JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for BRITARCH Archives


BRITARCH Archives

BRITARCH Archives


BRITARCH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BRITARCH Home

BRITARCH Home

BRITARCH  May 2016

BRITARCH May 2016

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

A fine piece of satire

From:

Doug R-M <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Doug R-M <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 30 May 2016 18:13:07 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (83 lines)

I am glad someone got my post. 

Thank you Michael for illustrating my point with a wonderful written piece in the strong tradition of the Dailymash or Onion newspapers. (because of attachments/links it is being held for moderation so see his response below else wait a while for it to come through). See Michael gets exactly what I am talking about and delivered to us an example of the weak sort of arguments happening here so that we can better know what to look out for. This is truly some brilliant satire work which I think we should all take a moment to appreciate. 

First, Michael knows that instead of grasping the most basic of research tools available, Google, a person who does not present facts or figures will simply send off an email making stuff up.  He does this by making me an academic. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that someone would double my salary, probably triple it, but as Michael knows, a simple Google search, even a Bing search, would have shown that I am not an academic.

But the real brilliance comes also in the choice of words, with the term academic a person can paint me as an other. I am no longer just someone who does basic research and tries to come to a relative, while limited, understanding of how the world works, but instead I am an academic with all the baggage that comes with that. It is brilliant because it also positions the 'labeller' as being from a position of weakness, thus the typical victim scenario, and anything I, the now labelled "oppressor", say will just be the strong beating up on the weak.     

But in case that point is missed the person would then have to really drive home the point that they are being picked on by the powers that be. Mike demonstrates how someone would do this by calling themselves a 'pleb'. Michael of course knows that he could never be a 'pleb' because he has multiple degrees including an MBA, which means he has a higher level of formal education than me, at least for a little longer. The real brilliance is that anyone who followed the links to his website, which he included in his piece, would see this that he has an MBA. Michael has laid the perfect example of the hypocrisy of people that is so often seen in these exchanges. 

It then gets really good. Instead of addressing the issues that are really driving populism in the US and UK, the hollowing of workforce with the loss of union jobs, he completely jumps into an argument about academics oppressing free speech. It is the perfect straw man argument that distracts away from any productive conversation and again reinforces the siege mentality. It is like Michael is in the mind of Trump.  

Now there is quite a bit more that Michael demonstrates in his satire but I think the most important aspect is that he has shown that someone without facts will never once raise them. This is key to having these arguments is to not once raise anything that can be proven wrong. He paints us a beautiful picture with these words 'it is quite understandable that academics might make comments against views they dislike'. He has so carefully chosen the word 'view' and made it my word. It's not about what the facts and research shows, it is about what people think. This is the perfect conversation trap because facts and figures can be checked but views are personal and always correct in the eye of the beholder. 



Ok, I will stop being such an ass, of which I am fully aware I am being jerk to Michael. It may be that I have seen so much of this sort of this crap in my life that now I can't help but respond with a siring critique.

To others that have views on brexit I hope you won't take this as cold water on the discussion. I think it is important discussion to have- what are the implications for archaeology, the reason we are all on the list, if a brexit does or does not occur. Though it might be good to actually talk about that and possible back up assertions with... facts or figures.


As always, your humble Pleb,
Doug

 


________________________________________
From: Michael <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2016 4:15 PM
To: Doug R-M; British archaeology discussion list
Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] As an anthropologist I am intrigued but as a human I am concerned

Doug, you are correct that the two are linked, but you seem to be
unaware of the cause and are showing the typical response of academics
when confronted by views of ordinary people which the internet has
enabled to be heard publicly.

The reason we have seen this change, is that formerly what we the public
was allowed to hear was dictated by journalists - who in turn would
never print the views of us "plebs" but instead would go to some
"learned" professor who they could publish verbatim without even really
knowing whether what they said was true or even checking it.

This situation was obviously very favourable to academia which
predominantly has a (US) Liberal outlook. And it was obviously
unfavourable to us plebs whose views were not heard.

But now, I can go onto the internet and for free and without some
journalist filtering what I read, I can read views from almost anyone in
the world. The result is that the "establishment" in academia no longer
have the same "monopoly" on their views being heard. And what is even
less agreeable to academia - is that unlike the journalists who largely
just went along with what they were given, the internet is full of
awkward sods (like me) who will ask questions and answer back.

Unfortunately, in some areas this has resulted in academia becoming very
defensive and aggressive to "outsiders". And in that regard, I attach a
paper that may be of interest (to those with an open mind).

In addition here's a couple of other things I've written:

Trump the revolution:
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2016/03/18/trump-the-revolution/
The citizen scientist:
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2013/12/19/the-citizen-scientist/

But to put in simply, the internet is creating a social and political
revolution as important as the changes that occurred as a result
printing. So, that e.g. ordinary people could read their bibles without
some authoritarian priest telling them what to believe. And indeed, the
internet has been implicated in the "Arab spring"!

So, given that it is the "plebs" who are revolting and given academia's
previous power to control what was considered "knowledge" it is quite
understandable that academics might make comments against views they
dislike such as a "lack of comprehension of historical context". But
this is not because the views are wrong - it is simply that they are
views that are coming from the internet, which are not favoured by the
predominant political views within academia.

Mike Haseler

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager