Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 63

Thread: twitter is hell

  1. #41
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,704

    Default Re: twitter is hell

    Meridian:

    Whether someone is right to be judgemental, or have reasons to think their point of view is "superior", or even to be patronizing: these are moral questions. They might very well be wrong to take on their haughty attitude. But then they are morally in the wrong. The problem is in no case "moralism", since that means nothing. The function of the word is to imply there is something systematically wrong with making moral judgements, usually only those of a specific kind. Leftists are also often accused of being moralists -- by right-wingers, of course. It effectively reduces someone's normative judgement to a case for psychological consideration.

    If it has some other function I've yet to see it.
    Yes, sure, it is a moral question whether or not to be a moralizer, but moralising itself is distinct from being a moral theorist. One can moralise and have no clue about moral theory, or even be entirely devoid of morals in any recognised sense. Pointing out that someone else is moralising is a legitimate criticism, even if only to expose their pomposity, and perhaps inconsistency.

    [Not sure you meant to say that "moralism...means nothing". The word is in the dictionary. It's not like "Bu Bu Bu". It also has a speakers' meaning, too. It could be used to imply (rightly or wrongly) that someone is a fraud, or a con artist, or is being superficial, or trivial, or picking an easy target, or missing the point, or...

    And yes, leftists are sometimes accused of being moralists, and I am sure some of them are; nevertheless, I am not too sure what this has got to do with anything. Leftists are also accused of being 'Muslim lovers'. Does that mean we all are? Or that any of us are?

    Not sure either how you arrived at this conclusion so positively: "It effectively reduces someone's normative judgement to a case for psychological consideration." It can do, but that isn't necessary either.

    And an accusation that someone is moralising has plenty of functions. I listed several above (one of which, at a pinch, could be considered 'psychological', but not the rest). There are many others.
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

  2. #42
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,704

    Default Re: twitter is hell

    ravn:

    Clarify.
    I'm surprised you can even spell this word.

    Whenever you have been asked to 'clarify' your sketchy (and generally unsupported) ideas, you almost invariably ignore that request, no matter how many times you are asked.
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

  3. #43
    Senior Voting Member ravn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    1,475

    Default Re: twitter is hell

    Quote Originally Posted by Meridian View Post
    No, what I said in the post you're selectively quoting is clear already.
    It's a fact that you have put scare quotes around the term diversity.

    So what exactly do *you* think that term means? Or at least what does it mean *for* you?

    For example, the UK has 58,789,194 people. Does it have a diversity within that number or not? It evidently does. They don't all speak just only the same language, have the same religion, or have the same culture in common with the majority.

    & when you say about twitter that: "[a]ny sane person would recoil from witnessing its various hives' propensity to non-cognitive groupthink. Its irony-steeped, language-obsessed culture, the follower structure, and the mechanism of latching on to tags and buzzwords, all leads to the demonisation of anyone not "in", anyone failing to meet purely formal demands ... " & when you say: "Not my job to fix your reading-comprehension, but sad to see it's still broken." [sic], it's evident that what you say about twitter could easily be said about your own allocutions. If you're into irony, do you see the irony in what you project?

    & as far the non-cognition allegedly completely involved in group-think, people are either intentionally or unintentionally conforming to a group, for some stated or unstated purpose or reason. That suggests that there is a cognitive & non-cognitive aspect going on within all of that.

    Can you prove otherwise?

    Clarify.

  4. #44
    Senior Voting Member Meridian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,626

    Default Re: twitter is hell

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein
    Yes, sure, it is a moral question whether or not to be a moralizer, but moralising itself is distinct from being a moral theorist. One can moralise and have no clue about moral theory, or even be entirely devoid of morals in any recognised sense. Pointing out that someone else is moralising is a legitimate criticism, even if only to expose their pomposity, and perhaps inconsistency.

    [Not sure you meant to say that "moralism...means nothing". The word is in the dictionary. It's not like "Bu Bu Bu". It also has a speakers' meaning, too. It could be used to imply (rightly or wrongly) that someone is a fraud, or a con artist, or is being superficial, or trivial, or picking an easy target, or missing the point, or...

    And yes, leftists are sometimes accused of being moralists, and I am sure some of them are; nevertheless, I am not too sure what this has got to do with anything. Leftists are also accused of being 'Muslim lovers'. Does that mean we all are? Or that any of us are?

