Originally Posted by deadly7
If you don't know how to write to a broader audience and feel the need to get your ego stroked by your peers, that's your business. I don't decry the use of jargon -- it's an inescapable characteristic of specializing in a field. When I read a paper that has the issue I'm describing, it reads like an undergraduate's attempt at inflating his professor's view of himself by opening up the thesaurus and picking the biggest word possible in every situation. As for my point being untenable, that's a farcical claim and if you expect me to cede that you're the one that would have to prove it.
Let me recap your interventions:
1) You don’t like humanities because of some gibberish quote from a troll.
2) You associate that troll quote with actual language used in the humanities because of a couple classes you took and, although you admit you don’t know much, you’re still absolutely certain, having repeated it a couple times, that people use jargon to inflate their own ego and/or to give an aura of complexity to affirmations that could have been more easily communicated in a simpler language.
3) You feel that complicated jargon or metalanguage used in one specific area of the humanities (what they call French theory or critical theory or whatever you were exposed to), leaving aside the fact that you don’t understand it, is used for the purposes described in point 2), yet you hate ALL humanities because of this relatively marginal area of studies. What did anthropology ever do to you? Did gypsy anthropologist kidnap your baby?
4) WTF do you want me to argue against exactly? Your reasoning doesn’t stand up to the simplest of scrutiny. Oh and there is a lot of bullshit that is written in academia, humanities or not. There is also a lot of bullshit written/said/powerpointed in businesses, in government, in reporting, in publicity, in private email, on facebook, carved on trees or in pit stops used for gay encounters and pretty much everything else. What else is new?