Thread by @Katja_Thieme

James Lindsay is a shitty writer who consistently fails at constructing and editing meaningful sentences.

This abomination of a sentence here, in Merkin's screen shot, boils down to the following main clause:

There is the bending of the university to the ideology. 1/

That's the key thing he's trying to say: There is the bending of the university to the ideology.

Silly, isn't it.

Everything else is needlessly puffed up around the main clause while also insufficiently connected to it. 2/

Starting at the end (because it's simpler):

There is the bending of the university to the ideology.
That has to be appreciated for what it represents.

(What does it represent? Why does it have to be appreciated? Nobody knows.) 3/

Now let's tease apart the piled-high clauses before the main clause. The dependent clause at the centre of the pile-up:

Most Millennials and Zoomers think in this toxic "Critical" way.

4/

Note: I'm leaving out a bunch of modifiers to show the clause structure. Jimmy Concepts loves fogging up your glasses with his modifiers. I suspect he's also fogging up his own vision in the process. 5/

The garbage that's piled around:

It is highly likely that they think in this toxic "Critical" way.
This toxic "Critical" way must not be confused for critical thinking.
This toxic "Critical" way is proof that Critical Pedagogy tilled some soil.

(Highly simplified.)

6/

Arguably, he should have made the soil tilling his main point. It's way more fun than "There is the bending of the university to the ideology." But who am I to say. I don't write crap sentences or faux arguments like that. 7/