    Not sure either how you arrived at this conclusion so positively: "It effectively reduces someone's normative judgement to a case for psychological consideration." It can do, but that isn't necessary either.

    And an accusation that someone is moralising has plenty of functions. I listed several above (one of which, at a pinch, could be considered 'psychological', but not the rest). There are many others.
    Firstly, I agree that in many cases there are grounds to criticise people who spout normative judgements, or who take on an overly judgemental attitude.

    One can moralise and have no clue about moral theory
    I literally don't know how to understand this, because I don't know what doing this (moralising) means here. That's a result of (possibly exclusively my own) ignorance, not an exaggerated part of a point I'm trying to make. I do have the sense that contemporary use of this word typically makes an implicit cover for "quasi-Nietzschean amoralism", which doesn't add up to much when you make it explicit. It provides cover for a peculiar set of normative standards, where anyone having any sort of open moral qualms about something is, thereby, cast in a negative light. Of course, that in itself is hypocritical.

    When I read the definition for "moralise" I get 1. "comment on issues of right and wrong, typically with an unfounded air of superiority", 2. "reform the character and conduct of", and 3. "interpret or explain as giving lessons on good and bad character and conduct". In Late Middle English the word "moralize" seemed to mean "to explain the moral meaning of", according to Google (https://www.google.com/search?q=moralise). So, it's possible it has gained the association with "an unfounded air of superiority" relatively recently, though my two minutes of research here hardly establishes the claim.

    One can talk about ideas regarding good or bad without having any clue about moral theory. However, that doesn't necessarily make doing so grounds for criticism, nor does it make what one is saying/thinking wrong. Do you simply mean that one can talk about good and bad, or make normative judgements, in a way that considers no alternatives and which displays an air of presumption? But I would expect someone that has some moral view, no matter what it is, would regard anyone flouting its prescripts in a negative light. So, from their point, and from the point of view of anyone agreeing with them, they really are justified in an "air of superiority" when facing offenders. That is, if they take the moral view seriously, they see those who conflict with it in a negative light. Meanwhile, from the supposed offender's point of view their judgement might very well seem like just that, an air of superiority. So anyone taking some moral view or attitude seriously is open to the charge of "moralism". And I don't see how to neutrally distinguish between correct use and misuse here, if we are to keep the notion of an "unfounded air of superiority" as part of the definition.

    or even be entirely devoid of morals in any recognised sense
    If so, wouldn't one just be hypocritical? I'm fine with using "moralise" in place of "being hypocritical", but it is a lot less clear, since it makes it seem as if the issue is with standing for some set of ideals, rather than with breaking one's own vows or making an exception for oneself, i.e. being inconsistent. I prefer the idea that in order to make normative judgements, one ought to have "skin in the game". That is, one shouldn't even make normative judgements when one has no personal stake in the matter, that is, when the class of people subjected to the costs of the judgement does not include yourself. This targets the idea of a passive, priestly class which determines how others should live without being subjected to the ramifications. While there might be exceptions, it is at least a clear notion.

    Not sure you meant to say that "moralism...means nothing". The word is in the dictionary
    Yes, but that doesn't mean that the text in the definition is sufficient to establish how it is used. The word might once have had a meaning which is still outlined in the definition, and which the word is still associated with in some vague way, but which nevertheless cannot be said to outline how most speakers use the sign.

    It could be used to imply (rightly or wrongly) that someone is a fraud, or a con artist, or is being superficial, or trivial, or picking an easy target, or missing the point, or...
    None of this is in the definition, as far as I can see. E.g. here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moralize#English This one doesn't even show the word having any of these negative connotations, which it clearly has in contemporary use.

    Not sure either how you arrived at this conclusion so positively: "It effectively reduces someone's normative judgement to a case for psychological consideration." It can do, but that isn't necessary either.
    Yes, that's the problem. It does so implicitly, while trading on another meaning.

  5. #45
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,704

    Default Re: twitter is hell

    Meridian:

    I literally don't know how to understand this, because I don't know what doing this (moralising) means here.
    I'm sorry but you don't think that everyone has a moral theory do you?

