Distasteful Criticism

Women shouldn't be engaged in politics, their minds aren't equipped to it. They should raise our children

Criticize her work, not her. You look petty and wimpy.

Should I critize the work of a feminist who shits on a canvas as well? Form is content, cuck

Steven Pinker is a laughstock for academics. I can guarantee you that no one takes him seriously.

Hmm, it looks like you are uncapable of approaching her ideas, since apparently you can't get over her form. If this is the case, your insight is useless.

Moron, you know that women are capable of much more than raising children, I hope. Motherhood should never be degraded. It's the womb of society but every person has thier vocation. Read you mental inbred. Learn. I hope to God youb don't have daughters.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Kenneth_Keller

Academics = bolshevik Jew and feminists intent on destroying the West
Pinker = rational scientist, who cares only about facts and logic

Why else would pay mind then you dung brain? You only KNOW HER becuase of HER WORK. No wonder you are on Veeky Forums, life gave up on you. At least I'm immature and young.

*incapable

Thanks.

lol

Althusser was a self confessed fraud who murdered his wife, a Marxist who admittedly never read much of Marx. A megalomaniac wannabe philosopher king and Stalinist apparatchik with an evident contempt for humanity. academic leftists, specially those of the pomo variety, are professional LARPers who prey on the gullibility of upper middle class undergrads who are in love with radical chic but most of all in love with themselves and their own inanity. Obscurantist mystification is just a means to further the poststructuralist sage's career and cult of personality.

(The first American to receive a PhD in computer science was a Roman Catholic nun.) Along with other accomplishments. (Math, Physics)

bump this shit ma nigga

>Some idiot replied by summarizing what she wrote as if the text is beyond comprehension. LOL.

That was me. You literally asked:

>wat did she mean by this?

to which I have a direct and obtuse answer, to undercut the actual purpose of your post, which was to ax grind about post modernist convolution, as if we don't have that same thread sixty times a day every day.

dumbshit, the wtf is she saying greentext was sarcastic subtext. I just explained what i already meant. and its unanimous. this is an example of poor criticism plain and simple, neither immediately clear for the reader or pleasurable to read.

obtuse
[uhb-toos, -tyoos]
adjective
not quick or alert in perception, feeling, or intellect; not sensitive or observant; dull.
not sharp, acute, or pointed; blunt in form.

There was an ironic jab at your own lack of grace or style in my response. But of course you missed that, your aperture for distaste too refined and sensitive for so blunt and obvious an insult.

read this

>obtuse = dumb

half the time for ya bud kek ok dr seuss, so clever, you sound like judith

How are you using aperture in this context? I'm curious? diff user here

As in a camera, the medium being a visual one, even if the content is verbal.

I know. I'm asking you how you are using it in the linguistic context. it seems misplaced.

In conjunction with 'obtuse', having to do with speed in perception, i.e. a 'sensitive' lense or a rapid shutter, able to pick up the details of something in motion, like a 'quick with.

It's imperfect, but I'm not invested in this thread.

interesting

>was had
what did xe mean by this?

It's a sentence from an introduction ripped from a context that assumes a certain level of knowledge of marxist social theory of its audience.

but it means that in general, social theorists shifted their perspectives from the Althusserian, structuralist account of social relations which was relatively static and regulated, to a hegemonic (Gramscian?) account which was more dynamic and subject to transformation by certain agents.

>exclusively to the detriment of have a pleasurable reading experience

this is one of the great merit's of butler's writing. fuck off if you think theory should be easy. you're supposed to stretch your brain beyond its usual patterns, not happily salute ideas you already assent to in passing on your lunch hour

>fuck off if you think theory should be easy.
t. petit bourgeois faux radical obscurantist

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 woman dressed scantily 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 "flash" and pizazz 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 don't have a girlfriend. 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 an obese girl to let you fuck her.

t. eats doritos and mountain jew

you're right about my class but im not sure what is radical about the notion that philosophy and theory are difficult for good reason lol

unless you're just a stupid illiterate

>robot

The computer is never smarter than the person who birthed it

It had nothing to do with being easy you fucking pseud, it has to do with clarity and precise reduction. Why the fuck do you complicate something needlessly when it can be simplified, clear, and enjoyable or at least immediately digestible. Only fucking pseudos think they are precious when they write with a thesaurus in thier other hand for every other word. It comes off as therotically stagnant and suffers from creative inertia. It's not natural to read. Lemme guess, flesh bots are as good as humans eh bud?

