I had a feeling I was going to hear about this line:
One thing that drives me crazy about our favorite ed-tech K-12 Web 2.0 rhetoricians is the exclusion of modernity and modernism from the discourse.The problem is you'd have a tough time finding two people who agree on what "modernism" means, even within the same discipline, so the sentence means considerably different things to different readers. But it was just a comment, so I figured I'd just say what I was thinking without bothering to define terms. Defining modernism would take at least a paragraph, pulling some books down off the shelf, etc.
So anyhow, I don't really like the Wikipedia entry on Modernism. I was thinking of a very broad definition of Modernism. Essentially, "the response to modernity." Or, to quote the last book I read (well, in part) on Modernism:
This was the period, then, in which writers and artists were trying to define a Modernist aesthetic practice that would be an adequate response to the new conditions of life, the conditions of modernity. These conditions included increasing industrialization and urbanization, the growing power of materialistic capitalism which generated labor unrest, the rise of new media of communications, and the struggle of women for equality and independence.
If I wanted to be more specific and concrete, I could have just said "It drives me crazy when history teacher David Warlick (to name one) writes as if the 20th century was a period of tradition and stability until the invention of the Apple II."