how is that a useful standard for words? Defining words literally allows them to replace masses of text
-
-
and one I've been thinking about for a long time, whether you think my thinking is sound or not
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jessesingal @srhbutts
I sympathise with concern about the inaccessibility of academic and other jargons. I think it's pretty universal tho.
5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Chomsky's point is you can't do quantum mechanics without insane jargon. Power you can
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jessesingal @srhbutts
there's folks out there still stuck on the definitions of sexism & racism. If useful, it'll enter common use.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
but yeah for 101-level writing, it'll remain important to define terms or use the long-form
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Matthew Desmond is a MacArthur genius who wrote epochal book about poverty and race. Any college grad could read it
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
So, EF is evil because their headlines aren't click baity enough? Or what?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
evil to strong. Is say actively harmful by reducing the ability for collective action
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
the possibility for collective action depends on all ppl everywhere speaking to same audience all the time?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
no it does say for a myriad of reasons. I'll explain at some point
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.