How can anyone take English literature academia, literary theory, publishing companies, the media, and humanities departments seriously when they are perpetuated through social networks rather than the merit of their work and they all lied and viciously criticised [politician name censored to stay on topic]?
It seems like they're all a bunch of fraudulent faggots. Who seriously takes literary theory seriously? Or Gender Studies? Or boring as fuck pomo books? Or Rothko paintings?
I don't get what your trying to say, or do you think those departments were any better when social network didn't exist? also you only ever see the top 10% of academia, even the "fraudulent faggots" your complaining about are in that top 10%.
>>9439105
the social networks have always existed, anon
academia has always been shit
>>9440909
>academia has always been shit
How so?
>>9439095
I form my own opinions. I once had a professor who did nothing but obsess over the allegory of color in Shakespeare. Every time a color was mentioned I would write it down because it would be on a test. Of course it was bullshit, an attempt by an academic teaching at a third rate state university to carve a niche out for himself, and of course the bard didnt care if a certain tapestry was blue. So I did as I was told, got the A, and have ignored it ever since.
I assume you are in your 20s, and if so I feel bad for you, and for anyone who didnt exist in that wonderful time before facebook, where you didnt get triggered every 5 minutes.
>>9440944
t. academic
its almost as if social skills are important to employment. there are very few jobs where social networks aren't important.