Retrospectively...

I can assure you that I hate women as much (if not even more) than you. We're on the same team, my friend.
Praise Kek!

Why are you on Veeky Forums if you can't even identify satire

please check yourself

I can't answer that but I agree.
I admire him a lot.

>political cross-dressers
what a great turn of phrase

problematic and probably transphobic as well, what else do you expect from an old white dude who looks like a high school physics teacher from provincial france?

...

I'm retarded, please tell me if this is satire or not. Please be honest.

Unironically this. I hate those smug rural fucks. We need to liberate them from their denigrated position.

>We need to liberate them from their denigrated position
has liberalism gone too far?

Since around Rousseau it became based, but especially so in the 20th century (Existentialists notwithstanding).

I think there's going to be a postmodern revival, and I mean like hard, text-based postmodernism supplanting this intellectually lazy characterisation of it we have floating around now.

Because Derrida and Deleuze have their explanatory texts also demonstrate and embody their philosophy, whereas Baudrillard just writes explanatory texts. He's honestly second-rate.

public philosophy is counterproductive to actually relevant thought and only attract blatant narcissists who idealize intelligence so much they privilege appearing intelligent over producing good work. some even try to make their work seem more serious by (incorrectly)using scientific terms.
Deuleuze in particular borrows elements from previous philosophers in an attempt to appear serious and learned but his half baked interpretations are hard to take seriously by anyone who isn't already enamoured with post-modern's anti-rigour style.
post-structuralism is pretty obviously trash to anyone who isn't part of their intellectually dishonest circle-jerk.

Did you read A Thousand Plateaus from cover to cover?

>A first type of book is the root-book. The tree is already the image of the world, or the root the image of the world-tree. This is the classical book, as noble, signifying, and subjective organic interiority (the strata of the book). The book imitates the world, as art imitates nature: by procedures specific to it that accomplish what nature cannot or can no longer do. The law of the book is the law of reflection, the One that becomes two. How could the law of the book reside in nature, when it is what presides over the very division between world and book, nature and art? One becomes two: whenever we encounter this formula, even stated strategically by Mao or understood in the most "dialectical" way possible, what we have before us is the most classical and well reflected, oldest, and weariest kind of thought. Nature doesn't work that way: in nature, roots are taproots with a more multiple, lateral, and circular system of ramification, rather than a dichotomous one.Thought lags behind nature.

nah, I'm good.

It's possible you don't understand what I mean when I say Deleuze and Derrida have their texts embody their philosophy -- your original reply to me completely talks past that point.

Not sure what scientific terms have to do with seriousness. Considering you refuse to actually read any of these philosophers it's possible you've just misinterpreted and mischaracterised the philosophies and dismissed them offhand since they didn't appeal to your level of reading like the second-rate Baudrillard.

I asked if you read A Thousand Plateaus from cover to cover because the book actually says you can read it in any order, based on the rhizomatic approach developed in the book. You didn't know this or demonstrate that you knew it so it's clear to me that you don't know what you're talking about and it's likely that you won't even if you did do the reading.

And here you are claiming post-modernism is anti-rigourous, attempting to appear serious, and intellectually dishonest. What a projection!

>This is how we subtly became transsexuals
gotta love the cocksureness with which the philosopher delivers his asspulls

holy...btfo

>samefagging so people will read your shitty post

Tackles the right questions with the right answers but in an unbelievably convoluted fashion. I wonder if the French original reads any better.

>transsexual
Stopped reading there.

Existentialism is based, what are you talking about? Kierkegaard is godly, and Sartre is vastly underrated. The ending to The Flies is perhaps one of the most heroic passage in literature.

>posts on Veeky Forums all day, every day, making fun of le alt-right strawman
pathetic

its a meme but i am increasingly convinced you cant have a whole opinion on a work if you didnt read it fluently in its native language.

Can someone explain to me what he's saying? It seems verbose and vide de sens, frankly. What's his argument?

