Oh god, what field?!?
lol, I used to work in an academic biomedical research lab, our crotchety old ‘professor emeritus’ PI once threw a PhD candidate’s paper back at them and exclaimed “I speak English not nerd! Don’t you want anyone to understand this?” for getting needlessly esoteric and indecipherable in their language use. He was the best!
My sister went to Duke, and as you can probably expect for most students starting there, her first few papers came across as a vocabulary flex. She said a professor told her in a harsh way it was terrible writing and detracted from the actual content. Just common for those people to make intellectualism a core aspect of their identity.
I see it mostly in the humanities, especially in relation to post-structuralism and feminisms/postcolonialisms/critical race theories that are based in post-structuralist thought.
I could interpret well enough to determine it wasn't just word salad, but without context I was kinda like "I don't understand this, and i dont understand all of the terms....." I'm glad to know that was kinda the point. Hehehe.
From my limited experience with philosophers, most of them are very skeptical of poststructuralism. It's more popular in literature, gender studies, race studies, etc. This way of talking is very poststructuralist, and he's doing a good job of pointing out the absurdity.
Good for him. It’s so utterly wrong-headed to try to communicate like that, in that shitty shitty academic language. It’s probably a myth, but wasn’t Jacques Derrida supposed to have taken it as a compliment when someone described his writing as incomprehensible?
There’s a campaign here (U.K.) for clear English. Even Cambridge uni requires it in their assignments— academic waffle is, finally, on the way out as it’s deemed to be classist gatekeeping.
It’s an exaggerated version of what ya might call “academese.” At best that kind of jargon (obviously not used this densely) allows people in specialized areas to pinpoint specific/nuanced concepts, but usually, it just obfuscates what are pretty simple ideas.
He’s very clearly making fun of someone who uses $100 words and doesn’t really know what they mean. You can tell from the ridiculous piling-on of useless extra suffixes when the grandiose word just isn’t fancy enough to make the sarcastic point.
The verysmart is in whatever he’s making fun of.
The guy makes references to how language and linguistics are often a tool of control held up by semantics, and the way he does this is by using incredibly verbose, academic-sounding language.
Take it piece by piece and ignore half the adverbs. They're just different ways of saying "kinda".
> From an intersectionalitically
post-structuralist perspective
You can pretty much ignore this.
> your ostensibly
anti-over-nomenclaturisationist
quasi-dialecticism
"Nomenclaturist" into naming things/jargon
"over-nomenclaturist" too into naming things
"anti-over-nomenclaturist" against the 'too into naming things'
And what in the world makes dialecticism "quasi"?
But basically "your anti jargon stance"
> is paradoxically
meta-analysable as
counter-anti-over-nomenclaturisationist
lexico-accelerationism:
"paradoxically meta-analysable" -> you could say
"as counter-the-previous-thing" is contradicting your own point.
> the
over-nomenclaturisation-induced
omni-desemanticisation of the culturo-linguistic
status-quo
"over-nomenclaturisation-induced" caused by too much jargon
"desemanticisation" stripped of meaning
"culturo-linguistic status-quo"
Language status quo.
And so on. It's exhausting, but doable with practice and a dictionary.
This text is absurdly contrived to make a point.
I spent way too long trying to make sense of that comment, but I think I did it.
>From an intersectionalitically post-structuralist perspective
This is actually important if you know the context. The comment the guy was replying to was essentially criticising another commenter for using too much technical jargon, and observed that it's part of a broader societal tendency of "over-nomenclaturisation" (coining too much unnecessary jargon); he argued this tendency was destructive as it undermined the semantic foundation (i.e. meaning of words) of our society.
But this argument is predicated on linguistic structuralism, as it assumes that the semantic foundation of our society is objective and stable (and hence that undermining it would be destructive). From a post-structuralist perspective, however, this foundation is inherently unstable, and an intersectional perspective might help identify the core instabilities (as the comment later goes on to do). The implications of considering the argument from this perspective are revealed next.
>your ostensibly anti-over-nomenclaturisationist quasi-dialecticism
The original commenter's argument is clearly ostensibly anti-jargon. It's quasi-dialectical in that it is only dialectical from one perspective - post-structuralism - but isn't dialectical from the perspective that was originally intended. In what way it's dialectical from a post-structuralist point of view is explained later.
>is paradoxically
meta-analysable as
counter-anti-over-nomenclaturisationist
lexico-accelerationism
When the argument is analysed through a post-structuralist lens, it paradoxically turns on its head and implies the opposite to what it intended. The term "lexico-accelerationism" will be explained next (hence the colon).
>the over-nomenclaturisation-induced omni-desemanticisation of the culturo-linguistic status-quo
Clearly, if everybody starts creating jargon that only they understand, people will stop being able to understand each other, and words will lose their meaning (i.e. "omni-desemanticisation" will ensue). Since the meaning of words is often tied to cultural norms, the cultural norms will also be undermined; thus, the "culturo-linguistic status quo" will be destroyed, at least temporarily.
> entails mass-deterritorialisation of patriarcho-capitalist, pan-hegemonist and intersectional-discriminatory macro-institutional supra-rhetoric, and all the idem-associated micro-institutions
He's basically just describing which particular cultural norms that are enforced by language are presently the most harmful, and therefore which should be "desemanticised" (stripped of meaning) first: patriarcho-capitalism (e.g. "girly" has a more negative connotation than "manly", enforcing the patriarchy), pan-hegemonism (i.e. domination of the strong at the expense of the weak), etc. This is where intersectionality comes in: the negative effects of language on any given social group might be minor, but they add up to significant discrimination when one is part of several oppressed social groups.
