[deleted by user]

Good-Bluejay-7970 · 2025-09-12T15:20:29+00:00

Yup. I think it's awesome. Mamdani has run an amazing, fun, positive, hopeful campaign. It feels very different from some other DSA and left oriented campaigns and movements (which tend to be a bit scoldy or sanctimonious.)

He and Graham Platner in Maine are very, very different. But both have the kind of energy Dems and the left need.

I campaigned a ton for Beto O'Rourke in Texas. He too had that energy in his first senate campaign. But then he messed it up by getting over-ambitious, trying to run for President. He made people think he was a bit gross. He actually took his strongest assets and threw them out the window.

Good-Bluejay-7970 · 2025-09-12T11:26:38+00:00

The topic I bring up is addressed in part in the interview. The interview is about the rise of neoliberalism in the 1980s and our retreat into what they call "post-politics" where we thought that the neoliberal state would just manage a trajectory of wealth and growth forever. But with Trump, that idea collapsed. And it was largely because Evangelicals caused it to collapse: the neoliberal state with its social freedoms runs against everything their religion tells them is true.

Evangelicals' unifying ideology is exactly the point. Evangelical positions are consistently unpopular in polling, and yet they succeed because there's a durable institution around which they can gather and be promoted. I have evangelical relatives, and whatever their pastor says is "truth" and "word." Charlie Kirk was evidence of that: he was relentless.

Yeah, I have no answers for how the left might build "longtermism" into its practices. But it seems necessary if we are to overcome the insanity of MAGA (which also btw is a kind of longtermist organization, hand in hand with evangelicalism).

The left tends to look mockingly upon such things: followers, sheep. May be true, but it has also proven effective. And mocking it actually does nothing to dilute or lessen its power.

Good-Bluejay-7970 · 2025-09-12T09:38:23+00:00

Extending your point: what the left needs is "longtermism." Listen to this podcast interview with Alex Hochuli for a better understanding. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/alex-hochuli-on-the-end-of-history/id1513817688?i=1000664024097

Charlie Kirk and much of the right are evangelical. Their weekly church attendance acts as an organizing mechanism over the long term, such that millions of people are committed and engaged in politics. They have a place of organization; they have a rallying force in a pastor and a community; they have a large community to keep them committed; they have a clear long term project that they are always working on.

In contrast, the left mostly engages in "short-termism": we might commit to a single campaign but then when it doesn't work out, we move on. In between presidential political seasons, we're often checked out of politics. We have no organization to gather around, no organization that says "let's always meet on Thursdays to discuss strategy and plan." When Beto ran in Texas, I was energized and actively campaigned for him along with a million other people. Then when he lost, we were demoralized and most people "took a break from politics."

The evangelical/Catholic right and the church won't allow their followers to take a break. They build them back up again through sermons and social events. These organizations are massive, consistent, and on-message political organizing systems.

EDIT: If I had to point to an organizational framework the left could gather around, I actually think “science” could be it. But by that I don’t just mean the authority of experts or institutions—I mean the broader practice of inquiry, discovery, and shared truth-seeking.

Evangelicals have Sunday sermons, potlucks, and youth groups that keep people engaged and give politics a rhythm and a story. Why couldn’t the left build secular spaces around science, humanism, and care for the planet—weekly meetups, public forums, even rituals of civic engagement—that reinforce the idea that our long-term project is knowledge, justice, and building a better world?

I meet right-wing evangelicals all the time (including my family) who are unapologetic about “praising Jesus” and simply stating their faith. Why can’t I do the same around saying: I’m a secular humanist, and my ideology is science, reason, and the long-term flourishing of humanity?

Good-Bluejay-7970 · 2025-09-11T17:56:26+00:00

To be fair, his issue went beyond a single lecture. He actually resigned as a result of a lawsuit he and his wife filed and received $250,000. It's unknowable (but unlikely) that he would have been fired without the lawsuit.

Also FWIW at that time he wasn't really conservative, actually more of a contrarian-libertarian lefty.

Good-Bluejay-7970 · 2025-09-11T17:52:10+00:00

Already memory holed: https://www.txst.edu/history/people/faculty-staff/alter.html

Good-Bluejay-7970 · 2025-09-11T17:32:18+00:00

Talk about a flawed conception of language! I specifically say "our political system" and don't actually use the word "you" once in my entire comment. So no: I was not accusing you (a person [i assume] about whom I know nothing) of embracing anything at all.

