Problematic: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Created page with "{{g}}{{dpn|/ˌprɒblɪˈmætɪk/|adj|}} 1. Prone, by its nature to generate problems or difficulties to a given environment. Disruptive to stability and equilibria. 2. Upsetting to libtards. {{sa}} *Performative"
 
No edit summary
 
Line 2: Line 2:
1. Prone, by its nature to generate problems or difficulties to a given environment. Disruptive to stability and equilibria.
1. Prone, by its nature to generate problems or difficulties to a given environment. Disruptive to stability and equilibria.


2. Upsetting to [[libtard]]s.
2. Upsetting to [[libtard]]s. Especially those who have not read Teresa Bejan’s excellent article ''The Problem with Problematic'':
{{quote|I object to [problematic’s] proliferation not simply because it encourages sloppy thinking and poor communication among scholars and students alike, but because it divides audiences into in-groups and out-groups based on unstated, but assumed, commitments. Moreover, by failing to express our own specific objections, we academics insulate ourselves from critique. We make ourselves unchallengeable as teachers and so fail our students and ourselves.}}


{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*Teresa Bejan’s ''[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/problem-with-word-problematic/620289/ The Problem with Problematic]''
*[[Performative]]
*[[Performative]]

Latest revision as of 15:02, 17 June 2023

The Jolly Contrarian’s Glossary
The snippy guide to financial services lingo.™
Index — Click the ᐅ to expand:
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

Problematic
/ˌprɒblɪˈmætɪk/ (adj.)
1. Prone, by its nature to generate problems or difficulties to a given environment. Disruptive to stability and equilibria.

2. Upsetting to libtards. Especially those who have not read Teresa Bejan’s excellent article The Problem with Problematic:

I object to [problematic’s] proliferation not simply because it encourages sloppy thinking and poor communication among scholars and students alike, but because it divides audiences into in-groups and out-groups based on unstated, but assumed, commitments. Moreover, by failing to express our own specific objections, we academics insulate ourselves from critique. We make ourselves unchallengeable as teachers and so fail our students and ourselves.

See also