Lol

"Substantiate your points"

"You should be banned!"

I love it.

Sorry I couldn't hear you over your total inability to substantiate yourself.

It's a quote that has nothing to do with skepticism, and it's not from Derrida.

But it's very cute that you know how to press search in Google.

I'm still waiting on my quote.

Whatever it takes for you to feel better about your ignorence.

I really don't understand why people who have never read a word of Derrida in their life like to talk about Derrida. It's the same impulse that teenage boys have talking about quantum physics. It must sound cool or something despite their total ignorance.

Miller is one of the foremost students of Derrida. He's not "pointing out the irony". He's repeating what Derrida himself has always claimed - that deconstruction always takes place within what it deconstructs.

It takes all kinds to make a world. Very large variety in a vast number of combinations, makes anomalies common. — universeness

Consider me a varietal.

No. I make no apologies for taking joy in dead Nazis and don't need to tip toe around the point.

Not very politically correct I know, but the trick to not being politically correct - which I'm all for - is that you aim it at assholes and not the vulnerable.

Then those people are part of the problem.

It's true that I do not take arguing with bigots seriously. That of course, is the point. Them and their discourse ought to be mired in muck, bogged down by irrelevancies, wrecked with nonsense. They exist to laugh at, put down, and sideline - not to argue with. Public space is not, and should not be, a safe space for them. They should feel threatened, minoritized, and dismissed. They are not equals.

Last I checked I was talking about what you said, not you. But perhaps as with Derrida, we can settle this the good old way: provide a quote which demonstrates Kant's commitment to skepticism.

Don't be rude. — Jackson

I'm sorry, I can try again.

Your claim is false and a lie.

Kant is a sceptic — Jackson

Fake news.

Sure. Deconstruction is a process of transcendental philosophy which aims to show, by immanent means, that the conditions of possibility of any identity, system, or claim, are, at one and the same time, the conditions of their impossibility. One of the upshots of this process is to instill an unceasing sense of responsibility upon those who engage or uphold said identities, systems, or claims. This includes truth, to which deconstruction holds us responsible to, denuding us of any ability to disavow such responsibility. It's quite in line with say, the Kantian emancipatory project which of course Derrida claims fidelity to.

Now, I'm still waiting on my textual evidence for the claim about skepticism.

I'm a stickler. Again, just one quote from Derrida about his supposed skepticism would be nice.

His deconstruction theory alone is a poster child for this. So don't ask for a passage -- ask someone to explain the deconstruction theory and you get your answers. — L'éléphant

I don't need anyone to explain it to me because I know it very well. I just find it interesting that many who like to talk about deconstruction can't substantiate much of what they say. Very often it seems to me they simply make things up. Pretty cynical if you ask me. Skeptical, even.

Can anyone quote a passage or some passages of Derrida that substantiate the charge of skepticism?

I like when we murder Nazis. I don't like when we murder non-Nazis. I really thought I was quite unambigious about this.

Good, I am glad you struggle with the concept. — universeness

I don't struggle with the concept. The concept is nonsensical and therefore there is nothing to struggle with. And last I checked I said I was pro bombing Nazis.

Probably not. I'm not sure what it would mean to be a Nazi baby though.

No. Killing Nazis is a good. There is nothing controversial about this.

I liked it when we murdered Nazis by mass bombing that was a good time.

You think that's bad I had to wear one of these hats:



(I did not go to Shore, for the record for any Australians here).

SO oppressed.

I call all my students morons but if they complain I tell them they are violating my free speech and fail them.

:heart:

I haven't been all that angry this thread. I've been quite jovial with my dealings with these poor victims of self-fantasy.

They're mad because they're not allowed to have their pity-party in peace.

Funny, the first person to have brought up the notion of 'Nazis' in this thread was none-other than the OP himself. No one, of course, had made any accusation of the kind before-hand. A strange thing, this guilty conscience.

Probably just another exhibition of the victim complex which drives these people to imagine they are being bullied by imaginary scenarios they made up in their heads.

These poor people would have no identity without their their self-sanctifying persecution complex.

Yeah it's very hard to deal with all these people replying to me. A terrible burden.

The thread is progressing, yet your rubbish is still being ignored. — M777

That's OK! I'm having fun shitting on bigots and that's what's important.

I love the progression of this thread. It went from some piece of culture war trash to 'socialism bad'. These people aren't even trying. They just regurgitating talking points picked up from elsewhere and transmitting them like little antennas (omg trans). It's very cool to see in action. And since this thread is where it belongs I guess I do this now:

Nah racists and transphobes should be afraid of appearing in public for fear of perfectly justified grevious bodily harm. This would be a public good.

Lol "transactivists".

These stupid people just going around... existing. Ugh, activism is out of hand.

Isn't it great. "If I can't be a vile bigot then I am being bullied waaaaaa groupthink".

The question is a meme, a culture-war piece of fluff. That it's invariably asked by insecure men is a matter of universal logical law, not psychology.

Dark? I'm having a blast making fun of losers whose index of social decay is no one answering questions when confronted on the street.

Should probably note that it's no surprise that this question - which is not even the OPs question but just another bit of culture-war trash picked up from elsewhere - asks 'what is a woman?' rather than 'what is a man?' - because this kind of stuff is always just paper-thin misogyny pretending to be just-asking-questions - AKA JAQing off. It's women and their gender who must be policed and shunted into whatever little boxes these people have in mind. Largely because they only want to fuck and fantasize about the Right Kind of Women, so men can be whatever (so long as they keep it to themselves!). These people are afraid - terrified - that their fantasies and hard-ons will be misdirected. And that would be ggaaaaayyyy which is icky.

"Thought police are very bad. This is why we must actually rigorously police gender and bodies in real life. I will be very Opppreseddddd if I can't do this".

To help clear up the poor confused OP just looking for answers and definitely not looking to be offended by thought-experiments to help kill trans people: a woman is one of an infinite number of sexes, each of which is defined in variable and heterogeneous ways. Because life is complex and fun and awesome.

---

A thought that's always crossed my mind is that these sorts of conversations are always motivated by the fear of having affection to someone of the 'wrong' gender, which means the boundaries must be policed very tightly so these people don't go sticking their willy in the wrong hole by accident.

:sad: