elektrenai posted:edit: but seriously Henry do you know the story behind that letter or what they're even asking for?
a lot of it originated in a desire to smear steven salaita for "plagiarism" for which there is no documented evidence of and asking for any evidence is problematic.
postposting posted:I tried to follow some of the links and read the tumblrs and read the tweetrs, and as best as i can tell, a group of people think that academics have been stealing ideas from their tweets in order to write Important Papers and stuff without giving them proper credit. for example one person mentioned that they were the one who came up with the idea of settler colonialism.
in order to protest this, they decided to 'go galt' and stop tweeting to deny the parasites of this world the fruits of their genius.
while this tactic would have likely ground the entire engine of ivory tower knowledge production to a halt, it appears that they realized the enormity of what they were doing and relented to the anguished cries of phd students because all the twitter accounts at the end of the letter have made posts within the last hour
i hate this. i hate knowing about this, and i hate myself for knowing, and i hate you for having caused me to know. hate hate hate hate
discipline posted:RedMaistre posted:discipline posted:
I saw there was some discussion on twitter about it but since I deactivated I can't see most of it.
The main criticism that I have seen is that the objects of attack were considered too obviously personal--which, to me,seems an odd point to make about a work of satire. in which authorial spleen and bile should be considered a given.
A second allegation was that the presentation of the sale of sex within the story reproduced the tropes of the journalists that the work was criticizing. Not sure exactly what meant, to be honest.
The third criticism I heard kicked around was that it was too short. But that is better than being attacked for being too long, imo.
Hope everything is going well with you, by the way.It's really interesting that anyone would say my attacks are too personal, as if I am basing it off of any one person. The main character is not me, it's not anyone I've ever known or read about. She is a completely new character. The supporting characters too are pretty much made up. Or maybe this isn't the gist of the criticism. Maybe people want to pretend that the political has no impact on the personal. I never felt this way.
The second point is sort of funny and I don't get it, would probably need an example. Yes of course there is a sensationalized get rich quick version of sex work sold by pundits nowadays but I criticize this quite a bit in fact, this false idea of what something really is versus what most people see it as.
The third is nice. I could have made it longer I guess, but it just felt like adding more scenes. The characters were all done. Thanks for sharing all this, by the way.
1. Perhaps some find it easier to accept the intesection of the personal and the political when they don't actually *know* the author (irl or otherwise). Its odd, though, that people who are used to the direct exchange of vitriol in interment discourse would draw the line at a sublimated form of this in a work of fiction.
2. I suspect its more of a polite way to express doubts about your position on sex work than anything else. But the person I heard that from should be able to approach you and argue that point on their own behalf.
Finially, just to be clear: The people I talked to are in general agreement with you, fwiw. Its friendly, not malicious, criticism.
Edited by Chthonic_Goat_666 ()
shriekingviolet posted:postposting posted:
I tried to follow some of the links and read the tumblrs and read the tweetrs, and as best as i can tell, a group of people think that academics have been stealing ideas from their tweets in order to write Important Papers and stuff without giving them proper credit. for example one person mentioned that they were the one who came up with the idea of settler colonialism.
in order to protest this, they decided to 'go galt' and stop tweeting to deny the parasites of this world the fruits of their genius.
while this tactic would have likely ground the entire engine of ivory tower knowledge production to a halt, it appears that they realized the enormity of what they were doing and relented to the anguished cries of phd students because all the twitter accounts at the end of the letter have made posts within the last hour
i hate this. i hate knowing about this, and i hate myself for knowing, and i hate you for having caused me to know. hate hate hate hate
WElcum 2 mAh ReAlm
RedMaistre posted:The main criticism that I have seen is that the objects of attack were considered too obviously personal--which, to me,seems an odd point to make about a work of satire.
i feel like most "educated" bourgeois value people nowadays haven't read a satire since grade school and don't remember that voltaire and twain and swift and huxley made it extremely plain which figures they were satirizing, because i keep seeing complaints like this every time i see people review a satire, that the reader can tell who is being mocked and that's gauche or something? weird
discipline posted:It's really interesting that anyone would say my attacks are too personal, as if I am basing it off of any one person. The main character is not me, it's not anyone I've ever known or read about. She is a completely new character. The supporting characters too are pretty much made up. Or maybe this isn't the gist of the criticism. Maybe people want to pretend that the political has no impact on the personal. I never felt this way.
The second point is sort of funny and I don't get it, would probably need an example. Yes of course there is a sensationalized get rich quick version of sex work sold by pundits nowadays but I criticize this quite a bit in fact, this false idea of what something really is versus what most people see it as.