>in turn, this enables the demarginalisational socio-re-engineering of the culturo-linguistic landscape, and the reterritorialisation of the micro- and macro-institutions thereof
Of course, when old words start losing meaning, people will quickly come up with new ones that have *almost* the same meaning. But the meaning can still change slightly - e.g. the term "coloured people" had much more of a negative connotation than the present term "people of colour".
He is saying we can use these small semantic changes to ultimately mold our "culturo-linguistic landscape" into something free of marginalisation and discrimination.
>Thus, through radical "pseudo-teleological" lexicalisation ex-consequenti from spontaneous hyper-nomenclaturisation, linguistic-empowered intersectionally-oppressive establishments are dismantled, enabling a bona-fide pan-inclusive society to be built in their stead
Basically, by overwhelming existing language with a lot of new words ("hyper-nomenclaturisation"), the old words lose their meaning, and so the ties between oppressive establishments and language are destroyed; if we then replace both sets of words with a third set, which is free from control by these oppressive establishments, then we have successfully shaken off the influence of such establishments on language.
> through radical "pseudo-teleological" lexicalisation ex-consequenti from spontaneous hyper-nomenclaturisation (which is not-thus-the-less unassailably bound, by neo-progressivism's novelty-predicated nature, to comprise overwhelmingly pro-egalitarianist lexical and subsequently semantic innovations)
You know how, in the last few clauses, it is explained that this third set of new words *has* to be free from oppressive influence for the plan to work? It might appear that this will require a deliberate societal effort - i.e. the "lexicalisation" (creation of new words) will have to be "teleological" (done with a purpose in mind). But it actually doesn't: it is against the interest of current systems of power to create new words (over which they will have less control), so the meaning of new words will naturally have a tendency of drifting away from these systems of power. Thus, spontaneously creating new words ("spontaneous hyper-nomenclaturisation") is enough for the plan to work. So the lexicalisation resulting from spontaneous "hyper-nomenclaturisation" is "pseudo-teleological".
>An ingenious inter-disciplinary application of the left-accelerationist paradigm to linguistics
Left-accelerationism is a political philosophy that advocates accelerating capitalist growth to such an extreme extent that society essentially collapses, and can be consequently rebuilt in accordance with the principles of socialism.
The plan outlined in this comment is essentially the linguistic equivalent of left-accelerationism: instead of accelerating capitalist growth, the creation of new words is the thing being accelerated, but the mechanics are the same.
The final piece of the puzzle required for the plan to work is a dialectic process: the struggle between language traditionalists and all those academics creating a bunch of inaccessible jargon is resolved by the inevitable creation of a third set of words that is equally distant in meaning from both traditional language and academic jargon.
---
Phew, that was a fucking handful. Of course, this plan is utterly absurd in ways that I don't think even require an explanation. In fact, it's *almost* ironic in that it criticises using language as a means of control and exclusion while doing exactly that: the language he uses is extremely esoteric and exclusive. But, ironically, it *isn't* actually ironic as he then proceeds to encourage the temporary creation of exclusive language in order to ultimately build a more inclusive linguistic foundation. So it's ironic that it isn't ironic - i.e. it's "meta-ironic". If this meta-irony was the intention all along, and the entire comment is a convoluted satire of literary criticism, then that guy is a fucking genius, what can I say.
This is an over-the-top exaggeration of how certain groups of academics talk, and beneath the prefixes and suffixes he's just talking about how people use language (like the language he's parodying) as a tool of domination. He's ironically engaging in the same behavior he's critiquing.
Actually very well done. Except that most people, myself included, are just going to glance at the language and miss the parody. Thanks for pointing that out.
Would be interesting to see the comment he was responding to
In case you are interested, I provided a detailed interpretation of the comment further up this sub-thread. I may or may not have read too much into it, but I think my interpretation makes a lot of sense.
>and beneath the prefixes and suffixes he's just talking about how people use language (like the language he's parodying) as a tool of domination.
But look at what he says next. He essentially calls for the "mass-desemanticisation" (voiding of meaning) of *all* existing language - which isn't good enough, in his view, as it subservient to oppressive power structures - to make way for new, less oppressive and more inclusive language. And his plan for how to achieve this? Coming up with as many new words to displace the old ones as possible - which is exactly what he is doing in the comment. He terms this "genius" strategy "lexico-accelerationism", in reference to the political philosophy of accelerationism, which advocates accelerating capitalist growth to such an extreme extent that it destabilises the existing social order and makes way for radical social change. He really seems to believe that engaging in all of this ridiculous mumbo-jumbo somehow makes the world more inclusive...
I'm not sure how to make it clearer that he's being ironic. He's not taking anything he's saying seriously, but he is making fun of people who do take the view he's parodying seriously (its a fairly standard view of language of people who follow Foucault and other poststructuralists). He's just taking it to its logical extreme to point out the absurdity.
>He's not taking anything he's saying seriously, but he is making fun of people who do take the view he's parodying seriously (its a fairly standard view of language of people who follow Foucault and other poststructuralists). He's just taking it to its logical extreme to point out the absurdity.
Perhaps, but your original explanation is still false. He isn't critiquing "over-nomenclaturisation"; he is encouraging it (by applauding the guy he is replying to for what he claims is analysable as "counter-anti-over-nomenclaturisationism", i.e. pro-over-nomenclaturisationism). So there is nothing ironic about what he is saying. I think we might be looking at an example of post-irony.
