Midwinter and Trumptman, although TRYING WAY TOO HARD , are really just joking-- honestly.
OK. Grades are turned in and so I finally have some time to address this oppressive, misleading and, frankly, disingenuous post of yours with the seriousness it truly deserves.
I think the most telling element of this post is your failure to use our first names. Nick and I are both quite open about signing all of our posts with our names. It's a sign of openness and honesty (however much Nick still hasn't answered the question of whether he's a liar or a beast-lover). Your refusal to use our names is suggestive of a great deal: Clearly you think of us primarily vis a vis our online nicknames (that is, through our online "identities") rather than, as our tendency to sign our posts with our "real" names. This can be read as a very clear attempt on your part to reduce us to that online "identity" (which is, as you no doubt know, one created by you, not us), and thereby subject us to what is, in effect, a dehumanization. Indeed, your choice NOT to refer to us by our proper names indicates that not only are you caught up in the simulacra of all this (that is, that our representation of ourselves through this digital, mediated medium, but that you also refuse to acknowledge the simulacra in which you are a willing and knowing participant. I, for one, find this attempt to dehumanize us by reducing us to the bits we allow to stand in for us deplorable.
Additionally, your insistence that Nick and I are "TRYING WAY TOO HARD" is deeply troubling. Why, I might ask, did you feel the need to comment on something that you cannot know? Indeed, how can you possibly know how "hard" we are trying at all? You can't. Just admit it. The vagueness of what we're trying "way too hard" at is indicative of the simple fact that you're lying here. You're trying to make a claim about something you cannot possibly know in order to impose some wild-eyed "interpretation" upon what's going on here (and all interpretation is an act of violence since it attempts to impose meaning upon a situation, I might add). But you can't impose your "meaning" here since, as the ambiguity of the sentence indicates, you're not even sure what it is you're trying to impose on us other than that we're doing something in a way that you think is somehow overstimulated. Again, a clear effort to impose your will on others.
You get to it, I suppose, when you claim that we are all "really just joking--honestly." But note the way you've couched it. We're "really just joking," by which I assume you mean we are "really only joking," which is, of course, a clear attempt to undermine the seriousness of this discussion--to usurp it, as it were, and lay claim to it. Indeed, you have effectively set yourself up as the Adamic figure of this thread, naming all the beasts in the kingdom and exerting dominion over them. And yet, I your own language earlier indicates, you are a faux Adam, sir, an ersatz Adam--an insurgent Adam, come here to make claims on territory that simply is not yours, and yet hoping that your robes (like some Twain character) will dazzle us all. Ersatz, indeed, sir.
Most telling is your need, after insisting upon some monolithic "interpretation"/usurpation of this thread, that you need to qualify your claims with "honestly." Need I even point out the irony? I don't think so.
It is clear from the above post that Scott or should I say midwinter is best represented by the individualistic identities given unto him by other internet personalities and the people behind them because as we all know, Scott in real life is the Scott other people think of him as. So shawnj is right, dude, you are trying too hard...
I fear Midwinter has fallen prey to his acculturated notions of a "fixed" or "normative" "identity".
While no doubt a balm to his white, male sense of entitlement, this kind of physiological hegemony is what, in fact, lies at the heart of the imperial "thrust" of what may be ironically called "the west".
By privileging his own (in fact chimerical, relative) sense of self with centrality and stability (the phallocentric fallacy) , Midwinter reenacts the horrific yet chillingly predictable procession of marginalization, enslavement, and genocide.
I'm surprised you can even see to post, drenched as you are in the blood of innocents.
I fear Midwinter has fallen prey to his acculturated notions of a "fixed" or "normative" "identity".
While no doubt a balm to his white, male sense of entitlement, this kind of physiological hegemony is what, in fact, lies at the heart of the imperial "thrust" of what may be ironically called "the west".
By privileging his own (in fact chimerical, relative) sense of self with centrality and stability (the phallocentric fallacy) , Midwinter reenacts the horrific yet chillingly predictable procession of marginalization, enslavement, and genocide.
