Congrats you are now User872239473 of an unrelenting panopticon that watches everything you do 24 hours a day, only a brain dead consoomer r*t*rd would think this is an own
Imagine wanting to return to a time where you could afford to own a home and raise a family on a single income, in a society that wasn’t poisoned by seed oils, rampant drugs and cultural degradation. Wypipo be racis, yo!
\u201ci was born in the wrong generation\u201d bro we have iPhones, uber eats and weed is legaI. wtf is your probIem
— \U0001d5d5\U0001d5ff\U0001d5f2\U0001d5f2\U0001d607\U0001d606\u2019\U0001f635\u200d\U0001f4ab (@OvOBrezzzy) March 11, 2022
Congrats you are now User872239473 of an unrelenting panopticon that watches everything you do 24 hours a day, only a brain dead consoomer r*t*rd would think this is an own
No, I just want to return to a time where I dont have to constantly hear you on the radio, see you on the street, on my tv or the evening news, when the gov and culture at large didnt treat you like coddled children
Yeah crazy bro why would you want to leave sweet, sweet modernity? But have fun hotboxing your government issued pod while you wait for your ZogDash order to arrive
More from All
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