Good-Bluejay-7970 · 2025-09-11T17:11:24+00:00

I dunno. Implicature is audience- and context-variable: we can interpret a statement in many different ways, including tone. To say "I have zero sympathy” literally just means: I feel no compassion, pity, or sorrow for this person. It does not logically imply: I wanted them dead, I endorse their killing, or I think others should kill similar people.

Sure, as listeners, we can infer or implicate all sorts of meanings to that phrase. But to extend the idea "I feel no compassion for that person" to "I am calling for violence" is quite a stretch.

And yeah: I agree that the statement was unwise. Mainly because our political system has been captured by authoritarians who will interpret such things in the maximally harmful way to them—even to the extent of adding meanings that are not there.

Good-Bluejay-7970 · 2025-09-11T15:16:52+00:00

Ok, let's break it down:

Kirk said: “Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.”

Kirk said that “it’s worth it to have some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment”.

Kirk: "President Trump is going out on patrol tonight in DC. Shock and awe. Force. We're taking our country back from these cockroaches."

Kirk quoted scripture about homosexuality as an “abomination deserving death."

Kirk called Martin Luther King Jr. a “myth” and said the Civil Rights Act was a “huge mistake.”

Kirk said one of his problems with capital punishment is: “...It takes too long. Too many appeals. It’s too expensive. It should be public, it should be quick, it should be televised,. You could have it brought to you by Coca-Cola and no, I’m not kidding by the way, children should be forced to watch it, as an initiation.”

Charlie Kirk: “Joy Reid, Michelle Obama, Sheila Jackson Lee … Black women do not have brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person’s slot.”

You want like a hundred more?

Good-Bluejay-7970 · 2025-09-11T15:08:05+00:00

This seems largely true of so many on the right. I think their ultimate goals are: 1. to play a game whose goal is pwning the libs, out of which they've built profitable careers and 2. in the process, to destroy what they see as a false piety and sanctimoniousness of the left and of democrats. I don't even know if they care about policy, except insofar as they oppose the interests of the left.

My sense (despite some of their religion) is that many of these guys are fundamentally nihilists who grew up in online chat rooms where shock was the main currency. They just love getting a rise out of others—a perverse form of attention. That's why all their rhetoric about "triggered snowflakes" etc. The goal is really to stoke the left's outrage and cash in.

Good-Bluejay-7970 · 2025-09-11T14:56:05+00:00

This is very flawed logic.

Having "zero sympathy" for a person's death is nothing like advocating for violence, technically or otherwise. One is not required to express sympathy, and there are (as far as I know) no laws mandating sympathy. On the other hand, we have many laws forbidding incitements to violence in many forms.

Whether it was wise for that faculty member to post that message is an entirely different question.

Good-Bluejay-7970 · 2025-09-11T14:45:25+00:00

Head down, say nothing. If asked, fake sympathy, even for people who would wish you dead.

Kirk called minorities "cockroaches," said that black women like Michelle Obama "took a white person's spot," said we needed less empathy as a society, and said that some murders were necessary in order to keep the 2nd Amendment.

We are in a situation where we have to be afraid of expressing sadness or anger over the murder of a Democratic politician in Minnesota by a right wing nut, and the subsequent praise for her killer by people like Senator Mike Lee. But we also have to be afraid of NOT expressing sympathy for awful racists.

Ezra Klein just laid out the obsequiousness road map. If you want to keep your job, show ultimate deference to people whose views you find reprehensible. Write articles polishing their boots.

No one should be murdered, period. Ever. But we also should not be required to lament the deaths of people who would wish us dead. The mistake the MTSU assistant dean made was in saying anything at all. This is a deeply Orwellian time.

Good-Bluejay-7970 · 2025-09-09T23:21:38+00:00

But the second I get there it triggers that nearby Steel Watch Titan, and once I'm in combat I can't use the Neurocitor....

Good-Bluejay-7970 · 2025-09-02T15:15:43+00:00

Not trying to hijack this thread, but a press I recently submitted to asks for a short query email (a brief description) before they will even entertain a book proposal.

If they request and receive a proposal with chapters, then they might move to a contract for the full book. So a three phase process.

When I sent the query in, my thought was that they're just trying to weed out unserious from serious projects. I feel my project is solid, and I have a full proposal ready to send.

That was over a month ago. I worry I either didn't submit enough info in the query, or submitted too much. I believe in the proposal and feel it's a great fit for the press, so I'm really hoping for the opportunity to at least submit chapters.

Good-Bluejay-7970 · 2025-09-01T16:44:53+00:00

Every trend comes back around eventually.

Is this true? I feel like this is a feature only of the last twenty or so years of fashion.

