Letters to the Editor
-
kitt
I can honestly say of all the posters I read on here, you're the most drivel worthy.
A hearty f-you, kitt. You brought nothing to the table but a large bottle of whine.
-
Caiubbi
I think you mean, "What exactly are you implying." A small but not exactly trivial semantic point. Anyone who claims to have a Ph.D. should be able to do better.
No matter how educated or uneducated I am, you're still an asshole.
Maybe you do have a Ph.D. Maybe you don't.
Maybe I'm a secret plant by the Neo-Cons. Ooohh... scarrry...
But your repeated invocation of the Frankfurt folks is extremely interesting and extremely painful to any thinking person. As others have pointed out, Lacan had nothing to do with Frankfurt.
Congratulations. You're a genius.
Lacan, the Frankfurt school, Bourdieu and the post-Structuralists all came after the simplified "true/false" 19th century "logical fallacies" of wonder genius Paul R.
I'm not sure how many times bringing up Lacan and Frankfurt will make you feel you "got" me on some point I never made. I listed a number of 20th century innovators who expanded on the simple linguistic textual analysis that seems to be all Paul is capable of engaging in.
But go ahead dude. Pat yourself on the back.
Neither did the truly noble Bourdieu. The guy you really are relying on is the supreme idiot, Derrida.
Oh man, classifying philosophers with one word perjoratives. You're an intellectual giant, friend. Your significant other must hate you with a raging and supressed passion. I knew people like you in grad school. Let me guess. No teaching job. Researcher? Hang in there, bro. Someday you'll pay off the loans.
It is possible to have a certain amount of "affective" sympathy for Benjamin--though very little for his German collaborators (and I use the term advisedly). Still, one has to admit that Benjamin's nastily elitist views on music (for example) were and are extremely unpleasant.
German collaborators? Adorno? Kracauer? "Sympathy"? What in Marx's name are you saying? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
But let me come to the point(s)
Please. Dear God please make a point.
1) Having--or claiming to have--a Ph.D. is irrelevant. I spent all my adult life work around people with that degree, and I'm here to tell you they were, as a group, as dumb as a box of rocks. Your (claimed) degree cuts no ice here.
Judging by your inanities, it's not hard to see why you reject the process.
2) The Frankfurt introduction of "affect" into the "dialectic" was first, trivial, since it amounted only to the assertion that the way people FEEL about something has an effect on the way they THINK about it (or think they think about it); and, second, pernicious, because it encouraged the nasty and dangerous "deconstructionist" notion that we can't ever really know anything.
Wow. I could write another dissertation simply on your pathology. This literally makes no sense. The Frankfurt school's critical innovations revolutionized cultural studies, historiography, media studies, gender and race studies, visual studies, and works today in compliment with psychoanalysis, semiotics, queer theory and just about every other branch of academia.
But since Caiubbi dismisses it, I'll let the academy know. Time to rewrite the canon from scratch.
In a different context, this was a notion already amply explored by the American pragmatists. But in their view, this was a difficulty to be confronted in practice. In the view of the inheritors of the Frankfurt School, it was not a difficulty at all, but something to be celebrated around academic tribal fires, as the defeat of reason.
So sayeth the Neo-Cons. Closing of the American Mind and all that. They'd love you at the Heritage Foundation.
What, nothing on how it's all a secret agenda to indoctrinate young people into neo-Marxism?
The net effect was to have intellectuals trying to tell hungry people that they were not hungry, but were only trapped in an inescapable epistemological maze.
Wow. Just wow. No idea how to respond to this. Your academic bitterness is very sad.
3) Piss off.
Indeed.
-
Evil is as evil does
Iran is good we are evil -- tiberius
I am pretty sure that the folks governing Iran are bad folks.
I am also pretty sure that the Iranian people are really no different than we are on the good/bad scale.
I am completely positive that you are evil.
You and your kind are People of the Lie.
http://www.amazon.com/People-Lie-M-Scott-Peck/dp/0684848597
-
@WinSmith
I still don't know what your problem with what I wrote is.
That you draw conclusions without evidence. The absence of evidence somehow justifies your opinion. Because he does not bring up *anything* that identifies why he feels what he does allows you to speculate those reasons? Because you're a fan?
I don't disagree with your dismissing the fact that another poster raised the point, but you them dismissed the point based on personal speculation.
Glenn didn't say that "Jewish Money" was used exclusively for right wing causes - that's your presumption. Glenn's point, I think, is that the ADL, while purportedly representing all Jewish people, is in fact supporting a narrow view that contradicts their stated mission.
I agree that the phrase "Jewish money" is ugly. It, in itself, raises the vulgar stereotypes you and most of us wish to confront. But Glenn is using the term rhetorically, in the sense that anyone who mentions that a conservative Jewish organization using its funds to support conservative Bush administration ambitions, including attacking Iran, cannot be criticized is "offensive."
I can appreciate this is a fine line to walk -- I walk it every day of my life -- but there's nothing wrong with his statement. I happen to agree regardless of how it might embolden antisemitic proselytizers. There are often pains to speaking the truth, but still truth is paramount. Else you build on a house of cards.
Facts are used to construct narratives which privilege meanings often along preexisting paths. The notion of "Jewish money" working to send countries into war or behind the scenes string pulling has a long and inglorious history that Glenn either feels is irrelevant or besides the point. It is neither.
With all due respect, you are like water looking for the path. You trickle into a crevice hoping it will lead you to the sea. Glenn has never said anything to minimize antisemitism.
IMO, you picked a fight with people who mostly agree with you. You were picked on, to a degree, not warranted. But you responded with incredible arrogance and no hint that you wish to learn, but only to teach.
If you fail to see or acknowledge the historical precedents of this narrative here in America, in Russia, in Germany, or today on David Duke or jewwatch.com's rantings, then you're complicit.
But we don't. And that's the rub. You diminish my wife's family's experiences due only to your arrogance. No one is denial, but you. And that is that you simply might not have it all down. Is that so terrible?
Learn first by forgetting what you know.