    When I read the definition for "moralise" I get 1. "comment on issues of right and wrong, typically with an unfounded air of superiority", 2. "reform the character and conduct of", and 3. "interpret or explain as giving lessons on good and bad character and conduct". In Late Middle English the word "moralize" seemed to mean "to explain the moral meaning of", according to Google (https://www.google.com/search?q=moralise). So, it's possible it has gained the association with "an unfounded air of superiority" relatively recently, though my two minutes of research here hardly establishes the claim.
    Yes, some dictionaries define this word in that way but:

    1) Others do not:

    verb (used without object), moralized, moralizing.
    1.
    to reflect on or express opinions about something in terms of right and wrong, especially in a self-righteous or tiresome way.
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/moralise

    moralize

    When you moralize, you lecture someone about right and wrong, judging their decisions and actions...

    If you know someone who complains about "kids today" and pontificates about how things were in the past, adding an opinion of the proper way to act, you're familiar with the verb moralize. At the heart of moralize is moral, from the Latin root moralis, "proper behavior of a person in society," and someone who moralizes simply wants to share their own idea of what's moral — unfortunately, they tend to do it in an overly superior way.
    https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/moralize

    2.moralise - speak as if delivering a sermon; express moral judgements; "This man always sermonizes"
    preachify, sermonise, sermonize, moralize

    advocate, preach - speak, plead, or argue in favor of; "The doctor advocated a smoking ban in the entire house"
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/moralise

    verb

    If you say that someone is moralizing, you are critical of them for telling people what they think is right or wrong, especially when they have not been asked their opinion.
    [disapproval]

    As a dramatist I hate to moralize. [VERB]

    Society in general moralized about 'loose women'. [VERB]

    moralizing uncountable noun

    We have tried to avoid any moralising.
    https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di...glish/moralize

    1often as noun moralizing no object

    Comment on issues of right and wrong, typically with an unfounded air of superiority.

    ‘the self-righteous moralizing of his aunt was ringing in his ears’
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/moralize

    2) Of course, some of the above, and others I haven't quoted, also define it in the way you seem to have, but Richard Seymour has come from the same revolutionary tradition that shaped my thinking, and when we were both in the UK-SWP we used this word largely in the above sense.

    So, for example, if we met someone who claimed to be 'of the left', but who complained about, or criticised, a worker who had a job in the capitalist system (for instance, working for a tabloid newspaper, in the printroom), we would tell them to stop moralising. I think that was how Richard was using that term here.

    One can talk about ideas regarding good or bad without having any clue about moral theory. However, that doesn't necessarily make doing so grounds for criticism, nor does it make what one is saying/thinking wrong.
    Indeed, but then again it might prove grounds for so doing. Your use of 'necessarily' sort of concedes that point, one feels.

    And I don't see how to neutrally distinguish between correct use and misuse here, if we are to keep the notion of an "unfounded air of superiority" as part of the definition.
    I hope I didn't suggest there was a neutral way of doing this; but then that is what political criticism, or, indeed any serious criticism, is all about, isn't it? Not being neutral.

    If so, wouldn't one just be hypocritical? I'm fine with using "moralise" in place of "being hypocritical",
    Yes, sure, but that will depend on circumstances.

    Yes, but that doesn't mean that the text in the definition is sufficient to establish how it is used. The word might once have had a meaning which is still outlined in the definition, and which the word is still associated with in some vague way, but which nevertheless cannot be said to outline how most speakers use the sign.
    Indeed, but I was merely responding to what seemed not to be your position, that an English word, this word, had no meaning. I think you have here run-together speakers' meaning and word meaning -- how an individual might use a word (idiosyncratically, or otherwise) to create an effect, or achieve some end etc., and what that word means.

    None of this is in the definition, as far as I can see.
    No, I don't think I suggested they were, but that is certainly what one can do with this word (which is what you indirectly asked for). I think you have now done the opposite of the last point I made: run together a word's meaning with its speakers' meaning, or its pragmatic implications.

    Yes, that's the problem. It does so implicitly, while trading on another meaning.
    Ok, but I still don't think you have shown that this is so in every case.
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

  6. #46
    Senior Voting Member Meridian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,626

    Default Re: twitter is hell

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein
    I'm sorry but you don't think that everyone has a moral theory do you?
    No, of course not. Though perhaps some moral views or attitudes can be read off their behaviour.

    Yes, some dictionaries define this word in that way but:
    The definition I noted had three alternatives, which together covered much of the same ground that the ones you list do.

    2) Of course, some of the above, and others I haven't quoted, also define it in the way you seem to have, but Richard Seymour has come from the same revolutionary tradition that shaped my thinking, and when we were both in the UK-SWP we used this word largely in the above sense.