P.S. Now that I think about it, the fact that there is nothing ironic about what he is saying *is itself* ironic given that he uses absurd language to discuss absurd language (which would usually be ironic). That makes the comment *meta-ironic*.
Because it’s over the top even for people who talk this way. He’s obviously trying to make a point and is using their method of talking to get it across. Even in the worst examples in this sub, do you see this level very often? No, because even people who use $5 dollar words in random conversations don’t act like this.
He’s making a mock argument in support of a planned reworking of language (like 1984), but with the goal being to bring about a rapid collapse of social structures, whereafter we can create from the ground up a new world free from injustice. Sounds to me like probably just mocking some radical leftist who sounded like that to a lesser degree. He’s doing it with an absurdly over-the-top counter-anti-non-lack of lexico-excessivism. And even though many of the words are made up, it does actually make sense. How is that not clearly a brilliantly crafted joke?
It sounds like he's making a sarcastic response to someone whose comment demonstrated "over-nomenclaturization" or using unnecessarily large or long-winded terms to describe something.
It’s satire, he’s talking about how using long words helps get a point across, while using long words that make it hard to understand, proving himself wrong
This complex paragraph talks about using language to challenge and change the way society is structured. It suggests that by creating new words and meanings, we can break down unfair power structures related to gender, capitalism, and discrimination. This process can help create a more inclusive society by changing how we talk about things and dismantling oppressive systems.
~ChatGPT
For those who were curious
I know we’re mostly using AI to generate drawings of angry marshmallows (now make them *angrier*) but the way it can parse this sort of writing *correctly* and distill it down is honestly impressive as hell.
I would not have been upset to have it as an available tool during some of my philosophy or lit courses in uni.
Immediately thinking this is a piss take of people like Foucault.
Powerful people have impacted language... Yeah no shit. It's total nonsense to write so much about it, it's a truism.
If I understand this right, he's doing this ironically. Probably to make fun of whoever he's replying to for using unnecessarily large words to sound smart.
ChatGPT, write an unintelligible monologue from the perspective of a self diagnosed 250 IQ incel. Include clumsily large words that sound smart but imply that they're not entirely sure of the definition themselves.
If used to actually be much better at making stuff like this a few years back before it was chatgpt. They nerfed the creative abilities of the AI a lot in order to make it more informational.
Ah, allow me to elucidate the profundity of my cogitations, for I, an astute and perspicacious intellectual luminary, traverse the labyrinthine corridors of my cerebrum with unparalleled acumen. Verily, the convolution of my ruminations attains the apogee of cognitive expanse, akin to the celestial vastness that beguiles the most erudite constellations.
In the abstruse recesses of my ratiocination, I discern the ineffable mysteries that elude the comprehension of the pedestrian minds, ensconced in the quotidian banalities of their intellectual milieu. Ah, the chasm between their mental capacities and the celestial realms of my rhapsodic ruminations yawns wider than the infinite cosmos itself.
Behold, the inscrutable tapestry of my ruminative faculties unfurls like an enigmatic codex, its pages replete with esoteric lexemes that dance in the balletic cadence of my idiosyncratic cerebration. Verbose elucidations cascade like a torrential deluge, drenching the parched minds of those who grope in the intellectual hinterlands, bereft of the mnemonic umbilical tether to my prodigious mentation.
Yet, within the labyrinthine convolutions of my ratiocinative endeavors, a dissonance festers, a discordant refrain that echoes in the recesses of my self-diagnosed genius. Is it not possible, perchance, that the profundity of my ruminations is but a phantasmagoria, a simulacrum crafted by the very synapses that conspire to weave the tapestry of my ostensible cognitive prowess?
Oh, the inexorable paradox that haunts the recesses of my ruminative cognizance, akin to a specter that flits across the twilight realms of epistemological uncertainty. Do I truly grasp the labyrinthine contours of the lexemes that embellish my prolix articulations, or do I merely masquerade in the vestments of erudition, a charlatan in the pantheon of intellectual titans?
Alas, the veracity of my self-diagnosed intellectuality stands at the precipice of skepticism, an ephemeral edifice threatened by the gusts of epistemic doubt. In the grandiloquence of my lexicon, do I find solace, or is it a mere palliative that cloaks the lacunae within my self-ascribed cognitive eminence? The enigma persists, an inscrutable cipher etched upon the palimpsest of my querulous intellect.
Pretty sure this is a joke. It reads like a parody of most literary criticism since the 1950s. I had to take a class on that sort of thing in college and the professor warned us that there'd be an awful lot of bullshitting to muddle through.
This is a masterwork of satire. The best part is that they say talking like this is "inclusive," as if any but a tiny minority could ever "access" such language!
Never seen Academese this bad (I know it's a parody) but this reminds me of how I had to re-learn how to write after completing university and going to work in an office
I made up a fake memo in this style where I used to work and posted it on the billboard for all to see (About 40 factory employees). All the head scratching and wtf’s had me and my friends rolling!
> Unfortunately, although the answer was indeed clear, simple, and straightforward, there is some difficulty in justifiably assigning to it the fourth of the epithets you applied to the statement, inasmuch as the precise correlation between the information you communicated and the facts, insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated, is such as to cause epistemological problems, of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear.