The third is nice. I could have made it longer I guess, but it just felt like adding more scenes. The characters were all done. Thanks for sharing all this, by the way.
speaking of i wondered if you had read Point Counter Point by huxley or if you had it in mind. i started SPOOKS and that's what i thought of immediately. maybe it's just a similar period in history though.
daddyholes posted:RedMaistre posted:
The main criticism that I have seen is that the objects of attack were considered too obviously personal--which, to me,seems an odd point to make about a work of satire.
i feel like most "educated" bourgeois value people nowadays haven't read a satire since grade school and don't remember that voltaire and twain and swift and huxley made it extremely plain which figures they were satirizing, because i keep seeing complaints like this every time i see people review a satire, that the reader can tell who is being mocked and that's gauche or something? weird
"Don't use fictional stories to subtweet, okay? Okay."
anyone read this, it looks dope
getfiscal posted:i read a little bit of barth on evangelical theology too.
"Barth’s theology thus seems to be much more serious than any theology that has ever existed, for it does not take the trouble of first asking concretely and answering concretely. Instead, right off the bat, it refers us dialectically to God in every question and in every answer, and insofar as it does this, it gives it’s question and answer. What progress appears to have been made here, when there is no longer a concrete answer, but only “the answer as such,” and where there is furthermore no longer concrete humanity but only ‘humanity that is no longer as such’ who is asking, or-to use Barth’s terminology-the humanity that is question. And what progress too has been made in talk about God! -only God himself can do that-we can only “speak as such.” Speech in the dialectical form of an indefinite reference to God. But what am I saying? To “God”? How undialectically would that be thought! No, ‘to God as such’! To the possibility of God as such.
Nevertheless, the apparent seriousness of this type of dialectic is only a sham seriousness. It is just as much a sham as the dialectical question is a sham and as God himself in this dialectic is only a dialectical possibility. All dialectic gets to no higher seriousness than that of a dialectical seriousness, than that of a possible taking-seriously (Ernstnehmen). It is a dialectical possibility to take God seriously so that one is ready, like Abraham, to sacrifice Isaac, but it is still just a dialectical-a mythical-possibility alongside which stands, in similar seriousness, the writing of the diary of the seducer. This is the nemesis that plagues every dialectician: he has not become serious before his alleged taking-seriously. Would that every reader of Kierkegaard’s religious discourses would ponder that statement! Every effort at dialectic can lead to no higher seriousness than to some possible taking seriously. Since the dialectic evidently fails to arrive at a real human seriousness, it is even less able to arrive at the seriousness of God in it’s dialectic. But as it pertains to God to transcend every human dialectic, so too it pertains to the seriousness of God that he transcends every dialectical taking seriously. For it pertains precisely to the seriousness of God that he is concretely visible and that he exists wholly undialectically-exists, for instance, in the form of the Last Judgement, as the Christian faith confesses. And that is how the seriousness of the dialectician only mythically exists, in the form of a taking-seriously of all possibilities-that is, in a more sober sense is understood not to exist as all."
From “What is Theology?” by Erik Peterson
(But I still admire Barth, in all his Calvinist stodginess).
The collection of essays by Peterson that has been translated into English is worth checking out, by the way, if you are looking to read 20th century Christian theology.
http://www.amazon.com/Theological-Tractates-Cultural-Memory-Present/dp/0804769680
Edited by RedMaistre ()
RedMaistre posted:(But I still admire Barth, in all his Calvinist stodginess).
The collection of essays by Peterson that has been translated into English is worth checking out, by the way, if you are looking to read 20th century Christian theology.
http://www.amazon.com/Theological-Tractates-Cultural-Memory-Present/dp/0804769680
do you know of a pdf of this? i couldn't find one. thank you.
getfiscal posted:RedMaistre posted:
(But I still admire Barth, in all his Calvinist stodginess).
The collection of essays by Peterson that has been translated into English is worth checking out, by the way, if you are looking to read 20th century Christian theology.
http://www.amazon.com/Theological-Tractates-Cultural-Memory-Present/dp/0804769680
do you know of a pdf of this? i couldn't find one. thank you.
No, sadly. You would think he would be more available, considering (a) the popularity of Carl Schmitt and (b) the fact that Peterson was one of the notable early critics of Schmitt's conception of political theology.
