your prejudices with you, which might make you a tourist rather than traveler.

The literary object is constantly reconstructed, but that's not relativism; it's language. Please also retract your very silly conflation of moral and political. Change is by no means invisible from within an given discipline and your interdisciplinary travels are admirable, but you're bringing

No Mr Ted. That is very incorrect. The version of literary studies that fixes its object in serene precision died long long ago. Language models didn't emerge to show us our errors; we have been telling you all along that language is, as Barthes said (in the 1960s) a tissue of quotations.

Thanks, Mr Mansplain!

Touché!

Uh, nope. Peter Thiel gives lectures on the anti-Christ; Ilya Sutskever leads “feel the AGI” chants; Marc Andreesen goes in with New Founding to set up a christian nationalist enclave. They went way past functional ideology. Now they do metaphysical theology with their own selves on thrones

Scott R. MacKenzie
May we also please note that the first paragraph suggests that, 1. students are not receiving guidance from instructors, and 2. what Grammerly provides is "guidance." Fucking fucking fuck off

Dear faculty, we have inserted a deadly neurotoxin into your breakfast. But don't worry, we can neutralize the toxin with our new product that you probably should purchase.

Let me help you with that headline: "Two Bonkers, Far-Right Organizations Have a Political Strategy to Mainstream Their Fucking Gonzo Fascisticism and We're Helping to Legitimate Them. Bless"

You’re basically just providing a sanitized, palatable to the middlebrow version of the Trump admin’s “improper ideology” rationale.

To put it more concisely: we are not the ones who encouraged and turbocharged the rise of authoritarian white supremacism in the United States. You are

help anyone who wants to sustain a vital academic and educational system in this country. Quit ginning up fraudulent accounts of academic bias. Your evidence is totally insubstantial and your motives are fundamentally dishonest.

These scholars will not save their own positions by trying to separate themselves from progressives who "politicize" the classroom. We're all in terrible jeopardy. Radical critique does not occupy a position of powerful ascendancy anywhere in or out of the academy and shutting it down won't

In any case, now that genuine fascist and white supremacist political forces have actually gained the ascendancy in the USA, the choice that these scholars have made, to continue legitimating despicable hard-right rationales, is infuriating and disheartening.

of mainstream economics. What about the refusal of math departments to confront their dependence on abstraction? Why should those number-heads get to spend all their time teaching calculations that have nothing to do with the real world? Where is "I Hate Math" on their syllabi?

There is not, for instance, an intellectual position that disavows the profound racial inequity of American criminal-justice practices that is not either delusional or simply racist. I wonder also why the authors of this study didn't choose other "controversies," such as evolution or the mendacity

transformation. Not to mention the subsidiary, reactionary-centrist strategy that blames "woke" excesses for their own marginalization and for the failure of mainstream liberalism to forestall Trumpist demagoguery. The both-sides-ism that premises this study is the real dogmatism.

no exploration of the object of critique. That's an absurd notion. What this study is really doing is giving substance to the far-right anti-intellectual strategy of shutting down thought that identifies social exclusion and injustice and that affirms equity, freedom, and beneficial social