
>>7441292
I think he meant to say business professors can write 1200 page books but have never run a business. He's saying college professors have a lot of booklearnin but little actual, relevant experience. May or may not be true, I think it depends on the professor.
>>7441414
He meant long words, not difficult words.
>>7441273
My English 1 class had to read it this semester and it was incredibly simple and easy to follow.
The excerpt wasn't flowery at all, I don't think you know what flowery means. Long words aren't flowery, they just convey a little bit more than what the vocabulary of an illiterate college freshman could convey. Not every writer needs to stick to keeping every word a single syllable.
>>7442815
There's a difference between expressing yourself carefully and intelligently and just being obfuscatory to appear smart. Postman is clearly of the former and not the latter.
>>7443798
Ulysses isn't that hard if you take the time. Few want to take the time, though.
>>7444553
That's what he means, but it's not the same argument he posits against Postman's book. He says Postman's book "use[s] big words and long sentences to convey simple ideas" then goes on to say "[s]ame reason why I don’t read business books by college professors" but the reason there is that they write about that which they've never done. So, not the same reason.