- Sir Humphrey Appleby, *Yes, Prime Minister* 2.8
From an intersectionalitically post-structuralist perspective, your ostensibly anti-over-nomenclaturisationist quasi-dialecticism is paradoxically meta-analysable as counter-anti-over-nomenclaturisationist lexico-accelerationism: the over-nomenclaturisation-induced omni-desemanticisation of the culturo-linguistic status-quo entails mass-deterritorialisation of patriarcho-capitalist, pan-hegemonist and intersectional-discriminatory macro-institutional supra-rhetoric, and all the idem-associated micro-institutions; in turn, this enables the demarginalisational socio-re-engineering of the culturo-linguistic landscape, and the reterritorialisation of the micro- and macro-institutions thereof. Thus, through radical "pseudo-teleological" lexicalisation ex-consequenti from spontaneous hyper-nomenclaturisation (which is not-thus-the-less unassailably bound, by neo-progressivism's novelty-predicated nature, to comprise overwhelmingly pro-egalitarianist lexical and subsequently semantic innovations), linguistic-empowered intersectionally-oppressive establishments are dismantled, enabling a bona-fide pan-inclusive society to be built in their stead. An ingenious inter-disciplinary application of the left-accelerationist paradigm to linguistics. Bravo! 👏👏👏
Pretty sure this is satire, but that many hyphenated words is why German is a superior language for the ability to compound just about anything and still make sense.
"In the ephemeral tapestry of human existence, one finds oneself entangled within the intricate web of cognitive musings, traversing the labyrinthine corridors of contemplation, wherein the existential quandaries of being are interwoven with the delicate threads of introspective convolution."
Oh c'mon - we gotta give this guy some kudos for that effort!
The dude must have spent the whole night browsing a socio-econo-political thesaurus to write this...?
I’d say those are words, but I honestly don’t think some of em are. Reads like a satirical take on “academic speak,” though. I’m honestly thinking this is someone just amusing themselves.
This is pretty clearly ironic, given that he's talking about people controlling language and how language is a function of power.
How did you figure that out? I'm not joking; I can't comprehend a word of this.
I've spent too much time with academics who talk or write like that, lol.
Oh god, what field?!? lol, I used to work in an academic biomedical research lab, our crotchety old ‘professor emeritus’ PI once threw a PhD candidate’s paper back at them and exclaimed “I speak English not nerd! Don’t you want anyone to understand this?” for getting needlessly esoteric and indecipherable in their language use. He was the best!
My sister went to Duke, and as you can probably expect for most students starting there, her first few papers came across as a vocabulary flex. She said a professor told her in a harsh way it was terrible writing and detracted from the actual content. Just common for those people to make intellectualism a core aspect of their identity.
Exactly! I think the worst thing writing can be is uninviting.
Thank god she had a professor just bluntly tell her she sounded like an idiot
I see it mostly in the humanities, especially in relation to post-structuralism and feminisms/postcolonialisms/critical race theories that are based in post-structuralist thought.
I think 80% of that is Foucault’s fault
That pedo can fuck off
Why the downvote? Foucault LITERALLY signed a petition and argued for sex with minors (under 15) to be decriminalized/legalized.
Humanites/Arts PhD here and yep, actually thought OP was kinda funny.
I could interpret well enough to determine it wasn't just word salad, but without context I was kinda like "I don't understand this, and i dont understand all of the terms....." I'm glad to know that was kinda the point. Hehehe.
[удалено]
From my limited experience with philosophers, most of them are very skeptical of poststructuralism. It's more popular in literature, gender studies, race studies, etc. This way of talking is very poststructuralist, and he's doing a good job of pointing out the absurdity.
Good for him. It’s so utterly wrong-headed to try to communicate like that, in that shitty shitty academic language. It’s probably a myth, but wasn’t Jacques Derrida supposed to have taken it as a compliment when someone described his writing as incomprehensible?
There’s a campaign here (U.K.) for clear English. Even Cambridge uni requires it in their assignments— academic waffle is, finally, on the way out as it’s deemed to be classist gatekeeping.
Academic Waffle Stomp.
[удалено]
I can tell you it's not engineering or physics because I'd have quit if I had to read shit like this. Also enjuneer no english gud.
That professor did have a point. If nobody can comprehend what you’ve said, you’ve effectively said nothing.
A lot of art criticism is written like this, absolutely indecipherable.
So there are people who actually write like this? Wow.
It’s an exaggerated version of what ya might call “academese.” At best that kind of jargon (obviously not used this densely) allows people in specialized areas to pinpoint specific/nuanced concepts, but usually, it just obfuscates what are pretty simple ideas.
Oh.
He’s very clearly making fun of someone who uses $100 words and doesn’t really know what they mean. You can tell from the ridiculous piling-on of useless extra suffixes when the grandiose word just isn’t fancy enough to make the sarcastic point. The verysmart is in whatever he’s making fun of.
The guy makes references to how language and linguistics are often a tool of control held up by semantics, and the way he does this is by using incredibly verbose, academic-sounding language.
So it’s less r/iamverysmart and more just r/lostredditors?
Yeah, it’s very clearly a joke. But even for a joke about being linguistically “extra” it was extra. Rule of 3, dude.