I might be wrong here, but I understand him to be saying that "liberation" cannot really occur with something as intensely personal as sexuality, unlike with political revolutions. With a political revolution, people necessarily come together to create a new society, ideally a democratic one, which requires some compromise. However, the idea of "compromise" and "sexuality", like building a democratic consensus of sex, does not sound very liberating to most people, especially "once the orgy was over" and people have indulged in an ice cream parlor's worth of sexual choices. So nobody can really decide who they are sexuality, and we are "transsexuals".

The transpolitical is an interesting flourish, I believe he is saying that in the aftermath of '68, people read and sampled so many ideologies and obsessed over them, but were not able to pick one either on their own or as a group, much like with the sexual revolution. Hence, just as we are transvestites, so we are political cross-dressers.

What a French way of expressing that idea.

pretty much how social media identity politics dont realize they share views of the group they are attacking

Baudrillard was not a philosopher, and by "transsexual" he means play on sexual difference and androgyny, like David Bowie or Grace Jones. It's also pretty obvious that "we all become transsexuals" in the last paragraph is a rhetorical device.
I'm pretty sure from memory that this is a misreading, but I don't have my own copy of Screened Out to hand. He makes a connection between the transsexual, and what he calls the transpolitical and the transaesthetic. The point he makes here about sexuality is similar to the point he makes about aesthetics in this essay: kirkbrideplan.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/art-contemporary-arte280a6-of-itself-baudrillard.pdf
i.e. the unleashing of possibility by revolution (sexual or artistic) causes a loss of the register of specificity.

lol, are we reading the same passage?

Like a broken cuck-oo clock.

Can someone please, PLEASE tell me why people consider complicated sounding statements more intellectual than the same statement explained more simply and concisely? Is it some form of 2deep4u artistic performance or are most people just pseuds?

>political cross-dressers
Breddy good.

>a postmodern revival
It's not the Eighties anymore. It doesn't look like you're getting more beyond the occasional right wingers implementing post-modernism in their rhetoric.

>hard, text-based
Hermeneutics will go on, and conceivably work as a point of contact between what used to be called analytic and continental traditions, given that language and interpretation are all the rage since the Linguistic Turn.

only betas hate women. at least you do not claim to be anything than a worm.

>the register of specificity.
what is this?

>Hermeneutics will go on

spotted the hermeneutics grad student

there's a chance this is not ironic and that scares me

This only applies if something is actually reducible to more simple language without losing anything, which is in practice rarely the case with good writers. With shitty writers it no doubt often does, but most of the famous postmodern frenchies were quite good writers and wrote very dense.

the quality of being verbose and eloquent is required in philosophy

>t. Maoist scumbag

byuo

bump

>the white west

Wasn't the west full of native americans?
Did you mean west Europe? The land of Celtics, Druids, barbarians, and in the distant past, Neanderthals?

The west was never white. Whiteness isn't a real thing. During the 1930s, latinos like myself were legally considered "white." The next decade: non-white. "Whiteness" is political, not biological or scientific, and definitely not rational.

>The land of Celtics, Druids, barbarians,
these are all white
>Neanderthals
not sure if this is satire or if you're genuinely this retarded

>The west was never white.
Europe was always white
the definition of white was a light skinned European person

Southern Europeans were never considered white by Northern Europeans. If you read English literature from the XIV century you can see how the Portuguese were literally called "blacks". Whiteness is a political concept.

Sounds like we now know where Houellebecq got his ideas from.

that's all good and well but does not mean blacks (the modern definition) have much of a history in Europe or that Europe is not a white (modern definition) continent

I am sick and tired of this. Every day I come to Veeky Forums, and every day there is at least one thread up with an OP image of an attractive old man dressed sharply and posing seductively. It's probably the same one or two people who do it honestly. Let me tell you something, you faggot pieces of shit who are doing this: you are the poster child for everything that is wrong in literature, art, and society as a whole today. You are incapable of coming up with anything creative, thought provoking, or of substance, and you lack even the smallest modicum of intelligence, so you use "style" and "class" and "respectability" in place of it and to draw attention to yourself, because that's the only way your SHIT "creation" and ideas would ever get seen by anyone. And before you say anything, this has NOTHING to do with the fact that I am an hormone addled teenager. Anyway, I will be petitioning the owner of this website to ban your asses, so enjoy being able to post here while it lasts, because it's not going to last long, just like you that one time you convinced your Old English teacher to let you fuck him.

