Postmodernists are just too "advanced" to be made fun of.

Postmodernists are just too "advanced" to be made fun of. — jkop

You think so? I find a lot more jokes in Derrida than Quine, I must say. Analysis doesn't lend itself to a sense of the absurd, at least in my reading experience. J.L. Austin excepted.

I like Austin, and I know postmodernists use satire, irony, or absurd humour about others.

It was me. It was a serious discussion, so you don't get to twat on about how much you think French intellectuals look like "douches" and how much it upsets you that they smoke pipes. I didn't find your posts funny, and I didn't realize they were meant to be funny. I just thought it was the typical, insufferable, adolescent American shite we have to either put up with or delete, every single day.

It was me. It was a serious discussion, so you don't get to twat on about how much you think French intellectuals look like "douches" and how much it upsets you that they smoke pipes. I didn't find your posts funny, and I didn't realize they were meant to be funny. I just thought it was the typical, insufferable, adolescent American shite we have to either put up with or delete, every single day. — jamalrob

I didn't read any part of the thread in question, but I wonder why ridiculing French intellectuals is off limits but ridiculing adolescent Americans isn't.

I second your motion.

deliberately humorous — Thorongil

That's the problem, see. People trying to be funny. Didn't you read the guidelines? NO DELIBERATE HUMOR especially at the expense of any schools of thought known to be subject to all sorts of unfortunate and outrageous slings and arrows by privileged, white, male, Americans shites!!!. Who do you think you are, anyway? Why can't you understand the glaringly obvious TRUTH that post-modernism has immense liberatory value to oppressed people attempting to rebalance the power differentials inherent in Euro-technical oppressions exercised upon those afflicted by excessive melanin, estrogen, deficits, and haggis§?

You all can say what you want IF you have cleared it with us pontiffs. Otherwise, just stick to the gayly forward and narrow. And you specifically, just shut TFU about postmodernism already.

§A hideous concoction of low-value meat bits, noxious root vegetables, and horse meal boiled in goat guts. Beloved by the Scots, who else, even if they live in France and have paradis culinaire la porte à côté. (Probably too cheap to eat decent food.) Obviously a product of dour Presbyterian discipline from which they should have long since recovered in this post-modern age.

Hanover hadn't made a motion. It was just a point of information. Inform the chair that you wish to make a motion.

Because this is an off-topic discussion. You're free to ridicule them in the Lounge.

Yeah, but you think that everything is off-topic if it's not focusing on whatever "point" you personally want to focus on.

For shame, jamal. Why did it have to be like this?

I just thought it was the typical, insufferable, adolescent American shite we have to either put up with or delete, every single day. — jamalrob

By the way, why did you assume this, since you already know who I am? I posted in the old forum, registering there in 2011 or something like that, and I was already well out of adolescence by then. Perhaps you mean to say that I act like one without being one. In that case, you would appear to have a rather low bar for what counts as such behavior. The main point, however, is that I violated no rules so far as I am aware, so that my posts ought not to have been deleted.

Can I expect any olive branch or are going to remain bitter toward me?

How dare you expose me!

That's the problem, see. People trying to be funny. Didn't you read the guidelines? NO DELIBERATE HUMOR especially at the expense of any schools of thought known to be subject to all sorts of unfortunate and outrageous slings and arrows by privileged, white, male, Americans shites!!!. Who do you think you are, anyway? Why can't you understand the glaringly obvious TRUTH that post-modernism has immense liberatory value to oppressed people attempting to rebalance the power differentials inherent in Euro-technical oppressions exercised upon those afflicted by excessive melanin, estrogen, deficits, and haggis§?

You all can say what you want IF you have cleared it with us pontiffs. Otherwise, just stick to the gayly forward and narrow. And you specifically, just shut TFU about postmodernism already.

§A hideous concoction of low-value meat bits, noxious root vegetables, and horse meal boiled in goat guts. Beloved by the Scots, who else, even if they live in France and have paradis culinaire la porte à côté. (Probably too cheap to eat decent food.) Obviously a product of dour Presbyterian discipline from which they should have long since recovered in this post-modern age. — Bitter Crank

>:O Crank, you are the greatest, I swear!

I wasn't involved in that discussion at all. And I didn't delete any of the posts in the discussion you're alluding to. So your reply to me here makes no sense.

My post was about comments you make about whether something is on topic or not. My post wasn't about you deleting posts. (And now you'll say that then this makes my comment not on-topic, lol)

Hot damn, that was a fantastic rant.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. The fact of the matter is that in a discussion on the merits or faults of postmodernism, criticising Derrida's appearance brings nothing of relevance to the discussion, hence why @jamalrob deleted it.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. — Michael

Yeah, I'm surprised.