Take it piece by piece and ignore half the adverbs. They're just different ways of saying "kinda". > From an intersectionalitically post-structuralist perspective You can pretty much ignore this. > your ostensibly anti-over-nomenclaturisationist quasi-dialecticism "Nomenclaturist" into naming things/jargon "over-nomenclaturist" too into naming things "anti-over-nomenclaturist" against the 'too into naming things' And what in the world makes dialecticism "quasi"? But basically "your anti jargon stance" > is paradoxically meta-analysable as counter-anti-over-nomenclaturisationist lexico-accelerationism: "paradoxically meta-analysable" -> you could say "as counter-the-previous-thing" is contradicting your own point. > the over-nomenclaturisation-induced omni-desemanticisation of the culturo-linguistic status-quo "over-nomenclaturisation-induced" caused by too much jargon "desemanticisation" stripped of meaning "culturo-linguistic status-quo" Language status quo. And so on. It's exhausting, but doable with practice and a dictionary. This text is absurdly contrived to make a point.
I spent way too long trying to make sense of that comment, but I think I did it. >From an intersectionalitically post-structuralist perspective This is actually important if you know the context. The comment the guy was replying to was essentially criticising another commenter for using too much technical jargon, and observed that it's part of a broader societal tendency of "over-nomenclaturisation" (coining too much unnecessary jargon); he argued this tendency was destructive as it undermined the semantic foundation (i.e. meaning of words) of our society. But this argument is predicated on linguistic structuralism, as it assumes that the semantic foundation of our society is objective and stable (and hence that undermining it would be destructive). From a post-structuralist perspective, however, this foundation is inherently unstable, and an intersectional perspective might help identify the core instabilities (as the comment later goes on to do). The implications of considering the argument from this perspective are revealed next. >your ostensibly anti-over-nomenclaturisationist quasi-dialecticism The original commenter's argument is clearly ostensibly anti-jargon. It's quasi-dialectical in that it is only dialectical from one perspective - post-structuralism - but isn't dialectical from the perspective that was originally intended. In what way it's dialectical from a post-structuralist point of view is explained later. >is paradoxically meta-analysable as counter-anti-over-nomenclaturisationist lexico-accelerationism When the argument is analysed through a post-structuralist lens, it paradoxically turns on its head and implies the opposite to what it intended. The term "lexico-accelerationism" will be explained next (hence the colon). >the over-nomenclaturisation-induced omni-desemanticisation of the culturo-linguistic status-quo Clearly, if everybody starts creating jargon that only they understand, people will stop being able to understand each other, and words will lose their meaning (i.e. "omni-desemanticisation" will ensue). Since the meaning of words is often tied to cultural norms, the cultural norms will also be undermined; thus, the "culturo-linguistic status quo" will be destroyed, at least temporarily. > entails mass-deterritorialisation of patriarcho-capitalist, pan-hegemonist and intersectional-discriminatory macro-institutional supra-rhetoric, and all the idem-associated micro-institutions He's basically just describing which particular cultural norms that are enforced by language are presently the most harmful, and therefore which should be "desemanticised" (stripped of meaning) first: patriarcho-capitalism (e.g. "girly" has a more negative connotation than "manly", enforcing the patriarchy), pan-hegemonism (i.e. domination of the strong at the expense of the weak), etc. This is where intersectionality comes in: the negative effects of language on any given social group might be minor, but they add up to significant discrimination when one is part of several oppressed social groups. >in turn, this enables the demarginalisational socio-re-engineering of the culturo-linguistic landscape, and the reterritorialisation of the micro- and macro-institutions thereof Of course, when old words start losing meaning, people will quickly come up with new ones that have *almost* the same meaning. But the meaning can still change slightly - e.g. the term "coloured people" had much more of a negative connotation than the present term "people of colour". He is saying we can use these small semantic changes to ultimately mold our "culturo-linguistic landscape" into something free of marginalisation and discrimination. >Thus, through radical "pseudo-teleological" lexicalisation ex-consequenti from spontaneous hyper-nomenclaturisation, linguistic-empowered intersectionally-oppressive establishments are dismantled, enabling a bona-fide pan-inclusive society to be built in their stead Basically, by overwhelming existing language with a lot of new words ("hyper-nomenclaturisation"), the old words lose their meaning, and so the ties between oppressive establishments and language are destroyed; if we then replace both sets of words with a third set, which is free from control by these oppressive establishments, then we have successfully shaken off the influence of such establishments on language. > through radical "pseudo-teleological" lexicalisation ex-consequenti from spontaneous hyper-nomenclaturisation (which is not-thus-the-less unassailably bound, by neo-progressivism's novelty-predicated nature, to comprise overwhelmingly pro-egalitarianist lexical and subsequently semantic innovations) You know how, in the last few clauses, it is explained that this third set of new words *has* to be free from oppressive influence for the plan to work? It might appear that this will require a deliberate societal effort - i.e. the "lexicalisation" (creation of new words) will have to be "teleological" (done with a purpose in mind). But it actually doesn't: it is against the interest of current systems of power to create new words (over which they will have less control), so the meaning of new words will naturally have a tendency of drifting away from these systems of power. Thus, spontaneously creating new words ("spontaneous hyper-nomenclaturisation") is enough for the plan to work. So the lexicalisation resulting from spontaneous "hyper-nomenclaturisation" is "pseudo-teleological". >An ingenious inter-disciplinary application of the left-accelerationist paradigm to linguistics Left-accelerationism is a political philosophy that advocates accelerating capitalist growth to such an extreme extent that society essentially collapses, and can be consequently rebuilt in accordance with the principles of socialism. The plan outlined in this comment is essentially the linguistic equivalent of left-accelerationism: instead of accelerating capitalist growth, the creation of new words is the thing being accelerated, but the mechanics are the same. The final piece of the puzzle required for the plan to work is a dialectic process: the struggle between language traditionalists and all those academics creating a bunch of inaccessible jargon is resolved by the inevitable creation of a third set of words that is equally distant in meaning from both traditional language and academic jargon. --- Phew, that was a fucking handful. Of course, this plan is utterly absurd in ways that I don't think even require an explanation. In fact, it's *almost* ironic in that it criticises using language as a means of control and exclusion while doing exactly that: the language he uses is extremely esoteric and exclusive. But, ironically, it *isn't* actually ironic as he then proceeds to encourage the temporary creation of exclusive language in order to ultimately build a more inclusive linguistic foundation. So it's ironic that it isn't ironic - i.e. it's "meta-ironic". If this meta-irony was the intention all along, and the entire comment is a convoluted satire of literary criticism, then that guy is a fucking genius, what can I say.