    So, for example, if we met someone who claimed to be 'of the left', but who complained about, or criticised, a worker who had a job in the capitalist system (for instance, working for a tabloid newspaper, in the printroom), we would tell them to stop moralising. I think that was how Richard was using that term here.
    I haven't meant to define the word myself, I merely referred to the three alternatives suggested. Definitions clearly don't help me, since they don't seem to convey the function of the word that confuses me.

    Even if you think the meaning is perfectly clear, maybe you agree that one can accuse someone of "moralising" as a way of escaping moral judgement and bypassing possible arguments in favour of it. (Don't take me to say this is all the case of amoral people seeking to get away with their misdeeds when called out. I'd add it to MacIntyre's argument about the rise of expressivism, though it might be part of it already: People often don't give, have, or even think there are any arguments in favour of their own moral judgements anyway, so why shouldn't someone just counter with "you are moralising"? It can be a perfectly effective, and suitably expressivist, response.) The definitions don't cover this use, which is understandable, because it is a pragmatic/speaker's meaning phenomenon. As noted, it involves hypocrisy if spelled out, since it implies that making moral judgements is morally wrong.

    As far as my own experience goes, this would-be amoralistic charge of moralism is a prevalent kind of use. That's why it makes for unclarity even about the linguistic meaning, I think.

    However, you give a good example of someone "moralising", namely the leftist criticising a worker for working under capitalists. Now, as far as I understand, the reason this can be grounds for critique is that the person involved claims to be a leftist, while demonstrating a kind of individualistic idealism in place of the materialism that characterises much of the left. Or, more simply, that the person does not consider the worker's lack of alternatives. So, the charge is inconsistency based on ignorance or idealism, or something. Capitalists on the right might also accuse them of moralising, but their reason would probably be that the person is disparaging the workplace in the first place, when it gives workers a living. Anyway, Nagle is not guilty of any such inconsistency, ignorance, or idealism, as far as I can tell.

    The way "moralise" is used in Seymour's article, it doesn't function in that way either:
    After all, who would respond well to such a one-sided scolding? Who would rise to their best, and think most critically and openly, in response to such a fierce blast of superego spite? Who would begin to question their own moralistic reflexes in the face of what is itself a form of moralism?
    There is not really much of an argument made to establish that Nagle is hypocritical, idealistic or perfectionistic, that she takes on an air of superiority that is unwarranted, or that she is otherwise being inconsistent. For my own part I find the book in question to be non-"moralistic" in that sense. Since no other reasoning is given, one is left thinking the relevant criterion for "moralism" is simply that supposedly "one-sided scolding" is taking place. Still, I suspect anyone reflexively agreeing with Seymour's stance feel they understand (and agree with) this charge of moralism, precisely because they think the "scolding" is evidence of an unwarranted air of superiority. Those who do not, like me, literally not understand what he is trying to say.

    I hope I didn't suggest there was a neutral way of doing this; but then that is what political criticism, or, indeed any serious criticism, is all about, isn't it? Not being neutral.
    The problem is that it leaves "moralise" impossible to understand for anyone not accepting the judgement in which it occurs, kind of like some terms become more or less technical terms in specific ideologies.

  7. #47
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,704

    Default Re: twitter is hell

    I don't think there is much in your resply that I can respond to, Meridian, since I agree with much of what you say, even though I am not too sure of its relevance. Except perhaps this:

    However, you give a good example of someone "moralising", namely the leftist criticising a worker for working under capitalists. Now, as far as I understand, the reason this can be grounds for critique is that the person involved claims to be a leftist, while demonstrating a kind of individualistic idealism in place of the materialism that characterises much of the left. Or, more simply, that the person does not consider the worker's lack of alternatives. So, the charge is inconsistency based on ignorance or idealism, or something. Capitalists on the right might also accuse them of moralising, but their reason would probably be that the person is disparaging the workplace in the first place, when it gives workers a living. Anyway, Nagle is not guilty of any such inconsistency, ignorance, or idealism, as far as I can tell.