I'm surprised you can even see to post, drenched as you are in the blood of innocents.
I fear Midwinter has fallen prey to his acculturated notions of a "fixed" or "normative" "identity".
Quite an imperial statement, that. Look at you, attempting to impose your postcolonial, post-Freudian notions of identity on me. Acculturated, indeed, since you're arguing that a) acculturation by necessity invalidates ideas and b) despite this, some acculturated notions are better than others. So which is it? Are you a liar or a beast-lover? Wait. Sorry. So which is it? Are my acculturated notions of identity (that you ascribe to me in proper imperial fashion) as valid as postcolonial/poststructuralist notions of an un-fixed, and non-normative identity--which, in the end, are no less acculturated than anything else.
Nonetheless, my point was about Shawn/ShawnJ's willingness to remain trapped in the whirligig because it suits his clearly fascistic impulses.
Quote:
While no doubt a balm to his white, male sense of entitlement, this kind of physiological hegemony is what, in fact, lies at the heart of the imperial "thrust" of what may be ironically called "the west".
Indeed, note your own reliance upon physiological metaphors to make your point--and don't give me any of that trapped in the language of the Empire crap. To suggest that the Westward impulse is the result of some phallic thrust of the imperial west, and, at the same time, to mix the metaphor by confusing the phallus with the heart--two traditional symbols of love and sexuality--suggests that you are complicit in the very atrocities you accuse me of right here:
Quote:
By privileging his own (in fact chimerical, relative) sense of self with centrality and stability (the phallocentric fallacy) , Midwinter reenacts the horrific yet chillingly predictable procession of marginalization, enslavement, and genocide.
I'm surprised you can even see to post, drenched as you are in the blood of innocents
I see where you're coming from now. Really, I do. You're a part of that utterly bourgeois post-Foucaultian movement that seeks, just as the "innocents" begin to make some advancements into the hegemony, you move the goal-posts? Typical Foucault: just as the woman-as-author comes to be an object of critical inquiry, you and your ilk claim that there is no author?
Comments
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Midwinter and Trumptman, although TRYING WAY TOO HARD
OK. Grades are turned in and so I finally have some time to address this oppressive, misleading and, frankly, disingenuous post of yours with the seriousness it truly deserves.
I think the most telling element of this post is your failure to use our first names. Nick and I are both quite open about signing all of our posts with our names. It's a sign of openness and honesty (however much Nick still hasn't answered the question of whether he's a liar or a beast-lover). Your refusal to use our names is suggestive of a great deal: Clearly you think of us primarily vis a vis our online nicknames (that is, through our online "identities") rather than, as our tendency to sign our posts with our "real" names. This can be read as a very clear attempt on your part to reduce us to that online "identity" (which is, as you no doubt know, one created by you, not us), and thereby subject us to what is, in effect, a dehumanization. Indeed, your choice NOT to refer to us by our proper names indicates that not only are you caught up in the simulacra of all this (that is, that our representation of ourselves through this digital, mediated medium, but that you also refuse to acknowledge the simulacra in which you are a willing and knowing participant. I, for one, find this attempt to dehumanize us by reducing us to the bits we allow to stand in for us deplorable.
Additionally, your insistence that Nick and I are "TRYING WAY TOO HARD" is deeply troubling. Why, I might ask, did you feel the need to comment on something that you cannot know? Indeed, how can you possibly know how "hard" we are trying at all? You can't. Just admit it. The vagueness of what we're trying "way too hard" at is indicative of the simple fact that you're lying here. You're trying to make a claim about something you cannot possibly know in order to impose some wild-eyed "interpretation" upon what's going on here (and all interpretation is an act of violence since it attempts to impose meaning upon a situation, I might add). But you can't impose your "meaning" here since, as the ambiguity of the sentence indicates, you're not even sure what it is you're trying to impose on us other than that we're doing something in a way that you think is somehow overstimulated. Again, a clear effort to impose your will on others.