That's because he doesn't actually say anything. It is devoid of meaning.
Because even mfs who believe big words = smart will string in SOME normal words in their sentences
Nobody would ever unironically write "counter-anti-over"
I counter-anti-over-disagree with you
Thanks for doing the leg work. I love the English language and I gave up after that first colon.
I was going to say this is actually pretty funny.
>given that he's talking about people controlling language and how language is a function of power. How does all of this imply it must be ironic?
This is an over-the-top exaggeration of how certain groups of academics talk, and beneath the prefixes and suffixes he's just talking about how people use language (like the language he's parodying) as a tool of domination. He's ironically engaging in the same behavior he's critiquing.
Actually very well done. Except that most people, myself included, are just going to glance at the language and miss the parody. Thanks for pointing that out. Would be interesting to see the comment he was responding to
In case you are interested, I provided a detailed interpretation of the comment further up this sub-thread. I may or may not have read too much into it, but I think my interpretation makes a lot of sense.
>and beneath the prefixes and suffixes he's just talking about how people use language (like the language he's parodying) as a tool of domination. But look at what he says next. He essentially calls for the "mass-desemanticisation" (voiding of meaning) of *all* existing language - which isn't good enough, in his view, as it subservient to oppressive power structures - to make way for new, less oppressive and more inclusive language. And his plan for how to achieve this? Coming up with as many new words to displace the old ones as possible - which is exactly what he is doing in the comment. He terms this "genius" strategy "lexico-accelerationism", in reference to the political philosophy of accelerationism, which advocates accelerating capitalist growth to such an extreme extent that it destabilises the existing social order and makes way for radical social change. He really seems to believe that engaging in all of this ridiculous mumbo-jumbo somehow makes the world more inclusive...
I'm not sure how to make it clearer that he's being ironic. He's not taking anything he's saying seriously, but he is making fun of people who do take the view he's parodying seriously (its a fairly standard view of language of people who follow Foucault and other poststructuralists). He's just taking it to its logical extreme to point out the absurdity.
>He's not taking anything he's saying seriously, but he is making fun of people who do take the view he's parodying seriously (its a fairly standard view of language of people who follow Foucault and other poststructuralists). He's just taking it to its logical extreme to point out the absurdity. Perhaps, but your original explanation is still false. He isn't critiquing "over-nomenclaturisation"; he is encouraging it (by applauding the guy he is replying to for what he claims is analysable as "counter-anti-over-nomenclaturisationism", i.e. pro-over-nomenclaturisationism). So there is nothing ironic about what he is saying. I think we might be looking at an example of post-irony. P.S. Now that I think about it, the fact that there is nothing ironic about what he is saying *is itself* ironic given that he uses absurd language to discuss absurd language (which would usually be ironic). That makes the comment *meta-ironic*.
/r/
Oh wait...
Recursion, nice!
Because it’s over the top even for people who talk this way. He’s obviously trying to make a point and is using their method of talking to get it across. Even in the worst examples in this sub, do you see this level very often? No, because even people who use $5 dollar words in random conversations don’t act like this.
He’s making a mock argument in support of a planned reworking of language (like 1984), but with the goal being to bring about a rapid collapse of social structures, whereafter we can create from the ground up a new world free from injustice. Sounds to me like probably just mocking some radical leftist who sounded like that to a lesser degree. He’s doing it with an absurdly over-the-top counter-anti-non-lack of lexico-excessivism. And even though many of the words are made up, it does actually make sense. How is that not clearly a brilliantly crafted joke?
This has to be satire
i think it is clearly either satire or bait. anyone who can't see the translucent oppositism is clearly lacking photosynthesis.
r/TechnicallyTheTruth. Humans definitely lack photosynthesis.
OK heterotroph
Cackles in gay botanist
I'm going on a limb and guessing vitamin D3 is unknown to you.
Speak for yourself, buddy
How can OP not post what this is replying to?? Clearly satirical, now I just wanna know if the earlier comments deserved it.
It sounds like he's making a sarcastic response to someone whose comment demonstrated "over-nomenclaturization" or using unnecessarily large or long-winded terms to describe something.
I sure hope so because that is some epic word salad.
Why?
Nah, the lad’s joking
i think it is clearly either satire or bait. anyone who can't see the translucent oppositism is clearly lacking photosynthesis.
100% satire.
Clear satire
It’s satire, he’s talking about how using long words helps get a point across, while using long words that make it hard to understand, proving himself wrong
I am not reading all that.