    There is not really much of an argument made to establish that Nagle is hypocritical, idealistic or perfectionistic, that she takes on an air of superiority that is unwarranted, or that she is otherwise being inconsistent. For my own part I find the book in question to be non-"moralistic" in that sense. Since no other reasoning is given, one is left thinking the relevant criterion for "moralism" is simply that supposedly "one-sided scolding" is taking place. Still, I suspect anyone reflexively agreeing with Seymour's stance feel they understand (and agree with) this charge of moralism, precisely because they think the "scolding" is evidence of an unwarranted air of superiority. Those who do not, like me, literally not understand what he is trying to say.
    Yes, that is one possibility (i.e., ignorance etc,), but there are others, and at least one more obviously in tune with my point: the individual concerned wasn't ignorant but was merely being...moralistic. That is, they were adopting a critical stance from a presumed superior stand-point. And that is what I think was behind Seymour's comment, rightly or wrongly. Sure, Seymour was passing what might turn out to be an unfair criticism (but, then again, it might not), but I have little doubt he would be able to justify it should you ask him. He is in general a very careful thinker, and rarely passes unfounded opinions. I base that too on knowing him for well over twelve years, although we have recently fallen out with one another.

    The problem is that it leaves "moralise" impossible to understand for anyone not accepting the judgement in which it occurs, kind of like some terms become more or less technical terms in specific ideologies.
    I am not sure that it so. I have explained what it means in such contexts, and I am sure you understood me, even if you still disagree.
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

  8. #48
    Senior Voting Member ravn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    1,475

    Default Re: twitter is hell

    I'm sorry but you don't think that everyone has a moral theory do you?
    Quote Originally Posted by Meridian View Post
    No, of course not.
    & yet you present a moral theory: " ... one can accuse someone of "moralising" as a way of escaping moral judgement".

  9. #49
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,704

    Default Re: twitter is hell

    ravn:

    & yet you present a moral theory: " ... one can accuse someone of "moralising" as a way of escaping moral judgement".
    Well, according to Lenin, and you, all you have are 'images' with no idea which are valid and which aren't. So, it's your 'image' of what has been posted here that is to blame. In which case, a solipsist like you should pick a fight with yourself.

    Of course, if you can come up with some way of deciding which of your ' mages' are valid and which aren't, let's hear it.

    Except we have been waiting for such words of wisdom from you for over two years.
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

  10. #50
    Senior Voting Member ravn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    1,475

    Default Re: twitter is hell

    Quote Originally Posted by Amoeba View Post
    "hell is other people", sartre famously said.

    now imagine being stuck in hell permanently by your own choice.
    Then hell would be a reflection of the internal contradictions within the self, as much as it is the reflection of the internal contradictions within society. The self would be as much of a contributor in creating hellish relations since other people are other selves.

    But twitter as hell is a one sided view of social media.

  11. #51
    Paperback Writer RevForum Administrator Amoeba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    7,296

    Default Re: twitter is hell

    Quote Originally Posted by ravn View Post
    Then hell would be a reflection of the internal contradictions within the self, as much as it is the reflection of the internal contradictions within society. The self would be as much of a contributor in creating hellish relations since other people are other selves.
    That's pretty much the argument Sartre goes on to make in Being and Nothingness.
    To be, or not to be, that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer,
    Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them.

  12. #52
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,704

    Default Re: twitter is hell

    ravn:

    Then hell would be a reflection of the internal contradictions within the self, as much as it is the reflection of the internal contradictions within society. The self would be as much of a contributor in creating hellish relations since other people are other selves.
    1) And what 'contradictions' are these then in 'the self'?

    2) You have yet to show there is such a thing as 'society' that isn't just an 'image' in your head -- according to Lenin.

    [I hasten to add that this isn't my view since I reject Lenin's crazy 'theory'.]
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

  13. #53
    Senior Voting Member ravn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    1,475

    Default Re: twitter is hell

    Quote Originally Posted by Amoeba View Post
    That's pretty much the argument Sartre goes on to make in Being and Nothingness.
    But, if he puts it as hell is other people, that leaves out the role being played by himself or any individual. The individual is being shaped by the class relations of society, (given that Sartre's observation comes from same).

    Another thing, it's a problem if I treat the self or human nature as an immutable thing separate from the environment that is its basis.

  14. #54
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,704

    Default Re: twitter is hell

    ravn:

    But, if he puts it as hell is other people, that leaves out the role being played by himself or any individual. The individual is being shaped by the class relations of society, (given that Sartre's observation comes from same).

    Another thing, it's a problem if I treat the self or human nature as an immutable thing separate from the environment that is its basis.
    But, according to Lenin, all you have is an 'image' of "the environment", with no idea whether or not this 'image' is reliable. So, how do you know there is an "environment" out there to begin with?

