kids these days

tht

akstavrh
srsly do fuck off with the tabloid level conflations and demotic stupidity
soon to be followed by a post containing 'in my day' and 'never did me any harm' etc
 
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
Staff member
srsly do fuck off with the tabloid level conflations and demotic stupidity
soon to be followed by a post containing 'in my day' and 'never did me any harm' etc

Oh noes, I've engendered the wrath of the social-studies mafia!

Srlsy, there are far too many smug pretentious cunts on this board and it has to be said you are one of the worst of them. Metatextualise that, prick.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
Staff member
Are you trying to start a PAEDO SCARE????

How very, um, tabloid-minded...award yourself 3 Bushell points.
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
Staff member
Well that's ME told! Your copy of Freud For Dummies must be more well-thumbed than my favourite issue of Little Kids Monthly.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
If this board is so full of pretentious cunts, then why do you spend so much of your precious anti-intellectual, middlebrow status quo warrior time on it, then?

I mean, it seems like you'd have more fun date raping someone, then pounding beer with your mates while you all complained about how single mothers have ruined the earth you've inherited by having the nerve to be poor and have sex with future prison inmates. Or you could jerk off to Stuff magazine. Maybe write something 'punny' and post it on another message board. Talk about football? Wait for your parents to send you some support checks? Have dinner with the fam around the campfire all Norman Rockwell like?

Tht is a million times funnier, more engaging, and intelligent than you are. Don't confuse your lack of knowledge about philosophy and the social sciences with "pretentiousness" on the part of the Big Dissensus Other, either.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
i hear "capitalist-realist mouthpieces" is taking new memberships
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
Staff member
Yes, mum! Sorry, mum!

And I promise to stop cluttering up Dissensus with my interminable football posts, sometimes it seems as if that's all I ever talk about, football football football...

Seriously though, this is exactly what I'm talking about: there's this set Dissensus reading list of Lacan, Baudrillard, Zzzzizzzzek and a bunch of others, and their associated academic sphere of critical theory or post-structuralism or whatever you want to call it, and anything outside that is 'anti-intellectual'. It's cliquey beyond belief, I'm sure my high school was never half this bad. I may contribute to or start threads about the development of language, evolutionary theory, contemporary politics, quantum mechanics, education policy or psychopathlogy, but because I have nothing to contribute when you and zhao start tossing each other off with this BoW stuff by 'D&G' (talented chaps, fashion designers AND philosophers!) I am anti-intellectual, a lumpen thug, a fratboy, a beer monster, urrgh ug ug.

This forum is infested with mind-boggling levels of academic chauvinism and self-satisfied pseudo-intellectual hokum.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Yes, mum! Sorry, mum!

And I promise to stop cluttering up Dissensus with my interminable football posts, sometimes it seems as if that's all I ever talk about, football football football...

Seriously though, this is exactly what I'm talking about: there's this set Dissensus reading list of Lacan, Baudrillard, Zzzzizzzzek and a bunch of others, and their associated academic sphere of critical theory or post-structuralism or whatever you want to call it, and anything outside of that is 'anti-intellectual'. It's cliquey beyond belief, I'm sure my high school was never this bad. I may contribute to or even start threads about the development of language, evolutionary theory, contemporary politics, quantum mechanics, education policy or psychopathlogy, but because I have nothing to contribute when you and zhao start tossing each other off with this BoW stuff by 'D&G' (talented chaps, fashion designers AND philosophers!) I am anti-intellectual, a lumpen thug, a fratboy, a beer monster, urrgh ug ug.

This forum is infested with mind-boggling levels of academic chauvinism and self-satisfied pseudo-intellectual hokum.


Oh please. You spent at least a couple of months ruining every thread about theory with one ignorant appeal or another to illiterate and petty attempts to discount all of "post-modernism" (which is a term that, in Mr. Tea's world, apparently means "any theory or philosophy that I have neither read nor understand") on the part of many who clearly had barely mastered the Greeks, let alone 20th century critical theory.

I do not mind people who don't read theory, or care to, and I would never call someone anti-intellectual simply because they have not read theory. I do mind people who, in their lack of knowledge and understanding, try to insist that anyone who does read theory is an "academic chauvinist" or a "pseudo-intellectual." I have had my work complimented, praised, and given astoundingly high marks by some of the founders of hypertext theory. I received a grad school scholarship based on the recommendation letter of one of the foremost post-modern scholars you hate so much.

This is not to say that I think I am better or smarter than anyone here--I like Dissensus because there are SO many posters here who understand and have read the thinkers who interest me, both within and without the confines of academia, and who can speak adeptly of them.

You cannot. You contribute nothing but pot-shots, ressentiment, and commonsensical nonsense to many many discussions.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
there's this set Dissensus reading list of Lacan, Baudrillard, Zzzzizzzzek and a bunch of others, and their associated academic sphere of critical theory or post-structuralism or whatever you want to call it

These are the standard readings in any PhD program in Media Studies/Sociology/Philosophy or any number of academic disciplines at the present time.
 

Eric

Mr Moraigero
These are the standard readings in any PhD program in Media Studies/Sociology/Philosophy or any number of academic disciplines at the present time.

This is false for the philosophy case: it holds true only for those programs that focus on these kind of issues. There are many programs that do not (or at least don't have these things in their core curricula).

I think what MrT is getting at is this: one has the sense on this board (these parts of this board) that if you don't speak the `critical' slang then your opinions are not worth listening to. (Is this too strong? Maybe.) Presumably this is because many people here share this common background, as you say.

Obviously this is not the only route to take away from jacking off to Stuff magazine or whatever you said above, though (whatever that was all about). Working in the sciences might give a different perspective but not necessarily an antintellectual one.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
This is false for the philosophy case: it holds true only for those programs that focus on these kind of issues. There are many programs that do not (or at least don't have these things in their core curricula).

I think what MrT is getting at is this: one has the sense on this board (these parts of this board) that if you don't speak the `critical' slang then your opinions are not worth listening to. (Is this too strong? Maybe.) Presumably this is because many people here share this common background, as you say.

Obviously this is not the only route to take away from jacking off to Stuff magazine or whatever you said above, though (whatever that was all about). Working in the sciences might give a different perspective but not necessarily an antintellectual one.

In the U.S., a lot of philosophy departments are being swallowed up by sociology and media studies, unfortunately :( Budgetary concerns.

It is not Mr. Tea's working in science that breeds his anti-intellectualism, from what I can tell. I work in the sciences as well. The difference is that I don't have to discount any and all critical theory based on so-called scientific principles. It is fine if Mr. Tea doesn't want to read D&G, but why involve yourself in discussion about them if not? Why ridicule those who do, and act as if they're trying to start some sort of "club" when Mr. Tea himself has made a point of opting out of the discussion intellectually from the start?

I think people get annoyed mostly because he is a big fan of pronouncements like the one above, where he may as well have said "spare the rod, spoil the child"!--see how the neo-liberal ivory tower academic straw men have ruined all children and caused these problems! He seems very obviously traditionalist when it comes to social values, and, surprise surprise, most of the theory hounds here are going to disagree adamantly with all of that.
 

Eric

Mr Moraigero
Fair enough nomad. And I guess this is why I don't enter those discussions except to occasionally ask, in a plaintive voice, `but what does it all mean ?' :)

srsly do fuck off with the tabloid level conflations and demotic stupidity
soon to be followed by a post containing 'in my day' and 'never did me any harm' etc

Still, it is easy to see why the above got MrT incensed.
 

Eric

Mr Moraigero
In the U.S., a lot of philosophy departments are being swallowed up by sociology and media studies, unfortunately :( Budgetary concerns.

I havent heard about this. Is this the departments that focus more on critical style stuff? Analytically oriented departments don't seem to be having this problem (?).
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
Staff member
I made the post that started this whole rant/argument/slanging match, incidentally, because I'm pissed off with the increasingly prevalent attitude that the unfortunately sometimes necessary business of disciplining a child is indistinguishable from abuse, and I think people unable to make the distinction aren't fit to be parents, let alone lawmakers in the position of passing legislation to dictate how parents should behave.

A very large proportion of the kids who are having problems growing up and finding their way in life, and causing problems in turn for other people, have got into this fix through not having been taught that are boundaries to socially acceptable behaviour, and the importance of respecting themselves and other people. If anyone wants to take what I've said and turn it in their head into "a sound birching once a day is necessary to instil moral fibre", well that's up to them: grossly misrepresenting other people's opinions seems to be the order of the day on here, after all.
 

dHarry

Well-known member
I made the post that started this whole rant/argument/slanging match, incidentally, because I'm pissed off with the increasingly prevalent attitude that the unfortunately sometimes necessary business of disciplining a child is indistinguishable from abuse, and I think people unable to make the distinction aren't fit to be parents, let alone lawmakers in the position of passing legislation to dictate how parents should behave.

A very large proportion of the kids who are having problems growing up and finding their way in life, and causing problems in turn for other people, have got into this fix through not having been taught that are boundaries to socially acceptable behaviour, and the importance of respecting themselves and other people. If anyone wants to take what I've said and turn it in their head into "a sound birching once a day is necessary to instil moral fibre", well that's up to them: grossly misrepresenting other people's opinions seems to be the order of the day on here, after all.

But what has any of this to do with your "post that started this whole rant/argument/slanging match" - pulling together of a story about a law (designed to protect children from abuse - why is this indistinguishable from discipline?) and an unrelated report of two children getting knocked down and killed? I think this is what tht meant by "tabloid level conflations and demotic stupidity" - it was crassly insensitive and stupid, and had absolutely nothing to do with political correctness or whatever else you were trying to imply. This from your link:

Mr Lambert said: "I don't know how I feel. I was very hysterical yesterday."

"Kieran knows not to go near the motorway, that it is dangerous. I had been teaching him the Green Cross Code only this week."

Kieran was due back in the house at 1700 BST for his evening meal.

When he did not return, Mr Lambert and his brother and 12 neighbours went to find him.

...he suspected his son was rushing home because he was afraid of the dark

- obviously an unfit parent and a victim of a cult studs conspiracy to prevent him smacking/abusing his child.
 

borderpolice

Well-known member
Isn't it the case that less authoritarian education generally leads to less violent children? I doubt that children these days are more violent than say 100 years ago, when smacking was still commonplace. I'm sure this has been thoroughly investigated.
 

bassnation

the abyss
Isn't it the case that less authoritarian education generally leads to less violent children? I doubt that children these days are more violent than say 100 years ago, when smacking was still commonplace. I'm sure this has been thoroughly investigated.

children weren't walking round with knives and guns when i was growing up the uk and the school system was far more harsh back then.
 
Top