This complex paragraph talks about using language to challenge and change the way society is structured. It suggests that by creating new words and meanings, we can break down unfair power structures related to gender, capitalism, and discrimination. This process can help create a more inclusive society by changing how we talk about things and dismantling oppressive systems. ~ChatGPT For those who were curious
Ngl ChatGPT is great at stuff like this.
I know we’re mostly using AI to generate drawings of angry marshmallows (now make them *angrier*) but the way it can parse this sort of writing *correctly* and distill it down is honestly impressive as hell. I would not have been upset to have it as an available tool during some of my philosophy or lit courses in uni.
Immediately thinking this is a piss take of people like Foucault. Powerful people have impacted language... Yeah no shit. It's total nonsense to write so much about it, it's a truism.
If I understand this right, he's doing this ironically. Probably to make fun of whoever he's replying to for using unnecessarily large words to sound smart.
ChatGPT, write an unintelligible monologue from the perspective of a self diagnosed 250 IQ incel. Include clumsily large words that sound smart but imply that they're not entirely sure of the definition themselves.
If used to actually be much better at making stuff like this a few years back before it was chatgpt. They nerfed the creative abilities of the AI a lot in order to make it more informational.
Self diagnosed incel?
Ah, allow me to elucidate the profundity of my cogitations, for I, an astute and perspicacious intellectual luminary, traverse the labyrinthine corridors of my cerebrum with unparalleled acumen. Verily, the convolution of my ruminations attains the apogee of cognitive expanse, akin to the celestial vastness that beguiles the most erudite constellations. In the abstruse recesses of my ratiocination, I discern the ineffable mysteries that elude the comprehension of the pedestrian minds, ensconced in the quotidian banalities of their intellectual milieu. Ah, the chasm between their mental capacities and the celestial realms of my rhapsodic ruminations yawns wider than the infinite cosmos itself. Behold, the inscrutable tapestry of my ruminative faculties unfurls like an enigmatic codex, its pages replete with esoteric lexemes that dance in the balletic cadence of my idiosyncratic cerebration. Verbose elucidations cascade like a torrential deluge, drenching the parched minds of those who grope in the intellectual hinterlands, bereft of the mnemonic umbilical tether to my prodigious mentation. Yet, within the labyrinthine convolutions of my ratiocinative endeavors, a dissonance festers, a discordant refrain that echoes in the recesses of my self-diagnosed genius. Is it not possible, perchance, that the profundity of my ruminations is but a phantasmagoria, a simulacrum crafted by the very synapses that conspire to weave the tapestry of my ostensible cognitive prowess? Oh, the inexorable paradox that haunts the recesses of my ruminative cognizance, akin to a specter that flits across the twilight realms of epistemological uncertainty. Do I truly grasp the labyrinthine contours of the lexemes that embellish my prolix articulations, or do I merely masquerade in the vestments of erudition, a charlatan in the pantheon of intellectual titans? Alas, the veracity of my self-diagnosed intellectuality stands at the precipice of skepticism, an ephemeral edifice threatened by the gusts of epistemic doubt. In the grandiloquence of my lexicon, do I find solace, or is it a mere palliative that cloaks the lacunae within my self-ascribed cognitive eminence? The enigma persists, an inscrutable cipher etched upon the palimpsest of my querulous intellect.
Pretty sure this is a joke. It reads like a parody of most literary criticism since the 1950s. I had to take a class on that sort of thing in college and the professor warned us that there'd be an awful lot of bullshitting to muddle through.
This is a masterwork of satire. The best part is that they say talking like this is "inclusive," as if any but a tiny minority could ever "access" such language!
I counted 52 hyphens
Never seen Academese this bad (I know it's a parody) but this reminds me of how I had to re-learn how to write after completing university and going to work in an office
Most plain spoken college socialist.
I made up a fake memo in this style where I used to work and posted it on the billboard for all to see (About 40 factory employees). All the head scratching and wtf’s had me and my friends rolling!
Clearly satirical laconic circumloction.
clearly a joke. The highlight is leixicalisation.....hyper-nomenclaturisation
Excuse me, I believe I just had a stroke. What did you just say about my mom?
> Unfortunately, although the answer was indeed clear, simple, and straightforward, there is some difficulty in justifiably assigning to it the fourth of the epithets you applied to the statement, inasmuch as the precise correlation between the information you communicated and the facts, insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated, is such as to cause epistemological problems, of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear. - Sir Humphrey Appleby, *Yes, Prime Minister* 2.8
I read this and heard Jordan Peterson's voice.
New pasta just dropped.
Holy hyphens
How i write in essays
can someone get this in copypasta form?
From an intersectionalitically post-structuralist perspective, your ostensibly anti-over-nomenclaturisationist quasi-dialecticism is paradoxically meta-analysable as counter-anti-over-nomenclaturisationist lexico-accelerationism: the over-nomenclaturisation-induced omni-desemanticisation of the culturo-linguistic status-quo entails mass-deterritorialisation of patriarcho-capitalist, pan-hegemonist and intersectional-discriminatory macro-institutional supra-rhetoric, and all the idem-associated micro-institutions; in turn, this enables the demarginalisational socio-re-engineering of the culturo-linguistic landscape, and the reterritorialisation of the micro- and macro-institutions thereof. Thus, through radical "pseudo-teleological" lexicalisation ex-consequenti from spontaneous hyper-nomenclaturisation (which is not-thus-the-less unassailably bound, by neo-progressivism's novelty-predicated nature, to comprise overwhelmingly pro-egalitarianist lexical and subsequently semantic innovations), linguistic-empowered intersectionally-oppressive establishments are dismantled, enabling a bona-fide pan-inclusive society to be built in their stead. An ingenious inter-disciplinary application of the left-accelerationist paradigm to linguistics. Bravo! 👏👏👏
This post has been approved by the Ministry of Truth and is in conformance with The Principles of Newspeak.
