Toxic Gender Philosophy

[Consul]

I know next to nothing about Gender Philosophy, except what I read in the paper every day. I don't doubt that Gender Studies Departments are politically homogeneous, and a bit whacky. That doesn't mean they cannot occasionally produce illuminating work and good scholarship.

Examples are welcome!

[Immanuel Can]

Pointing out that someone argues in feminine ways is not focused on the argument but on the person.

It's not, actually. "Someone argues in feminine ways" is clearly a statement about his argumentation, not his person.

If it wasn't negative there's no reason to bring it up.

Well, because it's different from the way most men tend to argue, and that, in itself is worthy of note. You can argue that it's "equally effective," but for the purposes of locating truth or reasoning, I would say it's not...as would the basic laws of logic. It might be "equally effective" simply for saying what one was thinking, or even "more effective" for venting spleen, or distracting from logic, or some other purpose one had in mind.

But it won't tend to clear thought.

[Immanuel Can]

You seem to be so addicted the ad hominem that you've lost all perspective.

You demand beatings; i provide them like a responsible parent.

And you think you can give them? Such an imagination! Such hubris. Well, again, you have a fan club of one.

[Immanuel Can]

Is any part of this getting through?!?

The ad hom remains irrelevant, no matter how much you love and practice it.

But it's a little sad. You're capable of better...and occasionally show it. But not today, apparently.

[Walker]

Is any part of this getting through?!?

The ad hom remains irrelevant, no matter how much you love and practice it.

But it's a little sad. You're capable of better...and occasionally show it. But not today, apparently.

It does get tedious, which is why I don't even bother considering what could otherwise be an interesting topic. A quick glance is enough to tell what's going on, no need to read, like a plot about a middle-school girl trying to get noticed by a boy.

And you're correct about better, I've also noticed the wordsmithing that should be turned towards Truth, Justice, and The America Way for the benefit of all sentient beings.

I just chalk it all up to content objectively presented a bit too challingingly, for any rebuttal to make rational sense.

[Immanuel Can]

Is any part of this getting through?!?

The ad hom remains irrelevant, no matter how much you love and practice it.

But it's a little sad. You're capable of better...and occasionally show it. But not today, apparently.

It does get tedious, which is why I don't even bother considering what could otherwise be an interesting topic. A quick glance is enough to tell what's going on, no need to read, like a plot about a middle-school girl trying to get noticed by a boy.

And you're correct about better, I've also noticed the wordsmithing that should be turned towards Truth, Justice, and The America Way for the benefit of all sentient beings.

I just chalk it all up to content objectively presented a bit too challingingly, for any rebuttal to make rational sense.

There isn't a case to be made for Gender Theory. So all they can do is go ad hom. They're out of intellectual ammo, and when that happens, all they can do is distract, badger, avoid, smokescreen, complain and insult...anything but face logic.

[Alexiev]

When you have the time listen to some of Lindsay’s talks on Queer Theory which explain the ideological motives of a group of these “theories”. Gender Theory is one manifestation of an ideological trend that is not sound (my opinion).

Whacky is a nice way to put it. Insidious and infiltrating are the terms I’d use. But everyone has their field of battle and their reasons for fighting.

The designation “good scholarship” implies some measure to judge, no? In brief I’d call it *activist scholarship* and by nature it has a specific *agenda*.

Some might admire or emulate that agenda. Myself, hardly at all. But I assume by your standards I would be classed as “reactionary”. And you’d be right (!) But I’d have to explain why and what that means for me.

Activist scholarship can be good scholarship. After all, Karl Marx was an activist and a brilliant scholar. Of course he was wrong about a great many things, but he had a huge influence on the fields of history and social science, moving history away from "great man" theories, and social science toward examining underlying causes. Along with Darwin and Freud, he was the most influential intellectual of his time (at least among those studying humans).

MY own opinion is that the Great Man histories are more fun to read than "social forces" histories, because good stories are always about individuals instead of general forces. But in terms of his influence on academic fields, Marx was clearly a great scholar. Great scholars are not always correct. Indeed, they are often motivated by their activism to create what Kuhn would call "scientific revolutions". Some such revolutions "stick", others do not.

As I've said, I know next to nothing about Gender Studies departments, so I can't supply Consul with his examples. However, ignorance has never prevented me from pontificating in the past, and I don't intend to let it do so in the future. Gender studies is a new field, and new fields are generally intellectually immature. Immature scholarship is often lousy scholarship -- but, because it is not trapped in prevailing paradigms, it has the potential to be enlightening and revolutionary. The same is true of scholarship with an "agenda". It may be prejudiced, but so is more traditional scholarship, in a different way.

[Immanuel Can]

Karl Marx was an activist and a brilliant scholar.

