Here come the lawsuits.....

[heretic888]

I simply quoted a news article. Before that, I commented on philosophy, not people.

Hrmmm.... I seem to recall a few statements about "the Republicans" and "the Democrats". However, if this is a misreading on my part, then I apologize.

And as for the philosophy of pure individualism on which you rely for the start of your last paragraph (parties don't kill voting--people do) I see that by the last half of your last paragraph, you've essentially reversed yourself.

Pure individualism?? Uhhh.... nope.

I still maintain that there are differing cliques or factions within both parties. The Republicans just tend to be slightly better at it (probably because they are representing the interests of far fewer groups and demographics), and the current faction that has control is the Cheney-Wolfowitz group (with their adorable Bush family puppet).

In either event, I think these are groups of particular individuals doing these things --- not "parties".

Laterz.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I find myself at a bit of a loss to understanding how your reliance on the idea that pure individuals are responsible is not your reliance on a philosophy that pure individuals are responsible.

My general point would be that at this moment in history, Republicanism weirdly speaks for power and privilege allied with money, so that even their bad mistakes bespeak their alliances with power and privilege.

democratic errors bespeak a different pattern of alignment with the Powers that Be.

 

[heretic888]

Ah, my mistake then.

I thought you were referring to individual groups, not ideologies.

Of course, when you really look at them, then "Democratism" and "Republicanism" aren't as different as some people would like to believe. Many of the core philosophical assumptions they have are shared.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Gosh! You think?

I mean...but..you're suggesting...that for example, seemingly-divergent "political," (the quotations bespeak their pre-political status, inasmuch as a real politics would necessarily ground itself upon a genuine articulation of natural resource, economic development, and resultant class schisms) parties in an advanced capitalist society would, perforce, rigorously maintain their, "differences," and indeed even, "contradictions," (again, the quotes bespeak the pseudo-real nature of these differences and contradictions) not so much as a deceptive tactic directed by elements of a conscious ruling cadre against a well-theorized working class, but as part of a general suite of deceptive strategies aimed at concealing/promulgating the, "natural," state of affairs from/among "rulers," and "ruled," alike.

This, indeed, would necessarily be among the expectable ideological formations of late capital, which as a string of Marxist theorists from Lukacs through Althusser and Virilio have pointed out, must constantly create states of emergency to stave off the arrival of what would indeed be true emergency, the "emergency," of genuine economic and philosophical transformation.

Instead, the insisted-upon, indeed showcased, "differences," of "Democrat," and "Republican," play their part in what Debord identified as the, "society of the spectacle," averting the public's eyes from the real differences operating behind the curtain of their public performances. Similalry, the irruptive claims of such political parties on the fringes as, "Libertarian," and, "Independent," provide important ancillary testimony to the, "democracy," of a Western society engaged in a struggle against its Other, even as they siphon off any energy that might be given to real analysis or real unrest.

Waall, now. I never done thought of thet.

 

[heretic888]

"You will be assimilated...."

Tell me something, Robert, is discussing things in an inherently condescending tone just "the way you talk" or is that intentional??

 

[rmcrobertson]

Didn't get the joke, didja?

Or the one about calling the kettle?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

"Tell me something, Robert, is discussing things in an inherently condescending tone just "the way you talk" or is that intentional??"

Or both, of course.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Axly, Sparkies, it's an honestly-come-by academic's tone of voice. Let me suggest that for every particle of condescenscion on my part, there are corresponding atoms of insecurity and ressentiment on yours.

While I sure won't claim innocence in this, above all, you're pissed because I don't agree with you, sometimes, and because I call you on it, sometimes, when I think you're wrong.

It's a common tactic: can't respond to the issue, so try to sluff everything off on the fantasized personality defects of the person who brought the issue up.

I repeat for the 15th time: best way to handle real or imagined condescension is to outargue the guy.