"that's all good and well but does not mean" whiteness isn't a political concept as it is being discussed. It's an umbrella concept for northern albinos to make them feel special about themselves. Southern Europeans are only white when it suits them (Roman Empire, Greek cultural heritage, Greek Empire, etc). Being black or white are forms to differentiate the US from the THEM. Just as like the Irish weren't considered white. Being white is a literal social construct since you could be pale as snow, but if you were Irish you wouldn't be considered white. Whiteness is a symbol of status plus certain physiological aspects.

so what's your point? that niggers are not dumb? or that Europeans don't deserve to keep their own homelands?

My point is that Europeans shouldn't adopt a XX century definition of what is white. Especially Southern Europeans. We need to tell the Central and the Northern Europeans to fuck off with their Nordicism bullshit.

I honestly have no idea where you're going with this

Then this conversation is over.

I might be a Yank and cultural divides are based around racial lines, not ethnic ones, but I think it's safe to say the this image is more relevant now than it was then. Either accept a larger identity and preserve facets of your culture, or risk losing your current one entirely

you need to go back.

Great argument. It always widens my world view when I'm afforded the rare opportunity of arguing with a retard. You're probably some turkroach living in Greece

This is working out so well in Europe. Especially since most Southern European countries are growing ever more bigoted against Northern European countries. Maybe "whiteness" might work in the US due to obvious elements, but it certainly doesn't work in Europe. As I said, whiteness is a political concept and nothing more.

>the Arab race doesn't exist because Sunnis and Shiites hate each other
wow really made me think

>the Arab race
>race
It certainly doesn't exist and I don't understand how the rest of your post relates to mine

But I don't have a culture.

What culture do you have?

Baudrillard is one of the rare post-68 French thinkers who stayed rational and kept a rigurous and critical philosophical system. Others include Clouscard, Debord and Michéa. Foucault, Derrida or even Bourdieu are all hacks who said nothing valuable and were praised in Parisian bourgeois circles.

>cultural divides are based around racial lines, not ethnic ones
What? How are cultural divides not based around ethnic divides? How would you meaningfully differentiate the terms cultural and ethnic in that statement? What about all the cases in which people have a lot in common genetically, but very different cultures, and vice versa?

I'd rather be given the the opportunity for future generations to create their own. America is still young and at this rate, it will die before it has centuries worth of tradition

What the fuck are you talking about? Countries are formed around ethnic lines as populations are divided by geographical formations. Culture is a projection of the collective mind of the country. French Quebec has more in come with France genetically and culturally than it does with the rest of Canada and populations of Germans have existed and maintained their culture in bother Russia and throughout South America, especially in Southern Brazil. White Americans don't share a culture with the British because their an amalgamation of mostly Irish, German, and Italian immigrants.

You don't know shit, so shut the fuck up pseudo-intellectual crypto-lefty

Brits aren't white? Who would have guessed

"White nationalism" is a yank phenomena because they have no identity other than being white. European nations have fought each other and have distinct cultures, and do not wish to be assimilated into each other. The attmpt to mash all white peoples into one is ironically America destroying European culture.

Yanks were the biggest mistake Europe ever made.

lol you don't even know about civic nationalism

>I'd rather be given the opportunity
Why?
>for future generations
lol

Whiteness is like porn, you know it when you see it.

Clearly this is not the case.

On both counts. Censorship has considerable difficulty determining porn, and everyone has difficulty determining race.

Going purely genetically, pajeets are white.

>Going purely genetically, pajeets are white.
kek no
the aryan meme is just a meme with nothing behind it but linguistics

>#
>>the register of specificity.
>what is this?
bump please

oNLY BETAS CARE ABOUT SPoOKS LIKE RACE AND WHITENESS