Karl Marx was a narcissistic, nihilistic parasite who made all of his stuff up, at least, what he didn't steal from Hegel. He hated humanity, he stole from and abused his friends, he had a wicked temper, a totally selfish disposition, and abused the only Prole he ever knew personally. He was actually the opposite of an "activist," because "activists" DO things. He did DO anything for the poor: he just employed them as pawns in his theorizing.

Along with Darwin and Freud, he was the most influential intellectual of his time (at least among those studying humans).

He was "influential," alright. His theories underwrote the most homicidal regimes in human history, -- the Stalinist, Maoist, Pol Pot, Castro and other regimes that killed over 140 million human beings. That's "influence," alright...but not the good kind.

Marx was clearly a great scholar.

Oh, that's certainly not true. He was a rhetorician. Even today's Neo Marxists regard his Marxism as the kind they call "crude," because he got nearly all of his basic facts wrong, and history's discredited them absolutely.

Indeed, they are often motivated by their activism to create what Kuhn would call "scientific revolutions". Some such revolutions "stick", others do not.

The reason Marx never got his revolution (which he badly wanted, of course) was that he was wrong.

As I've said, I know next to nothing about Gender Studies departments, so I can't supply Consul with his examples. However, ignorance has never prevented me from pontificating in the past, and I don't intend to let it do so in the future.

Well, then, no wonder you're so impressed with a mere rhetorician like Marx. Talking big isn't the same as knowing things.

Gender studies is a new field, and new fields are generally intellectually immature. Immature scholarship is often lousy scholarship

It's certainly immature, petulant, childish...but the problem is it's never capable of maturing. It's too dependent on childish axioms that can't stand up to any serious examination. Rather like Marx, actually.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It's not, actually. "Someone argues in feminine ways" is clearly a statement about his argumentation, not his person.

Sophistry at its finest! Thus you often get the label of devious and dishonest.

I read what you wrote, it contained specific messages that, according to your cherished conversational ethics, were certainly ad hominem.

Sadly, without an Alexisian panache.

Do better next time. For the forum’s sake!

[Immanuel Can]

It's not, actually. "Someone argues in feminine ways" is clearly a statement about his argumentation, not his person.

Sophistry at its finest! Thus you often get the label of devious and dishonest.

Now, that's ad hom. And verifiably false, as well.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I reworked it just slightly:

Immanuel Can is a narcissistic, nihilistic parasite who made all of his stuff up, at least, what he didn't steal from The Marquis de Sade. He hated humanity, he stole from and abused his forum companions, he had a wicked temper, a micro-penis, and a totally selfish disposition, and abused the only genuinely spiritual person he ever came in contact with, Alexis Jacobi. He was actually the opposite of a “Christian," because "Christians" DO things. He didn’t DO anything for the misguided denizens of PN: he just employed them as pawns in his distorted theorizing.

Have I made my point, Manny?

Ad hominem is fuuuuuunnnnnn and very useful!

You’re learning fast!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Do you now see how relevant the man is when we think about the theories they dream up and, as with Hegel and Marx (and so many others) let loose on the world.

You paint Marx as a severely defective person. What is the relationship between the defective person … and defective theory?

Clearly you label Marx’s personal defects. Correlate that with his theory.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Quiet, please. The Weasel is deep in thought over this one …..

As a spider spins a web so IC labors …

[Immanuel Can]

You paint Marx as a severely defective person.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 2:51 pm
Karl Marx was an activist and a brilliant scholar.

There's the claim, and there's the refutation. What makes an argument ad hominem is that it draws on the irrelevant. Alexiev makes Marx's person the very premise of his argument, and thus the proper grounds of refutation of his specific claim.

Likewise, if I ever say, "The reason you should doubt Gender Theory is because I am an activist and a brilliant scholar," then it will be perfectly in court for you to inquire as to whether or not I am those things...because I MADE it relevant, in that case.

By contrast, if I said that Marx was not to be believed because he was a German or a Jew, that would be ad hominem and irrelevant. Alexiev made no claim that Marx was to be admired because he was a German or a Jew.

Alexiev premises his faith in Marx on Marx's character. Thus, it was he who opened the door to that subject and made it unavoidable in this case. If Marx is to believed because he is "an activist," then we should find that he was active. If he was a "scholar," then his scholarly abilities and performance are in court. And if he was "brilliant," then his general intelligence is. If he is none of those things, or seriously deficient in all of them, then the claim made by Alexiev is to be doubted.

[Alexis Jacobi]

His Muse labored … and she delivered …

You are one of the most accomplished sophists I have encountered anywhere.

You attacked Marx at the most ad hominem level. It is there for all to see.

What we can take from this is that it is quite proper, indeed necessary, to refer to the (defects of the) man. It can be part of a genuine, important critique.

Therefore, when a set of observations, views, or summations about you and your style is brought out, it can be valid.

I don’t give a rat’s ass about spicy comments in this or any forum conversation. This is your complaint.

Your hypocrisy was demonstrated.

I arranged a small ceremony to celebrate my glorious conquest.