</sarcasm>

If I saw comments criticising personal aspects of a philosopher interjected into a serious discussion others were trying to have about her/his philosophy, on a philosophy forum, in a philosophy thread (as opposed to an off-topic or feedback thread like this), I would have deleted them.

I like to think I would even do that for Ayn Rand. I'm saying that to lay down a public commitment so that, should I come across such things in a serious Rand discussion, I will be motivated to overcome my personal Rand aversion and hold to that lofty principle of moderator ethics.

Interestingly, there hasn't been much Rand discussion here recently. It seems to occur in waves. Or has Randism been supplanted by Trumpism?

I'm not comparing Derrida to Rand by the way. I don't understand Derrida and hence am not in a position to either criticise or support his ideas, whereas I understand Rand much better than I would like to.

I wasn't suggesting that a personal attack on French POMOs was appropriate or suggesting it wasn't properly deleted. I was only suggesting that a consistent application of that standard would have resulted in the deletion of the commentary on the post that deleted it, specifically with regard to the attack on American adolesents.

Should moderators root out posts in which unreasonable statements are made? Well... probably not. They don't have all day to read and reflect on the degree to which unreasonableness is present in each post. I am inclined to think unreasonable statements should be left alone. Perhaps a trigger warning could be posted. Participants in the thread will certainly thrash out how unreasonable unreasonable statements are.

Personal characteristics are part of the total package. I don't know whether "French intellectuals look like "douches"", nor do I know quite what is meant by a "douche". Something more than a shower, presumably. Perhaps an orifice irrigation device is what was meant. Well, that's odd but it isn't exactly a rare term, these days. Would just an ordinary "asshole" have been ok? I didn't read the post that said so-and-so was upset that [french intellectuals of some sort] smoke pipes. Perhaps the author of the comment thought it an unnecessary affectation. Perhaps? Or perhaps so-and-so is a public health fantastic who thinks pipe smoking is a very bad personal practice.

It sounds more flippant than anything else.

Someone was trying to be funny on a philosophy forum?



Oh no!

Fair point, Hanover. I was intemperate. But still, we're not discussing philosophy here.

Suppose someone wrote this:

“I hope you don’t have friends who recommend Ayn Rand to you. The fiction of Ayn Rand is as low as you can get re fiction. I hope you picked it up off the floor of the subway and threw it in the nearest garbage pail. She makes Mickey Spillane look like Dostoevsky.” Flannery O'Connor

Would this be deletable? It is, after all, pretty disrespectful.

Just like the old forum, we have standards of quality. I deleted the posts because I judged them to be of low quality.

Anyway, yes, let's all be friends again.

What are you on about, BC? I deleted the post for low quality, not because it was disrespectful or humorous.

You're living in your own private Idaho.

I'm not sure I like the idea that posts can be deleted due to one person's subjective appraisal of what counts as "low quality." It sounds like you have a totalitarian streak, jamal. On the other hand, it is your forum, so I suppose I ought not complain of this fact to its dictator. I still stand by my comments, but at least you were honest enough to admit of deleting them, and for that you have my appreciation and thanks. We don't converse enough to have had much of a relationship to rupture in the first place, but hopefully we can now continue on good terms.

"French intellectuals look like "douches"" — Bitter Crank

It would be silly of me of me to say that "French intellectuals look like douches, therefore, what they say is nonsense." That would be an ad hominem. No, I merely offer the observation that they appear as such. I mean, look:






How can you look at these and other pictures with a straight face?

I blame Camus for starting this stupid trend, a writer whom I greatly admire and would not count as a postmodernist. (Am I not impartial?) I think this was the douchey look that started it all:



Again, I love Camus, but he looks like a douche here, and his obscurantist postmodern progeny have unfortunately followed suit in the photograph department. :-|

At the other place there was a drop-down list of possible reasons for deletion, and one was 'non-philosophical post'. If people are having a discussion trying to improve their shared understanding of a difficult idea, it is inconsiderate and discourteous to interject with a post that not only ignores that attempt, and ignores the philosophy being discussed, but belittles it by mocking personal qualities of the philosopher involved.

There have been several comments implying a that there is some sort of 'Thought Police' type of attitude in deleting such comments. Such comments miss the point. The Thought Police didn't just delete your heretical statements. They dragged you off to the Ministry of Love for torture and reprogramming. If anybody thinks that deleting a discourteous interjection to a discussion, with no further repercussions and not even a reprimand, is somehow draconian or lacking a sense of humour I'd love to know why.

To me it's like a heckler complaining that Amy Schumer lacks a sense of humour if their 'Show us your tits!' ejaculation was deleted from the recording of her live performance.

>:O >:O >:O