Interestingly and back on the Almighty Topic, this is realted to the reasons that some folks can't stand John Kerry. He's a damn know-it-all, pointy-head, Eastern limp-wristed intellectual, too.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Axly, Sparkies, it's an honestly-come-by academic's tone of voice. Let me suggest that for every particle of condescenscion on my part, there are corresponding atoms of insecurity and ressentiment on yours.

The honestly-come-by academics, at least the ones I've met in undergrad. and law school, attempt to reason with the other person's ARGUMENT, taking it at face value, and no matter how ignorant, limited, arbitrary, or just plain dumb it may be, and help the other person to actually understand the error, respecting the other person as someone who actually has a mind of their own.

The honestly-come-by academics I've met do not mock and ridicule the other person, disregard the argument via attacking the other person's (I've been trying to avoid the word "opponent", so forgive the redundancy) motives and ideology, catgorize the other person with extremist positions to further criticize them, and then throw a list of book titles and tell the other person to go away until they've read them. Regardless of the content of your claims, you rely on all these strategies on a regular basis.

Frankly, if you treat your students in class with the same amount of disrespect, condescention, and snideness as you regularly display on here, I wouldn't be surprised if none of them even bothered asking questions. Unless the questions were just designed to, let's say, underscore one of your own points.

Interestingly and back on the Almighty Topic, this is realted to the reasons that some folks can't stand John Kerry. He's a damn know-it-all, pointy-head, Eastern limp-wristed intellectual, too.

Right, 'cause that's exactly how either heretic or I feel about intellectuals. Those college professors that I regularly talked and debated with through all three years of undergrad, just a bunch of damned Commies, ever' one of 'em. Lemme' grab my pants and shotgun, load in the truck, an I kin tell ya' all aboutem on da way to da deer hunt.

Now see, did that last paragraph sound like come-on-by, open-arms honest discussion to you?

 

[raedyn]

Hey guys, I think this is getting a little too personal. You're all getting a little *ahem* less polite in your tone. Take a step back.

One of the other women said something about how she avoids the Study because of all the penis-wagging. That's what this is turning into. Please. Stop it. You're all smarter than that.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, I'm certainly not.

Among the judgments on people I DON'T pass is this: I don't judge people on their work, especially when I don't know them and I don't like their ideas.

As for what academics don't do, sorry. I know way more about this than you do, and trust me--we all of us can be true dicks.

However, what you are actually discussing is critique. You don't like what you're reading; to handle this, you launch a series of personal insults, and claim that there's something awry in the other guy's personality.

Incidentally, this latest string of accusations--whoever's at fault--actually started when I quoted a newspaper article.

Man, just argue with the ideas. That's what I'm doing.

 

[heretic888]

However, what you are actually discussing is critique. You don't like what you're reading; to handle this, you launch a series of personal insults, and claim that there's something awry in the other guy's personality.

Whu-ah?? :idunno:

Ummm.... weren't you the one insinuating on the abortion thread that everyone that disagrees with you is a patriarchally-energized sexist going about trying to keep them womenfolk down, gawdammit???

Weren't you also the one lobbing Freudian claims of transference and projectionism then, and now, to everyone who disagrees with you.

And, the latest example --- whether you support Kerry or not, the notion that everyone that doesn't like him is somehow anti-intellectual is the latest in the "Thesis About Why I Am Better Than Those That Disagree".

*blinks* I dunno. Maybe I'm just imagining this all...

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Among the judgments on people I DON'T pass is this: I don't judge people on their work, especially when I don't know them and I don't like their ideas.

This I just honestly didn't understand.

As for what academics don't do, sorry. I know way more about this than you do, and trust me--we all of us can be true dicks.

Well, I certainly know the academics I know, and they're much closer to the honest, come-on-by approach that you describe then you seem to be, based on board history. Besides, anyone "can be true dicks"; I was discussing how the professors I know actually act, rather than "could be acting like".

However, what you are actually discussing is critique. You don't like what you're reading; to handle this, you launch a series of personal insults, and claim that there's something awry in the other guy's personality.