OP didn't do that though you moron

That's why you are not a teacher or a person in authority to lead. Simplification is life, it doesn't mean inadequate representation. It means effiecentky clean and yet artful and elegant. Less is more you fucking pseudos. No one thinks you are more intelligent. Distilling is the SIGN of intelligence. Veeky Forums has some of the most arrogant/fookish people on this whole site.

>Why the fuck do you complicate something needlessly when it can be simplified, clear, and enjoyable or at least immediately digestible

precisely because at the moment of the author's writing, the signified to be expressed has not coalesced a body of signifiers around it, so these must be synthesized. the thought the author is working out in language does not have yet language to settle into. it is difficult because it is unfamiliar.

you make a serious error when you suppose that it is just diving into the thesaurus. whatever it "comes off as" to an uneducated, unimaginative, illiterate dipshit with a stunted verbal capacity, such as yourself, scarcely matters. what your lack of expertise in a field of discourse (philosophy, theory) misinterprets as "creative inertia" is the creative process in action.

i am a teacher lol. we assign texts like these to graduate students so that they can interpret them. they are not designed to be digested by Veeky Forums troglodytes and "autodidacts" who want the conclusions ready-made and pre-packaged for them by a "chart" or youtube video. they are written for exegesis. the arguments they are putting forward are novel and in need of additional explication by a community of people dedicated to the topic at hand.

>College professor
>on Veeky Forums

LMFAO. Now I've heard it all. Can you do me a favor and state your gender followed by posting a picture of your face.

So you think people are complaing becuase they don't have a big enough vocabulary? And we know you're not a teacher you pseud

im male. no picture you freak
>captcha: Select all dresses.

it's got nothing to do with vocabulary lol

and if it did, and you still WANTED to understand the text, you would simply google the words you dont understand.

but you DONT WANT to understand the text. you saw it in a "worst sentences" list, googled the author, discovered she is interested in feminism and queer theory, and wrote it off as claptrap.

and im not even sure how you could draw the inference that i think advanced vocabulary is necessary for dense thought from my post. if anything my remark was addressed to syntax.

but if the vocabulary is too much for you then maybe you should stop reading philosophy for now haha.

OK pseud. Since you won't actually combat my argument with arguments
>"you don't understand deep thoughts" is not an argument and is not even the proper retort to the original claim

I said it's not good writing. Not that it is not understandable. Answer me this, since I am not a reputable enough source. Why would Steven Pinker agree with me then?

It's always remarkable to witness the cruelty of the educated.

I don't know the terms of his "agreement," so I have no fucking clue. He's a neuroscientist who thinks the findings of that field authorize him to make comments on philosophy.

What I was trying to suggest to you is that just because this idea may be easily expressible RIGHT NOW—namely because OTHER PEOPLE WHO READ IT AFTER BUTLER WROTE IT went through the labor of distilling and disseminating the ideas it tries to convey—does NOT MEAN that those ideas were readily available AT THE TIME OF BUTLER'S WRITING. Butler had to wrangle a formula out of language, and did the best she could to give her ideas clear expression, given the prevailing discourses at the time. A few decades of the ideas of queer theory and marxism wiggling their way through culture does much to domesticate what was at one time radical.

the cruelty of the uneducated is much worse

>the cruelty of the uneducated is much worse
Not at all. The cruelty of the uneducated does little harm. The educated are in a position to do some serious damage, and the utter disgust they have for the uneducated is frightening tp say the least.

>The educated are in a position to do some serious damage, and the utter disgust they have for the uneducated is frightening tp say the least.

the only disgust i retain for the uneducated is the visceral, ethical disgust one feels at the sight of waste. an addled mind is like an obese body in this regard.

what is really disgusting about this conduct is your persistent effort to project your own difficulties with a text onto an author who has studied the field about which they write for decades, rather than to your own ignorance about the discursive norms of your field.

i suppose you cant be blamed: you've probably circulated through the same mass cultural dross your whole life.

reading philosophy is difficult. the ideas philosophy is trying to convey are its product; thus the language they find is novel, and for that reason unfamiliar and hard to parse. get over it.

Please just stop responding to people making posts like that.

*muh discourse*

this expression indicates a pomofag's confusion and lack of understanding

>A few decades of the ideas of queer theory and marxism wiggling their way through culture does much to domesticate what was at one time radical.

cultural marxism confirmed

Im the og person you were talking to. So that's my point exactly. She failed in distilling the theory by "formulating" an incoherent text linguistically. It's a matter of taste. And I gave you reasons as to why it's writing of poor quality. It's just common sense. If I gave you two different texts that both adequately express and explain a theory but one is more immediately digestible and pleasurable to read, you would pick that text over the other one. Why are you over intellectualizing it you pseud

Incoherent and inefficient*

You are dishonest when you write just like Butler. Trying to guise your insecurities by using language to create a seemingly more convoluted idea, when it's it's rarest form it's easily understandable. The goal is never to prevent your reader from immersing into your work. You are a phony. A charlatan who browses fag chan.

youtu.be/hozBzf3xU9U

This video shows both improper use of language and language used to deceive through intentionally convoluted writing.

*most raw form

Sorry not rarest

this gay guy is p cute

I hate dykes.

lol

>A single sentence extracted from a dense philosophical text is difficult to interpret.
Yeah, no shit. You could do the same thing with Aristotle. Butler actually addresses your criticism in the preface to Gender Trouble. You've obviously never read her. Not going to waste my any more time on this.

How is biographical information about Althusser relevant to his ideas? Vivaldi was a pedophile. Does that mean his music is bad? FYI Althusser is neither a postmodernist nor a poststructuralist. Like, you actually have no idea what you are talking about. Yes he is an "anti-humanist" but this term has a specific meaning within the context of his overall project which differs from your pedestrian interpretation of it after reading his Wikipedia article.

I love how all the folks on Veeky Forums who get butthurt about critical theory have clearly never read any of it. Like it's so painfully obvious I just get secondhand embarrassment t b q h.

What is it with these brain dead opponents? Did you read what I wrote? We're talking about the quality of writing, what does that have anything to do with the vastness of philosophy you moron. There are people who can distill properly and there are people who fail miserably. Get over it.

>The transcendental unity of apperception is that unity through which all the manifold given in an intuition is united in a concept of the object. It is therefore entitled objective, and must be distinguished from the subjective unity of consciousness, which is a determination of inner sense -- through which the manifold of intuition for such [objective] combination is empirically given. Whether I can become empirically conscious of the manifold as simultaneous or as successive depends on circumstances or empirical conditions. Therefore the empirical unity of consciousness, through association of representations, itself concerns an appearance, and is wholly contingent. But the pure form of intuition in time, merely as intuition in general, which contains a given manifold, is subject to the original unity of consciousness, simply through the necessary relation of the manifold of the intuition to the one 'I think', and so through the pure synthesis of understanding which is the a priori underlying ground of the empirical synthesis. Only the original unity is objectively valid; the empirical unity of apperception, upon which we are not here dwelling, and which besides is merely derived from the former under given conditions in concreto, has only subjective validity. To one man, for instance, a certain word suggests one thing, to another some other thing; the unity of consciousness in that which is empirical is not, as regards what is given, necessarily and universally valid.

Why do your personal feelings about the quality of someone's writing have any bearing on anything?

I don't understand those who criticize the passage as imprecise or abstract. It's extremely precise and is calling upon very specific concepts and notions from a developed intellectual current. Yes, it does require prior knowledge. No, common sense has no place in philosophy (cf. Gramsci). Btw Butler's work (Gender Trouble) is widely read by undergrads and activists and it's not even as difficult as some other seminal works, so I'm not sure what the issue is other than political opposition to her project.

Butler is one of the top five most significant living thinkers.

That's the whole purpose of the post modernism criticism you fuckin jambalaya

Read this goofTwo texts, both explain a theory sufficiently, one is not pleasurable or immediately clear, the other is, one is inclined to make the reader understand and enjoy the other isn't, which text is superior magoo?

Seems pretty clear to me, as a graduate student of philosophy. You probably just don't have that much experience reading texts with this kind of language.

You probably just don't have that much experience reading good writing in general. Most philosophy students fail to articulate their abstract thoughts fluently. Your reading comprehension also seems to suffer being as that I said perhaps 5 times that this has nothing to do with text or theory comprehension and has EVERYTHING to do with linguistics and proficient writing.

>experts in field sometimes use jargon

FUCKIN POSTMODERN CANCER

It looks like a copypasta.

can´t read shit. lrn 2 screenshot

Do most fields use it to deliberately exclude?

You wouldn't be able to read it anyway eyelet
What does? Trips

He thinks it's about jargon lmao it's about about constructing a palatable sentence for the reader to enjoy. The ideas are supposed to be challenging not the fuckin readability. Shit writers don't understand this.

>eyelet
lel nice damage control

where did you brainlets get the idea that reading philosophy is supposed to be easy lol

truly pathetic. gas this board.

They would likely argue that the language allows the ideas to challenge society.

I think it's so that they can covertly support neoliberal reforms (like deregulating gender) under the nose of the general public.

It's actually not. The fact that you think it is reveals that your idea of postmodernism is formed exclusively by podcasts and youtube videos.

Your the only pleb who mention >muh retina, go see the shrink you goof

It's for equivocation. If the reader or listener is under the impression he doesn't understand the knowledge being presented to him, he can be manipulated. It's dishonest. If you were to distill the muddy language of many neo liberals, the result would frighten most.
I couldn't understand your words with that cock in your eye

>for the reader to enjoy

no, this is not at all the point

>The ideas are supposed to be challenging not the fuckin readability.

lol go read kant with that attitude see how far it gets you

Kant's writing isnt nearly as malicious as Butler's.

>His argument is ""no"" and ""go read writing from another historical context""

OK since it's clear you are not intelligent this will be difficult for you. Kant writes extremely well, lucid and with both efficacy and efficiency. The fact you compared Kants Work with Judith Buttheads is a special form of retardation you have adorned yourself with.

The only thing challenging about Kant was his ideas not his language you cuckerspaniel

It may not be malicious but it is pretty fucking bad, tho

Both me

>See Judith Butler in catalog
>Oh wow this should be nice
>/pol/tards sperging out and idiots actually responding to them
And again I must ask myself: why the fuck do I even browse this site anymore?

"Hello, how are you on this fine evening?"

"Salutations, what is the condition of your current emotional, psychological, and physical state during the latter portions of the earth's rotation cycle?"

First is efficient and palatable. The second is postmodernism artifice.

You're right faggot, leave

i think what is more disturbing is that you think interacting with people in real life is the same thing as reading a book lol

This isn't fiction writing you faggot. Shes discussing philosophy so maybe my example was I'll informed but the crux is the same. This hideous presentation of language is laughable.

no, the crux isnt the same. interacting with human beings is not the same as reading a philosophy book, so the language is not the same either.

get fucked, brainlet.

lmao your whole argument is "i cant understand this!" and you expect any one to take you seriously when you say the author did it on purpose to confound you. give it a rest.

>How is biographical information about Althusser relevant to his ideas?

Althusser wrote an autobiography in which he explicitly admitted he was a fraud and mused on the philosophical/personal implications of the wife killing. Anyways, Althusser's 'project' was pure careerism . Marx' achievement was the abolition of the distinction between philosophy and practice, the realisation of philosophy in practice. Althusser restored the preeminence of the professional philosopher by rejecting Marx for an unscholarly and ahistorical marx, a lacanian asspul that has nothing to do with Marxism. Professional academics in the make work industry love Althusser and the poststructuralists because they are ultimately invested in the current world, they don't want to abolish it but to stand above it as smug philosopher kings. An ideology that perceives the world as nothing but 'discourse' and 'texts' is very convenient for the people that make a living managing discourses and texts.

My fucking goodness, you are a fucking pleb of the highest order. The example is not the greatest but the principle is the EXACT same. Over complicating language and needlessly impeding the flow of the reader. You're mind is not intelligent enough to distill.
Good bait faggot
LMAO post adrogynous faggots btfo