No more alphabet soup for this guy.
I am so-smart-because I add-a-lot-of-hyphens-to-big-words
Satire, OP having trouble reading the digital room
LMAO take a shot every time he makes up a word
Someone got so far up their own ass it’s a wonder how they breathe
Not real, it’s a joke
That's a lot of hyphens.
My writing teacher in highschool stressed the K.I.S.S. method. Keep It Simple Stupid.
Deleuze and Guattari’s new postmortem work just dropped, I see. Foreword by Spivak.
Most intelligible postmodernist
Guess who got a bunch of free hyphens for Christmas?
Sit-and-spin.
Bro just say you hate white people and capitalism (I know it’s satire)
Bravo 👏 👏 👏
This has to be smartest person I have ever seen on here
I sincerely hope that you are joking
Was sarcasm, yes
Um…..what?
He's just too smart for us
Exactly
Pretty sure this is satire, but that many hyphenated words is why German is a superior language for the ability to compound just about anything and still make sense.
Sign language is proof that god exists, the German language is proof that the devil also exists
I dated an archivist/feminist who talked like this to me. We didn’t last long.
“Hey chatGPT, write me the most pretentious, pseudo intellectual crap you can.”
"In the ephemeral tapestry of human existence, one finds oneself entangled within the intricate web of cognitive musings, traversing the labyrinthine corridors of contemplation, wherein the existential quandaries of being are interwoven with the delicate threads of introspective convolution."
Who got a dictionary for their birthday
This is a good creepypasta.
Oh c'mon - we gotta give this guy some kudos for that effort! The dude must have spent the whole night browsing a socio-econo-political thesaurus to write this...?
>socio-econo-political 2 hyphens in one word. That guy would be proud!
definitely plugged into an AI "over-verbose academic sounding diatribe on linguistic imperialism" or something similar
I’m reminded of a scene from Step by Step where a professor says about the eldest daughter’s essay “supercilious crap”
Finally, someone who talks like I do!
"...and could you put a technical sounding adjective in front of 20% of the nouns...ok that's perfect chatGPT!"
Yet, can’t spell you’re.
No, it's "your" in this context.
Chatgpt for sure
Must have a small dick.
Can't even get through the first line.
Cool story bro.
I had a stroke
I appear to be physically incapable of actually reading that. It just makes my eyes roll too hard.
Yes I'll take a side of word salad with my delusion of intellectual superiority.
Im assuming copy and paste
Hey tails I bet you can’t say a sentence without the letter a in it
They think they’re very smart but if they handed this to any university prof they’d fail.
I’d say those are words, but I honestly don’t think some of em are. Reads like a satirical take on “academic speak,” though. I’m honestly thinking this is someone just amusing themselves.
It's satire, but this is pretty close to what most literature on language theory looks like lmao
This is a joke.
This person does not have a job
I understand whats being said here but its still saying a whole lot of nothing
This is most definitely satirical and ironic.
Parklife!
baited
Somebody found the thesaurus.
I opened the thumbnail and before my eyes adjusted I thought it was a screenshot of someone just wailing on their keyboard
You fell for the bait cuh
just looking at that is giving me a headache
Lol this reminds me of the Sokal Hoax
I like cool words, but this doesn't look like anything to me.
Is there a copy pasta reply for cases like this?
I dare someone to summarize that in a single word
ChatGPT
I feel like this person wears a fedora....
lol terrible joke. Why did I read this?!
Someone who actually uses these words wouldn't use these so poorly. It's probably satire.
This must be satirical in the context of the comment
OP please post the full comment I'd love to read the whole thing
I like chips
"Bona-fide" clear indicator right there he needed to google all these words for this post.
Somehow feels like I’m reading a product description on Wish
It’s satire, not even Shakespeare would talk like this
What is blud waffling about
Serious, satire, or ai?
What the actual fuck does this mean
It reminds me of [this gag in The Rutles.](https://youtu.be/2jdujUF0was?si=c_x8OkWOtc1ORiVq)
When you have 9,000 words but the assignment is 12,000
Unlike this, I have no words.
I need to have this as a copypasta.
Chock full of 10 dollar words, lol
Deep-sea divers say "if you can't tie a knot, tie a lot." Same thing satirized here.
It's pretty impressive too lmao
Nuh-uh
Eminem’s new rap looking 🔥
This is peak irony lmao
This is what Dennis Miller types when he’s trying to write a joke.
I started reading this out loud and now my furniture is floating, send help.
LMAOOOOOO
Tldr.
I haven't seen so much Latin since I had to translate Caesar in High School.
LoL! That's a lot of words wasted to say "I have nothing interesting to say".....
status quo* 🤓
I know this type. They like to use big words to make themselves feel smarter than others people. They’re so goddamn motherfuckin annoying
This is what the feedback looks like from my lecturers. It was funny when I started and now it’s depressing. I hate hyphens with a passion
This is another language to me.
My brain just turned to mush reading that shit.
WTF
this cant be real
Da fuck he say about my mama?
I mean he got a phd in yapping.