(that's a general question; in the particular context of MIT I'd assume the bar would be a useful academic conversation)
Which questions are fair game for academic inquiry?
Which are not?
How do we know ahead of time what will be useful and what won't be?
Is the question above this line academically useful?
(I would like to provide an example, but I attempted and can't think of any)
> What topics are academic? Which are not?
Topics which discuss general ideas which are logically (or at least rhetorically) decidable are academic. Topics which discuss particular individuals and are matters of taste are not.
> Which questions are fair game for academic inquiry?
cf supra
> Which are not?
cf supra
> How do we know ahead of time what will be useful and what won't be?
If a topic falls under an existing academic discipline, it will likely be useful. As stated above, matters of taste are unlikely to be useful. (possibly, if one has reason to believe one can capture a global distribution of tastes? or provide a theory of changes in distributions of tastes, etc.)
> Is the question above this line academically useful?
Useful for a "philosophy of academics" discipline, probably not so useful for any non-meta discipline. Note, however, that discipline's core questions will change over time, as one subfield gets overworked and new subfields are discovered.
Is taste arbitrary?
Do human preferences have a basis?
Do human preferences have constraints?
If so, are these bases or constraints available for academic study?
Can you suggest bases and/or constraints? If you can make a coherent theory of it, then sure, that'd* be worthy of inquiry. (cf gp)
* similar to how stat mech. and quantum have very little to say about any individual transition, but can discriminate over the macro-states available to a whole collection of micro-states?
"wanna fuck?"
Now I get to watch you and others try to backpedal "enlarging understanding" to simply mean communicate so that the above expression can fall into it, otherwise you're clearly wrong.
But no human is going to use the phrase "enlarging understanding" to simply mean communication, so I'm not going to buy it.
However (assuming the context is not harassment) it is "uncovering truth": the presence or absence of consent.
(resolved: that we should turn conversation into action?
Come on, baby, I'm tired of talking
Grab your coat and let's start walking
)They went for the other one, that sure showed me! No mental gymnastics here folks, just good ole fashioned awesome-sauceness.
---
or how about no, I reject it just as I said I would.
"expression is always about stuff".
Now go on, try to show that I'm wrong. I've both said something irrefutable and said nothing at all.