People can hold them but sincerely & be prepared to discuss them honestly & argue for them & listen to counterviews with aim to understand
Had a lot of these with PoMos recently where they look like they're criticising my essay but in fact, they're changing angles.
-
-
I'm saying that certain ideas which exist now can be traced back to certain ideas in academia as exemplified by certain theorists.
-
They will take the theorists I'm talking abt & show them saying something else & claim this disproves that PoMo underlies the problems now.
-
Bit like 'Islam is not responsible for death penalties for apostates from Islam coz Quran says there can be no compulsion in religion.'
-
But 'Derrida's ideas abt interpretation of language being more important than intended meaning can't underlie microaggressions because...
-
'...Derrida said in a later interview that he hated identity politics.' But not stated so clearly & still seeming to address my arguments.
-
But anyway, changing the point almost unnoticeably but so they're arguing against something that isn;t being claimed.
-
Yes and if they're pomo they'll also throw in a bunch of dumb words you don't know to try to delegitimize you, all while ignoring main point
-
Yes, that too.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.