Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Larssen
Member
+35|607

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)

Larssen
Member
+35|607
Hey if chomsky is a foundational influence and he's against french theory, french theory and pragmatism become even more relevant to my arguments against it in Europe. Thanks uziq. I'll go read some more chomsky.

You're also not telling me anything new, apart from the idea that chomsky is somehow central to protest against BLM as well, while I know him mostly for his enormous exposure in the war against Iraq and against US imperialist foreign policy in general, for which I do think he's most widely known.

You start insulting me from the very first post only to continually be demonstrated that I actually do have a little more in store than just 'name dropping' but because you started out on that foot you somehow feel forced to keep going on that train even though you know you're wrong in chastising me for even daring to mention certain authors. It's sad in a way.

Last edited by Larssen (2020-07-07 12:26:13)

uziq
Member
+326|2172
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.
uziq
Member
+326|2172
You're also not telling me anything new




Yeah I know so why bring Chomsky into this? He has nothing to do with BLM.
[insert any number of links of chomsky commenting on and giving talks about BLM]

i seriously doubt you were even aware of his literal zeitgeist-defining works on 'manufacturing consent', critiques of the liberal media, neoliberal hegemony and power, etc. all of this stuff which is in the same purview as BLM and doesn't involve those scary-sounding 'french postmodernists'.

Last edited by uziq (2020-07-07 12:32:44)

Larssen
Member
+35|607
what did I just write after the comma? reading comprehension 101
uziq
Member
+326|2172
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?

you called me out on my views on derrida and tut-tutted as if you were somehow being 'proven right' by BLM, when all you've revealed is your complete ignorance of, well, 99% of things. why are you even starting debates about the legacy of french postmodernism when you admit to reading 3 books a year? how arrogant and deluded are you my guy?

Last edited by uziq (2020-07-07 12:34:01)

Larssen
Member
+35|607

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
Member
+326|2172
sure it provides a hermeneutic and interpretive framework that works, that sheds some light. so does althusser and marcuse and the frankfurt school. so does freud. so does lacan. so does nietzsche. so does marx. so does any number of feminist thinkers, such as judith butler or julia kristeva. are the BLM protestors reading it? is it all 'responsible' for BLM?

you tried to mobilise an argument saying specifically that french postmodernism was somehow to blame for the sorry state of affairs of BLM now. laughable.

Last edited by uziq (2020-07-07 12:36:10)

Larssen
Member
+35|607

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)

Larssen
Member
+35|607
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.
uziq
Member
+326|2172
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
Member
+35|607
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?
uziq
Member
+326|2172

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)

uziq
Member
+326|2172

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?
foucault wanted to liberate sexuality and gender from the norms imposed on it by LIBERAL SOCIETY, my guy! he was a marxist critic of liberalism! he was against even the very form of identity politics! he was against static identity at all! and now you're blaming him for the ethnically divided and identarian conflicts of today! oh my god larssen you are one stupid person.

Last edited by uziq (2020-07-07 12:45:26)

Larssen
Member
+35|607
No I don't blanketly reject conflict and protest, I reject radicalism and tunnelvision.
uziq
Member
+326|2172
tunnelvision? have i recommended that you read more than 3 books a year?
uziq
Member
+326|2172

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!
Larssen
Member
+35|607

uziq wrote:

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?
foucault wanted to liberate sexuality and gender from the norms imposed on it by LIBERAL SOCIETY, my guy! he was a marxist critic of liberalism! he was against even the very form of identity politics! he was against static identity at all! and now you're blaming him for the ethnically divided and identarian conflicts of today! oh my god larssen you are one stupid person.
You're missing the point. Nothing I said in that post contradicts what you're writing here?
uziq
Member
+326|2172
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.
Larssen
Member
+35|607
Hey I'd gladly discuss it with people who can actually form an argument without immediately grasping into ad hominems. It's your greatest vice; I don't think you've ever succesfully convinced anyone of anything, rather just left people bitter so that you can feel smug about yourself, but I've underlined that before haven't I. I don't think it's left field at all to say that foucault ,derrida, and wider postmodern thought & discussions have greatly influenced the way in which western society has developed up to the present day and hold quite a bit of answers for us. Hey, that academic you quoted in the article seems to be on the same track of mind but with a different focus. It's bang on the right track, which could be complemented by a more context-specific perspective.

Though here I am going in with that in mind, purposefully taunting you a little, but while half your posts are useful the other half is laugh emojis and ' oooh you're embarrasing yourself! ' type of stuff. In many ways your mind seems to have never left the 1st grade schoolyard. Or perhaps it's part of your cultural upbringing to always insist pressing on the embarrassment of others. Not always going into a discussion already knowing everything there is to know being some sort of irredeemable sin. I suppose you cry yourself to sleep for weeks whenever a colleague or superior had to correct your thinking or work.
uziq
Member
+326|2172
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)

Larssen
Member
+35|607
You're not exactly teaching shit and I'm not asking you to. It's a fact that every time I referenced either postmodernism or rorty you mocked it as outmoded, juvenile, naïve, stuff that nobody cares about. Well now I do feel vindicated in the fact that they hold continued relevance, if not due to my arguments provably so because of an academic you ended up quoting yourself.

I don't see how anything I've written 'proves that I don't know what I'm talking about' - what exactly, that Chomsky has commented on BLM as well? I guess that makes him infintely more influential than the legacy of postmodern thinkers? I've been trying to underline that legacy for a while now and you ended up quoting someone else who did so professionally and who you do listen to ffs

Last edited by Larssen (2020-07-07 13:17:13)

SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+381|2439
Foucault was gay. Keep that in mind. Anything he wrote all started from that premise.
uziq
Member
+326|2172
i've read postmodernism. i have a master's degree in modernism and postmodernism. i think i am qualified to say that most of it is abstruse theory-wank and has no bearing on actual politics today. that's because it doesn't. i have no idea what you were hoping to achieve in your little 'see? HAH! thanks, derrida, for BLM!' talk. you are a very silly little boy.
Larssen
Member
+35|607
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)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2020 Jeff Minard