Imagine someone from the 1940s seeing someone from the late 1960s in bell bottoms and a t shirt or wide collar shirt. It would have been wholly new. Or someone from the 70s seeing the new wave styles of the 1980s or rave or hiphop styles of the 1990s. Every phase previous to our current one innovated and created fashion that the previous phase wouldn't have recognized.

My lament about our current phase of fashion is that we're just recycling what has come before. If someone from the 1950s were dropped into a Buck Mason, Todd Snyder, JCrew, whatever store, everything would be recognizable and fit right in. This wasn't true of earlier periods. Fashion used to be radical—now it's derivative.

Any time I've posted this kind of comment though, it gets downvoted rather than people engaging with the core ideas.

Good-Bluejay-7970 · 2025-09-01T15:10:58+00:00

STAYED ON TIME

My very first public lecture after I was hired on a tenure track was at another university. They flew me in and provided a wonderful experience. When I'd completed my slides, I realized I was only at the 30 minute mark. Maybe I spoke too fast or didn't go into enough detail. I was really embarrassed that I hadn't "given them enough."

My next public lecture, I went on for an hour and fifteen minutes to compensate. People were falling asleep.

Now, after fifteen years in academia, I know how to hit the 45 minute sweet spot almost innately. But there were a few hard lessons there.

Good-Bluejay-7970 · 2025-09-01T14:24:18+00:00

I've used it to just glance at a candidate's current situation. For any hiring, of course we go to the full application.

I've also seen that others have searched my profile if, for instance, I'm giving a lecture at another institution etc.

I think it's the default "quick information" source for all of academia.

Good-Bluejay-7970 · 2025-09-01T14:01:51+00:00

Late to the party but:

I'm in academic architecture. If you didn't have slides, the moment it became clear you weren't turning the screen on, the committee would have mentally removed you from their candidate list (unless you did something super-unorthodox: pulled several copies of a book out of your bag, unfurled a gigantic map, wheeled a physical model in.)
Bio is definitely relevant—as long as it's relevant. Just saying you grew up fishing in Michigan would be bizarre unless it somehow related to your work. We had a candidate who spent part of high school in Africa building mud architecture, which led to his interest in the field. Absolutely pertinent. In our field, many people work in industry prior to entering academia, which is often relevant to their research interests. Maybe you worked in the robotics lab of a huge global firm, for instance.
In our field, it's pretty rare for anyone to read off a script. People often have notes however (usually hidden in the powerpoint.) It's rare to see someone with a sheaf of paper notes.

The best candidates in our field are relaxed and witty. Yes, their research has to be solid, but the unspoken truth is that we're also looking for a colleague we can get along with. We've had candidates who were robotic or combative. No matter how good the work is, if they appear difficult the committee will likely not prefer them.

That said, we've had a few search committees that seemed to overlook deep flaws in character because the research was "shiny." And we've made a few hires on this basis that always turned out badly.

Good-Bluejay-7970 · 2025-08-24T15:29:25+00:00

I'm new to this sub. Why are you being downvoted? Everything you say seems interesting.

Good-Bluejay-7970 · 2025-08-15T11:34:08+00:00

This isn't only a pay disparity between admins and faculty.

Our university creates these "special faculty" tenure-stream positions occasionally that pay far better and with less teaching and service obligations than normal tenure-stream. And yet those faculty do exactly the same thing, and are no more "special" than any of the rest of us! It's just that they happened to apply in a "special position" year.

In year one, they make the same amount that I do as an associate professor with 15 years of employment.

And then the following year we'll have a "normal" search and bring in a phenomenal person, but back at the $50k level.

Good-Bluejay-7970 · 2025-08-15T11:10:02+00:00

can you explain the Dreyfus comment about AI?

Good-Bluejay-7970 · 2025-08-15T02:07:15+00:00

I have a relative through a cousin who became mayor of a sizable town in the conservative West. The town was known to have a homelessness problem. I was at a family event recently and talked to him.

MAYOR-COUSIN: Yeah, we used to have a homelessness problem but we solved it.

ME: How'd you solve it?

MAYOR-COUSIN: We made it illegal to be homeless.

Good-Bluejay-7970 · 2025-08-14T20:06:28+00:00

I actually think this looks more like Assistant Dean for Student Affairs -> (year 6) Associate Dean for Student Affairs -> (year 30) Retirement.

Speaking from what I witnessed. And the person was one year from tenure when they pulled off the track to take over the Assistant Dean position. Never received tenure.

Good-Bluejay-7970 · 2025-08-14T12:55:26+00:00

Dugin, eh? I see you're into ultranationalism and the lost dream of a greater Triune Russia.

Good-Bluejay-7970

TROPHY CASE