BF2S Forums DAST Chat

uziq wrote:

i didn't say all of the alt-right was postmodernist. i said the postmodernist moment, with its 'deconstructive' turn, in the 1970s unleashed just as many  right-wing tendencies as left ones. that you can just as easily point to fascists and white supremacists today as the 'legacy of postmodernism' as you can make claims about BLM being a 'postmodern' organization (it's not).

it's just a small example of why you invoking these big terms is stupid and pointless, because you don't know what you're talking about when you drag them up.

Well actually I agree with Land but the legacy is of course varied in nature and not all parties are influenced in the same way. It's exactly what I've been saying - they're clearly reactionary against these developments that have had a profound impact on wider society. You tell me postmodernism is so out of style and now quote an academic commenting on their legacy in 2019. This is a self-diss of the highest order uziq. Is it relevant or isn't it? Make up your mind you silly boy

Last edited by Larssen (2020-07-07 12:19:13)

i didn't say he was central to BLM, but i said he's very many times more relevant and involved in BLM than fucking 'french postmodernism'. you've just committed another 2 page facepalm, going on about 'uziq was wrong and we are seeing the legacy of foucault and derrida in america'. french theory has been a niche concern since the 1970s, as i said in my last conversation with you about it, months ago. i'm not wrong.

there's an entire history of civil rights, organization and protest, liberal critics, radicals, etc. endogenous to america. they aren't 'postmodernists', none of them. no 'pessimistic, nihilistic' philosophies. thinkers like chomsky, yes, or cornel west, or any number of serious civil rights activists. you tying BLM to fucking derrida is really zany. how many black activists do you think are interested in deconstruction, semiotics and platonism? because that's what you need to unpack derrida.

what did I just write after the comma? reading comprehension 101

uziq wrote:

i didn't say he was central to BLM, but i said he's very many times more relevant and involved in BLM than fucking 'french postmodernism'. you've just committed another 2 page facepalm, going on about 'uziq was wrong and we are seeing the legacy of foucault and derrida in america'. french theory has been a niche concern since the 1970s, as i said in my last conversation with you about it, months ago. i'm not wrong.

there's an entire history of civil rights, organization and protest, liberal critics, radicals, etc. endogenous to america. they aren't 'postmodernists', none of them. no 'pessimistic, nihilistic' philosophies. thinkers like chomsky, yes, or cornel west, or any number of serious civil rights activists. you tying BLM to fucking derrida is really zany. how many black activists do you think are interested in deconstruction, semiotics and platonism? because that's what you need to unpack derrida.

So don't you reckon french school thought on power structures and deconstruction provide a valid analytical lens through which we can come to understand identitarian struggle in the 21st century? Cause I think it do

uziq wrote:

the last 2 pages have been you learning new things. you are clueless. i still have no fucking idea what your original claim even means. it makes zero sense on any level. preferring rortyian pragmatism and marxian analysis over two french guys who spent their entire life doing marxian analysis? what now?

We've argued at length before about how I prefer to look at the issues of left-behind communities in terms of socioeconomic analysis rather than one focusing on cultural or ethnic/racial identity struggle. I see a trace of french philosophy of the 70s in how we've come to the current situation wherein these factors dominate political discussions.

Last edited by Larssen (2020-07-07 12:37:49)

omg i just can't even be bothered. the misreadings and ignorance just keeps spiralling out of control. neither foucault or derrida were identitarians, promoting 'identity politics'. they were committed fucking marxists. read a book.

Larssen wrote:

and I also see more of a solution in pragmatism than in the increasingly heated and polarised way in which things are shaping up. That jejune out of date thinking you so hate.

so it's just like i said, and your point all along has been 'compromise and negotiation are better than conflict and protest'. you didn't need to mention rorty at all (totally gratuitous) for this point, and your invocation of derrida and foucault are so bizarre as to be a solecism. great job, larssen.

things are heating up because the american civil rights movement is being revived. it has its own thinkers, its own history, its own momentum. i didn't describe any of that stuff as 'jejune'. very very far away from the legacy and influence of french theory, anyway. totally irrelevant. not 'that stuff i hate' at all, it's completely different and unrelated.

i should add that i said i hated and didn't like french theory in a qualified way. i spent 4 years reading and writing about it, at graduate research level. i have read it all back-to-front several times. very different from you railing against it and dismissing it when you haven't even the most basic grasp of the subject.

Last edited by uziq (2020-07-07 13:05:32)

No I don't blanketly reject conflict and protest, I reject radicalism and tunnelvision.

Larssen wrote:

Foucault wrote an entire book on (sexual) identity politics which strongly influenced subsequent analytical models approaching the topic of identity? They're not identitarian, but their thought certainly helped shape discussions on identity. Didn't I also say that their thoughts were adopted without the nuance?

“Do not ask who I am and do not ask me to remain the same: leave it to our bureaucrats and our police to see that our papers are in order.” - foucault.

READ A FUCKING BOOK!

lol i think you should really think about what you're saying. it's hopeless. so what's happened is BLM protestors have 'read foucault without nuance', changing his thought and writing into its opposite, to fuel their own identity-based politics of division (in your view). but it's definitely foucault's fault, yep. it's definitely french theory from 1970 that has set the tone and given BLM its philosophy. just, er, they messed up their reading a bit. there's no 'nuance'.

nevermind that there's, er, an entire history of civil rights protest in america that they can draw from. nevermind that they have native philosophers and thinkers, and public intellectuals such as noam chomsky (who explicitly disavow and dismiss french theory, natch). nope, it's definitely the legacy of postmodern french theory! er, for some reason that isn't at all clear.

very convincing stuff. i really hope you don't start off on your little routine in a bar or something. it would be embarrassing to get stopped in your tracks by anyone with even half a clue.

it's not my job to teach you philosophy 101. you started out by mentioning me and implying strongly that i was wrong, and you were vindicated in your view. turns out you don't have the faintest clue what you're on about, and you like the sound of your own voice when doing impressions of the economist ('seems pertinent' etc etc).

i'm sorry if i hurt your feelings. i don't need to be patient and teach you about french postmodernism through socratic dialogue, though. you can pay me if you really want to get up to speed on all those books you've not been reading.

is it even worth pointing out that, if you had any humility and self-awareness, you could have admitted you didn't know what you were talking about at any point in the last two pages and saved all the rancour? instead you've blundered from misreadings of foucault, ignorance about chomsky, cluelessness over postmodernism ... you drag your way through all these topics you have only elementary knowledge of, and pretend that you're 'developing an argument'.

you've done this act several times before, by the way. make some grand-sounding pronouncements, then backtrack and hedge for a while, before eventually giving the argument. then you start on the parthian shots. 'i guess you are just a loser', 'wow you are really stuck on the school playground', 'the problem, actually, is your attitude'. just how monstrous is your ego exactly that you have to maneuver every wrongheaded thing you say into silly routines of exaggerated taking-offense and shocked-manners? 'oh, i'm just appalled by your posting style ...'

Last edited by uziq (2020-07-07 13:15:42)

Foucault was gay. Keep that in mind. Anything he wrote all started from that premise.

So you disagree with Land but agree with him?

So why did you decide to study something that you're convinced has no relevance. It's awfully confusing.

Last edited by Larssen (2020-07-07 13:21:19)