    [Again, I hasten to add that this isn't my view since I reject Lenin's crazy 'theory'.]
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

  15. #55
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,704

    Default Re: twitter is hell

    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

  16. #56
    Senior Voting Member Meridian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,626

    Default Re: twitter is hell

    That's a decent critique, though I don't see how Nagle's commentary is 'undone' by its point, by any stretch of the imagination.

  17. #57
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,704

    Default Re: twitter is hell

    I'm sorry, M, I didn't understand that comment. :-(
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

  18. #58
    Senior Voting Member Meridian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,626

    Default Re: twitter is hell

    There are definite shortcomings of Nagle's book, some of which the author of the review you linked mention. Nagle could have focused more on class, political history, etc. However, the book is also meant precisely to be limited in scope. So, the review somewhat misses the point. I don't think Nagle actually argues that "previous fascist movements have been stodgily conservative". Nagle makes a broader point that "being transgressive" isn't necessarily left-wing, and in itself doesn't produce e.g. labour friendly politics. So, I think the author of the review you linked is simply wrong to say what Nagle writes is "undone" by the supposed insistence that the 'alt-right' is something entirely new and unprecedented. It isn't, of course. Nothing new under the sun...

    In another sense everything is new, and worth a fresh look.

  19. #59
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,704

    Default Re: twitter is hell

    OK, thanks for that.

    Well, I suppose that depends on what you mean by "something new". In a grammatical sense, you are right, everything is new. But in an ideological and political sense, I think the author of that review might be right: while fascism (aka the alt-right) might change its veneer, its message is just the same old same old.
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

  20. #60
    Paperback Writer RevForum Administrator Amoeba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    7,296

    Default Re: twitter is hell

    Ok so I've had some time to go over parts of Nagle's book, particularly those dealing with certain "PC controversies", and I have to say, she's actually a fucking hack who's simply taken over the worst of far right hysteria concerning "SJWs".

    Take for example how she presents the Jordan Peterson "scandal" in her book:

    In Canada Dr. Jordan Peterson became a hero of the alt-light after he refused to agree to legislation formalizing the use of alternative pronouns in his university, like ‘ze’ or ‘zir’ as alternatives to the old hat ‘she’ or ‘he’. At an event to protest him, he appeared to speak to those who had gathered, and was drowned out by a white noise machine and was yelled at by members of the crowd. He also says the lock on his office door was glued shut, and his institution offered platitudinous support for his right to academic freedom and free speech, but warned he could get in legal trouble with the Ontario Human Rights code. The university received a wave of complaints from students and faculty that his criticisms of the new rules on pronouns were ‘unacceptable, emotionally disturbing and painful’.
    Now listen to what actually happened from a non-"SJW" who actually did some research into the event: http://seriouspod.com/sio10-jordan-b...t-wrong-lying/

    And here he debates the law that Peterson was lying about, bill C-16: http://seriouspod.com/sio47-conversa...tic-bill-c-16/

    The law has nothing to do with "formalizing the use of alternative pronouns like 'ze' or 'zir'", that is bullshit that Peterson claims which has nothing to do with the actual content of the law. The law merely includes transphobia to its list of human rights protections, which in practice means that discrimination on the basis of intentional misuse of gender pronouns will lead to some sort of action being taken, typically some sort of fine being imposed (Peterson lied about a prison sentence).

    So if a male or female trans-student requests to be referred to by their respective gender identities (him/her), but a Professor like Peterson refuses to do so and instead intentionally misgenders them in front of his class, that will not be allowed.

    How is that a bad law? How is that formalizing "ze" or "zir" or, as Peterson also claims, a random string of numbers? Actually, the law includes that only reasonable expectations of gender-identifying is covered, so that excludes these made-up pronouns.

    But Nagle simply takes Peterson's bullshit narratives and reproduces it in her book because it's an easy way to bash the "SJWs" with.

    Also, she lies about the "platitudinous support for his right to academic freedom and free speech"; on the contrary, the university sent him a letter saying that no action would be taken against him by the university, and no action has been taken.

    And yes, students are allowed to protest his lies and send criticisms to the administration that they find it unacceptable, emotionally disturbing and painful. There is nothing funny or amusing about that. This Nagle piece of shit just adopts the alt-light narrative of Peterson being this victim and the students opposing him being snowflake SJWs who can't handle criticism of a clearly absurd law that formalizes the use of random gender pronouns.

    This should make you question the entire book.
    To be, or not to be, that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer,
    Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •