Clinamenic
Binary & Tweed
I can't believe we're on page 72.
The Feminine Perspective against the Manosphere
- Thread starter ?!..!?
- Start date
-
- Tags
- a bunch of trolls trolling each other aesthetic jihad chicks dig guys with money cia lesbian david lesbian do you tongue punch the dirt star? dolezal1977 eating pussy without asking everyone on this board is a troll extraterrestrial bisexual feminist travis bickle justified ancients of noncing lesbian separatism luka's crop top malelesbian: english rp boy toy malethespian mansplaining feminism mr tea confirmed pegging freak mrs tea eaten out 24/7 prevent prevent! sarlacc pit taking the filth the art of trolling the feminonce massive the perils of self-publishing the viper of cunnilingus undisciplined lockerroom pussy eating unimaginable anguish version's throbbing penis
LMAO the most anti-intellectual presidential candidate we've ever had, and you try to criticize me by comparing my talk of "legitimate intellectuals" to him. "You sound like some person I dislike" -- that's not an argument. That's just superficiality. You admit you're an anti-intellectual dilletante, and you're not even trying to hide it anymore. Just goes to show you never had a substantive argument against meand focus mainly on irrelevant presentational elements. Maybe you could try to lessen your vapidity too? Just don't rely on Chat GPT!
I have very good posture.
Also everyone knows acting feminine goes beyond a mere fashion choice. Try again.
B you believe psychic powers are real. You have no right to criticize the gender ideology movement as unscientific ever again.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
I believe they're real because of the countless scientific experiments showing that they are real; read Dean Radin for an overview.
Judith Butler is not a scientist. She's a gasbag.
I never said she was a scientist. But unlike you, she speaks da TRUTH
Why does she have to be a scientist anyway? Because you support scientism so blindly that you'll even believe bad science over Butler's common sense claims?
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Butler's a woolier thinker than a sheep shearer doing piecework.
What does that mean? You want to get into particular arguments? You want to give examples? Until then we've nothing to discuss.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
I explained earlier in the thread what the problems were. But the fundamental issue of Butler is that she hides her poor thinking and bad science behind a smokescreen of clunky and unreadable prose, not an unusual strategy for other mediocrities of that ilk.
That is an argument about style and presentation, NOT a substantial criticism of any of Butler's arguments. Thus I don't need to respond to it. Guess you're as shallow as the rest!
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
As I just said, I've already addressed what I take to be the logic but, if the logic were any good, she would be able to express it clearly, not least because it would thereby be more convincing. That she chooses to write so unclearly suggests that the logic is bad. If it were a student essay it would be sent back for a rewrite until the argument is clear.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Presumably her editors realised that there was no hidden gem beneath the morass of poor writing and so didn't even attempt to get her to clean it up.
This is pathetic, I'm sorry. "If it's unclear it must be a bad argument" you say. But if you believe that, then just give up on continental philosophy (although it's not clear you ever tried to study it in the first place) There are very good reasons why good philosophy often can't be expressed clearly. If you don't understand those reasons you aren't going to be able to understand a page of Butler's influences, much less Butler's own work. Frankly, I doubt that you did critique Butler's arguments in earlier in the thread because I don't think you've ever read them.
Murphy
cat malogen
I'm too feminine to watch sports sorry!
Murphy
cat malogen
I'm too feminine to watch sports sorry!
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
A good argument gains force by being expressed clearly and loses force by obfuscation.
A bad argument loses force by being expressed clearly and gains force by obfuscation.
That she is clearly trying to obfuscate shows that either the argument is bad and she is choosing the optimum strategy or the argument is good and she is choosing the worst strategy. Neither casts her or her argument in a good light.
Sure, it might be that her argument is especially profound and it's somehow impossible to express it clearly but I haven't seen any indication at all that this is the case.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
As much as it pains me to agree with the reactionary little gimp, Butler is widely regarded as one of the worst academic writers of all time:
Why Academics Revel in Bad Writing | The Walrus
The profession's taste for tortured verbiage comes from a desire to be taken seriously. But does it matter if no one actually reads their work?
thewalrus.ca
Alan Sokal debunked this style of discourse 30 years ago, didn't he? If even the supposed experts are unable to distinguish an intentional parody from the 'real thing', then the whole enterprise is self-evidently worthless.
Totally false. A good argument is SOUND. It's premises and conclusion are all true and the argument is valid. Your claims about clarity have nothing to with the evalutation of arguments, only the evaluation of style. But I don't care about style. I care about ideas. Butler's ideas are true. If you want to argue against them, you'll abandon this silly sophistry about presentation. Show me a single unsound argument she makes, I dare you.
Yes, because you never read Butler.
I don't care. Most people who say that have never read them, much less understood them. Besides , why does the quality of their writing matter? Their arguments and ideas are good, that's what matters. Arguments about good or bad writing aren't relevant to philosophy. They're relevant to style guides and Composition 101 classes and such.
Nope. Sokal's arguments all sucked, and I can explain to you in detail why if you cite them. Sokal's work has almost no merit as a criticism of continental philosophy and almost everyone who actually understands postmodernism knows he's wrong.
This isn't even true by the standards of Sokal's own argument. The point was never to show that "the whole enterprise" of Theory is worthless, only to show that better peer review practices are needed, i.e. that Theorists should consult actual scientists before they make claims about science. But Butler almost never makes claims about science so your argument here isn't even relevant to their work.