You get to it, I suppose, when you claim that we are all "really just joking--honestly." But note the way you've couched it. We're "really just joking," by which I assume you mean we are "really only joking," which is, of course, a clear attempt to undermine the seriousness of this discussion--to usurp it, as it were, and lay claim to it. Indeed, you have effectively set yourself up as the Adamic figure of this thread, naming all the beasts in the kingdom and exerting dominion over them. And yet, I your own language earlier indicates, you are a faux Adam, sir, an ersatz Adam--an insurgent Adam, come here to make claims on territory that simply is not yours, and yet hoping that your robes (like some Twain character) will dazzle us all. Ersatz, indeed, sir.
Most telling is your need, after insisting upon some monolithic "interpretation"/usurpation of this thread, that you need to qualify your claims with "honestly." Need I even point out the irony? I don't think so.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by billybobsky
you are trying too hard...
Hell, you oughta see what I can do when I try.
While no doubt a balm to his white, male sense of entitlement, this kind of physiological hegemony is what, in fact, lies at the heart of the imperial "thrust" of what may be ironically called "the west".
By privileging his own (in fact chimerical, relative) sense of self with centrality and stability (the phallocentric fallacy) , Midwinter reenacts the horrific yet chillingly predictable procession of marginalization, enslavement, and genocide.
I'm surprised you can even see to post, drenched as you are in the blood of innocents.
Originally posted by addabox
I fear Midwinter has fallen prey to his acculturated notions of a "fixed" or "normative" "identity".
While no doubt a balm to his white, male sense of entitlement, this kind of physiological hegemony is what, in fact, lies at the heart of the imperial "thrust" of what may be ironically called "the west".
By privileging his own (in fact chimerical, relative) sense of self with centrality and stability (the phallocentric fallacy) , Midwinter reenacts the horrific yet chillingly predictable procession of marginalization, enslavement, and genocide.
I'm surprised you can even see to post, drenched as you are in the blood of innocents.
I fear Midwinter has fallen prey to his acculturated notions of a "fixed" or "normative" "identity".
Quite an imperial statement, that. Look at you, attempting to impose your postcolonial, post-Freudian notions of identity on me. Acculturated, indeed, since you're arguing that a) acculturation by necessity invalidates ideas and b) despite this, some acculturated notions are better than others. So which is it? Are you a liar or a beast-lover? Wait. Sorry. So which is it? Are my acculturated notions of identity (that you ascribe to me in proper imperial fashion) as valid as postcolonial/poststructuralist notions of an un-fixed, and non-normative identity--which, in the end, are no less acculturated than anything else.
Nonetheless, my point was about Shawn/ShawnJ's willingness to remain trapped in the whirligig because it suits his clearly fascistic impulses.
While no doubt a balm to his white, male sense of entitlement, this kind of physiological hegemony is what, in fact, lies at the heart of the imperial "thrust" of what may be ironically called "the west".
Indeed, note your own reliance upon physiological metaphors to make your point--and don't give me any of that trapped in the language of the Empire crap. To suggest that the Westward impulse is the result of some phallic thrust of the imperial west, and, at the same time, to mix the metaphor by confusing the phallus with the heart--two traditional symbols of love and sexuality--suggests that you are complicit in the very atrocities you accuse me of right here:
By privileging his own (in fact chimerical, relative) sense of self with centrality and stability (the phallocentric fallacy) , Midwinter reenacts the horrific yet chillingly predictable procession of marginalization, enslavement, and genocide.
I'm surprised you can even see to post, drenched as you are in the blood of innocents
I see where you're coming from now. Really, I do. You're a part of that utterly bourgeois post-Foucaultian movement that seeks, just as the "innocents" begin to make some advancements into the hegemony, you move the goal-posts? Typical Foucault: just as the woman-as-author comes to be an object of critical inquiry, you and your ilk claim that there is no author?
Drenched in the blood of innocents, indeed!
Cheers
Scott
Addabox: check your PMs