But at least they are identifiable by everyone else. Far worse, I think, are the 'intellectual defenders of narratives' who seem reasonable.
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 -
-
-
Ahh the old "Foucault was a libertarian!" shtick huh
-
Yes, deflecting, dodging the actual point, staying true to the general point of the argument but pulling another thread.
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.