RedMaistre posted:No, sadly. You would think he would be more available, considering (a) the popularity of Carl Schmitt and (b) the fact that Peterson was one of the notable early critics of Schmitt's conception of political theology.
i will get it from the the library eventually on your good word.
daddyholes posted:RedMaistre posted:The main criticism that I have seen is that the objects of attack were considered too obviously personal--which, to me,seems an odd point to make about a work of satire.
i feel like most "educated" bourgeois value people nowadays haven't read a satire since grade school and don't remember that voltaire and twain and swift and huxley made it extremely plain which figures they were satirizing, because i keep seeing complaints like this every time i see people review a satire, that the reader can tell who is being mocked and that's gauche or something? weird
on the other hand we are fed Animal Farm in high school and told exactly who each character is satirizing as the fictional novel is not only overt, but also the Objective History of the Soviet Union apparently
dank_xiaopeng posted:what happened to your Job at the catholic thing gf
it was a potential volunteer thing i was seeking but the nuns said they didn't need my help because it's just a small slow operation. i applied to a few more jobs but didn't get them. i'm doing weekly therapy now though and i'm starting two additional weekly groups in january (one cooking, one CBT) though so i'll be out of the house more.
dank_xiaopeng posted:word, what kind of cooking will you be doing? may i respectfully suggest that diet coke not be paired with the dishes you create
just introduction to different types of healthier basic cooking for single men. that's about all i know.
getfiscal posted:dank_xiaopeng posted:what happened to your Job at the catholic thing gf
it was a potential volunteer thing i was seeking but the nuns said they didn't need my help because it's just a small slow operation. i applied to a few more jobs but didn't get them. i'm doing weekly therapy now though and i'm starting two additional weekly groups in january (one cooking, one CBT) though so i'll be out of the house more.
as im contemplating suicide anyway if you eat my still-beating heart after hacking it out of my chest maybe you can absorb my knowledge and have my job
littlegreenpills posted:as im contemplating suicide anyway if you eat my still-beating heart after hacking it out of my chest maybe you can absorb my knowledge and have my job
buddy, you need to turn that frown upside down!
getfiscal posted:do you have other catholic theology recommendations? i will read them all, in time. i'm a reader not a breeder.
Lauda, sterilis
...I could ramble on forever about Catholic theological titles, but (with a strong partiality to whatever I have looked over most recently), here, in no particular order, is a hodgepodge of autobiographies, sermons, histories, contemplative treatises, aphorism collections, novels, and devotional manuals.
1. Isaac T. Hecker, the Diary: Romantic Religion in Ante-Bellum America
2. Adoration and Annihilation: The Convent Philosophy of Port-Royal by John J. Conley, S.J.
3. Feminism, Absolutism, and Jansenism: Louis XIV and the Port-Royal Nuns by
by Daniella Kostroun
4. The Rod, The Root, and The Flower by Coventry Patmore
5. Honey and Salt: Selected Spiritual Writings of Bernard of Clairvaux
6. Abandonment to Divine Providence by Fr Jean-Pierre de Caussade, SJ
7.An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent by Bl.John Henry Newman
8. Journel in the Night by Theodor Haecker
9. The Portal of the Mystery of Hope by Charles Peguy
10. The Woman Who Was Poor by Leon Bloy
11. The Soul's Journey into God by St.Bonaventure
12. A Treatise on True Devotion to Our Lady by St.Louis Marie de Montfort
13. Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine by Archbishop Micheal Sheehan by Micheal Sheehan. If you are looking for a nice, organized, catechism-like book to leisurely peruse.
And on the Biblically propitious number 13, I'll stop.
*All recommendations made solely in my capacity as a private lay person
Edited by RedMaistre ()
RedMaistre posted:...I could ramble on forever about Catholic theological titles, but (with a strong partiality to whatever I have looked over most recently), here, in no particular order, is a hodgepodge of autobiographies, sermons, histories, contemplative treatises, aphorism collections, novels, and devotional manuals.
thank you redmaistre
getfiscal posted:dank_xiaopeng posted:what happened to your Job at the catholic thing gf
it was a potential volunteer thing i was seeking but the nuns said they didn't need my help because it's just a small slow operation. i applied to a few more jobs but didn't get them. i'm doing weekly therapy now though and i'm starting two additional weekly groups in january (one cooking, one CBT) though so i'll be out of the house more.
do lacanian psychoanalysis instead. bourgeois therapy is no good
babyhueypnewton posted:do lacanian psychoanalysis instead. bourgeois therapy is no good
i met with a psychoanalyst a few years ago and he said he would charge me $100 hour for a minimum four sessions per week for probably about eight years. this was his half-off discount rate for low-income people. he said that was pretty standard. i would probably not be able to get it publicly funded. (if i did it would take years of waitlists and then i'd be assigned to a random psychoanalyst who would probably not be lacanian at all. all my current therapy is free.)
i have not given up on this, though, but i think it's more likely i'll have to find a loophole as a learner or something. for example, i attended a seminar on lacan a few months ago, and talked to some people about taking a course series there. but i'm confident that there's a lot of basic work that can be done before this, just getting me to a basic level of functioning so that i can take courses or something. in the meantime i can continue to read about stuff that interests me. i have been making significant progress actually, although it doesn't really show online.
babyhueypnewton posted:do lacanian psychoanalysis instead. bourgeois therapy is no good
