The materialism of 50 Cent, Cosma Shalizi, and Stephen Bainbridge

When you frown at me (Yeah!)
Is it cuz I won't provide for you girl? (Cuz I won't provide)
You're after my cheddar (haha)
And your friends they see it too (c'mon)
Spending notes is what you're up to (Is this what you want??)
Women are after my cheddar
(Is this what you want?!)

The Porsche or the Bugatti?
Who measures the measurer?
(To the pure all things are pure)
---

note taking. comments at Law Culture.
(I really hate those little fucks at the Valve.)

A sentence can have a meaning and a subtext. The subtext may be willed or unwilled and may have to do with the words themselves or the form of language. What is the significance of the structure -the rhetorical form- of the arguments of academic or scholastic radicalism? When does the respectful academicising become merely self-perpetuating? What is 'academic' language as a medium? What's the significance of mounting a critical defense of the idea of narrative form rather than simply or not simply using it? What's the difference between the language of a legal philosopher and a trial lawyer? At what point does a sociological scientifically minded study of the arts become un-useful as the result of an unwillingness to accept 'craft' as a category of discussion? [One example of that is here and I find it deeply offensive.] 

There's an argument to be made that all craft is conservative in that it interprets rather than innovates. "The ACLU is a conservative organization." I disagree about the necessity of using explicitly theological terms only because I associate storytellers with atheism, and because the struggle between religion and science is something religion can not win. The struggle between science and craft however, is a different matter.