> Fuck the opening games, methinks both of you[1] suffer from academia-envy..
The language posturing of academia is actually part of why I've never pursued academia. Your [1] link is missing.
> Low-brow AND accurate[0] feedback is where it has 100% always been at, do that & put both lobste.rs & HN outta business?
If you're saying that low-brow and accurate "is where it's at", i.e. low and accurate is what you like--fine, but I care nothing at all about the browed-ness of communication. The only reason I'd ever use highbrow language is to communicate with an audience that won't listen otherwise, and that's usually not worth the effort.
If you're saying that low-brow and accurate exists, of course it does. That's a big part of my disagreement with Matthew Walther--he seems to think it doesn't exist when it obviously does.
One thing I'll point out here: I don't care that your communication here is lowbrow, but I do care that it's not clear.
There are other aspects of academia in these discussions here, e.g. the stances that default to combative (no citation needed :)
the big part where you surprised me (nicely, I should add) right there is pointing out that what I should not have left implicit was:
Low-brow ">" entertaining
as a metric. At the cost of more words, "entertaining" is quite the moving target. If we make the conceit that "entertainment"="accessible humour" then "Cicero" suggested that we can make our jobs more straightforward.
Finally, sometimes it's the subject matter that is poorly understood.[cheap] humour can even point a laser beam at that cat.
We don't have to blame the language, but it helps!
On reflection, I'd like to clarify that this is not an invitation to a Grundyfest*. I was genuinely pleased that the effectiveness gap between low-brow and entertaining isn't as clearcut as I'd thought. That may be worth thinking about
[note here that applying the low-brow sustainably may require a more active management of surprise than is typical for "entertainments". (Orthogonal to the accuracy aspect, but not to the audience targeting)]
The language posturing of academia is actually part of why I've never pursued academia. Your [1] link is missing.
> Low-brow AND accurate[0] feedback is where it has 100% always been at, do that & put both lobste.rs & HN outta business?
If you're saying that low-brow and accurate "is where it's at", i.e. low and accurate is what you like--fine, but I care nothing at all about the browed-ness of communication. The only reason I'd ever use highbrow language is to communicate with an audience that won't listen otherwise, and that's usually not worth the effort.
If you're saying that low-brow and accurate exists, of course it does. That's a big part of my disagreement with Matthew Walther--he seems to think it doesn't exist when it obviously does.
One thing I'll point out here: I don't care that your communication here is lowbrow, but I do care that it's not clear.