Correction: I disagreed with what you were claiming about your tone and how you respond to others on the board, which count as parts of your personality, and pointed this out.

Man, just argue with the ideas. That's what I'm doing.

Uh-huh. Your pretending to be above personal attacks is almost funny to listen to.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Quote:
As for what academics don't do, sorry. I know way more about this than you do, and trust me--we all of us can be true dicks.
Well, I certainly know the academics I know, and they're much closer to the honest, come-on-by approach that you describe then you seem to be, based on board history. Besides, anyone "can be true dicks"; I was discussing how the professors I know actually act, rather than "could be acting like".

That's impressive - of the academics I have met, there seems to be a good number of pricks (men and women alike, shockingly).

 

[Flatlander]

====================
Mod. Note.
Please, keep the conversation on topic, and less personal.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Moderator-
====================

 

[rmcrobertson]

Please read what I actually wrote, which began (in response to a remark that we were too intelligent to act this way), "Well, I'm certainly not."

My remark about what academics could be employed the conditional tense for a reason.

I do not "lob," Freudian accusations. I calls 'em likes I sees 'em.

And I stand behind two comments: in the end, all the discussion of brainwaves and fetuses by guys is a mask. However, if you'll read what I wrote, you may see that I kept using the pronoun, "we," for a very good reason.

And among the problems Kerry has (beyond the whole Herman Munster thing) is that he's interpreted as an Eastern, elitist intellectual.

On occasion, some of the stuff people write at me is sufficiently symptomatic as to make me wonder about the same issue.

Now, back to the issue--I heard some bonehead commentator today announce that the Democrats had become the party of the wealthy elite, while the Republicans were now the party of the good old working class stiffs of this country.

Now there's a weird interpretation of reality and history.

 

[heretic888]

I do not "lob," Freudian accusations. I calls 'em likes I sees 'em.

Throwing pseudo-Freudian analyses at anyone you haven't spent quite some time knowing and talking with is, at best, meaningless. And, perhaps symptomatic of something else, as well (see, I can do it, too!!).

I doubt Freud would make assumptions about anonymous people he has spoken less than 200 words with, if you know what I mean...

I mean, if that were the case, then anybody with a library card could start psychoanalyzing the lot of us. Just forget it takes a lotta hard work, study, and experience to even consider getting to that point...

Now, back to the issue--I heard some bonehead commentator today announce that the Democrats had become the party of the wealthy elite, while the Republicans were now the party of the good old working class stiffs of this country.

Not surprising, really.

One of the common staples the Bush supporters have attempted is to portray Dubya as some kind of "working man" or "country boy". The common vein was to see Kerry and Edwards as "those millionares", but don't hold Bush and Cheney to the same standard.

That's why, for example, the new bumper stickers just say "W 04". No mention of Mr. Halliburton at all (even though he's really the one calling the shots). Gee, wonder why??

... but, for what its worth, I think both political parties are supporting the wealthy elite. And, I doubt that's gonna change.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I don't make assumptions about you, bubba, O pot-calling kettle.

I make some comments on the general implications of some of what you write, with particular attention to what Frederic Jameson would call, "the political unconscious," underpinning some of what you write.

Oddly, you seem to feel completely free to make judgments about my actual character, teaching, etc., based merely upon reading what I write--often upon reading what I write rather badly. Often, too, upon reading rather selectively--still wondering, for ex, why you think I used the pronoun, "we."

Personally, I think you're getting your intellectual tail kicked and don't like it--well, I actually think we're both dick-waving, intellectually speaking, so who cares who wins.

But O well, wotthell, love makes the world go 'round.

 

[tshadowchaser]

Folks if you want to attack each other take it to another area : pm, e-mail, telephone, etc.
Lets get back to the subject at hand and get away from the personl attacks
I highly suggest you both can use the ignor feature of this forum if you don't like what the other is writting. That is unless you both thrive on trying to have the last word

 

[MisterMike]

3 smacks with Roald Dahl's "The Twits."

hehehehe...couldn't resist :whip: :whip: :whip: