Philosophy Now Forum

Alexiev wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 11:14 pmIt doesn't much matter, though. You prove your bigotry by thinking it an insult to post in a "feminine manner".

It does sort of matter: IC has his tricky methods to employ ad hominem (but no one cares so much to call him on it).

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 10:29 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 7:40 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 6:36 pm If any conversation about gender issues (as insanity, social sickness, mass hysteria, etc.) is to take place it might happen when these things, pertaining to your (semi-occulted?) stance are dragged out into full view.

I'm not a Gender Theorist. In any case, who I am has absolutely zero with whether or not Gender Theory is a defensible thing. If it's defensible, it can stand on its own two feet; if it cannot, then it cannot.

So you're just misdirecting again. You've got nothing relevant to say, it seems.

I am not so much interested in *gender theory* as an abstract topic, but the opposition to it

Well, the first thing that you have to establish is that Gender Theory is something that can even stand up to opposition, and doesn't collapse at the first step of critique. And that, you haven't even tried to do.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 11:14 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 10:03 pm As I recall, you said "parent." You didn't say explicitly "father." But check back and see.

In one of my posts:

As an unmarried, single father I had a joint custody agreement and had equal rights with my son's mother.

I must have missed that, for some reason. What I remember is only that you said you "had a son...etc." Was it in a message to me, or something you sent to somebody else?

Then, a male you are...who argues in feminine ways. And if having it pointed out that you're arguing in feminine ways seems to you like an insult, then I guess that's what it seems to you.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 12:33 am Well, the first thing that you have to establish is that Gender Theory is something that can even stand up to opposition, and doesn't collapse at the first step of critique. And that, you haven't even tried to do.

Had you ever read anything I’ve written, imbecile, you would be able to surmise that Gender Theory, and the various “theories”, I oppose at a fundamental level.

What is the matter with your mind, man?!?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 12:35 am

Then, a male you are...who argues in feminine ways. And if having it pointed out that you're arguing in feminine ways seems to you like an insult, then I guess that's what it seems to you.

I argue. You whine. Hmmmm.

.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 11:17 pm

Alexiev wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 11:14 pmIt doesn't much matter, though. You prove your bigotry by thinking it an insult to post in a "feminine manner".

It does sort of matter: IC has his tricky methods to employ ad hominem (but no one cares so much to call him on it).

Of course I've heard of the famous James Lindsay stunt of getting a phony paper published in some academic journal. I hope this shows a sense of humor on his part, rather than mean-spirited attempts to demean. Academics are infatuated with jargon and new speak. Lindsay seems like a bit too much of a conspiracy theorist to suit my taste, however.

Maybe I'll watch your videos, and comment. But when I clicked on one it was more than an hour long. I prefer print to video. Print allows me to skim until I find something interesting.

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. All academic departments produce more mediocre scholarship than excellent work.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 2:51 am Of course I've heard of the famous James Lindsay stunt of getting a phony paper published in some academic journal. I hope this shows a sense of humor on his part, rather than mean-spirited attempts to demean.

It had to do with 1) sheer ridicule and the glory of humiliation. 2) it also was a starting point for dismantling of totally ridiculous psycho-intellectual academic babble. And 3) an attack on the total lack of genuine substance in this sort of “scholarship”.

Humor and ridicule was a part but it was also a serious demonstrative endeavor.

Lindsay seems like a bit too much of a conspiracy theorist to suit my taste, however.

My view? A great deal of his analysis is sound and worthy of examination. It takes time.

But like all Youtube personalities, speakers and authors he found a niche and that niche is a business and his livelihood.

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.

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.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 1:45 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 12:33 am Well, the first thing that you have to establish is that Gender Theory is something that can even stand up to opposition, and doesn't collapse at the first step of critique. And that, you haven't even tried to do.

Had you ever read anything I’ve written, imbecile, you would be able to surmise that Gender Theory, and the various “theories”, I oppose at a fundamental level.

And yet, you can't seem to get back to talking about that now. You seem to be so addicted the ad hominem that you've lost all perspective.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 2:22 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 12:35 am

Then, a male you are...who argues in feminine ways. And if having it pointed out that you're arguing in feminine ways seems to you like an insult, then I guess that's what it seems to you.

I argue. You whine. Hmmmm.

I point out the fallacies in Gender Theory, and you go ad hom. Hmmm.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 11:14 pm It doesn't much matter, though. You prove your bigotry by thinking it an insult to post in a "feminine manner".

That which is sauce for the goose is sauce also for the saucy saucy gander. Immanuel Can clearly argues in exactly the way that a highly closetted homosexual who prays away the gay every morning but sucks off a sailor every night would. You can tell from his obsessions with homosexuals and transgender types that deep down he envies them for living the life he's denied to himself.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 4:40 am

Alexiev wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 2:22 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 12:35 am

Then, a male you are...who argues in feminine ways. And if having it pointed out that you're arguing in feminine ways seems to you like an insult, then I guess that's what it seems to you.

I argue. You whine. Hmmmm.

I point out the fallacies in Gender Theory, and you go ad hom. Hmmm.

Ad hom....to the man (person). Pointing out that someone argues in feminine ways is not focused on the argument but on the person.
Then you describe the ways women/feminine people argue and disingenuously say it isn't negative (or you imply that isn't negative).
If it wasn't negative there's no reason to bring it up.
It would just be different, but equally effective, ways to discuss something.

Oh, I was just mentioning that women tend not to be so linear and jump away from the topic. I don't see that as negative.

The scary thing is that I think you actually believe this kind of insidious implicit ad hom isn't an ad hom.
That you buy your own BS.
Like some slimy official at Versaille...'I was just making small talk, he's so sensitive.'

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 11:17 pm

Alexiev wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 11:14 pmIt doesn't much matter, though. You prove your bigotry by thinking it an insult to post in a "feminine manner".

It does sort of matter: IC has his tricky methods to employ ad hominem (but no one cares so much to call him on it).

Tricky. Read: slimy.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 4:39 am 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.

Flash … Flash! Pleaaaassee!

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 4:39 am And yet, you can't seem to get back to talking about that now.

At the most fundamental level, in fact, my interest is in uncovering and then remedying the sort of mental, or is it spiritual (?) infiltration that (seems to) operate behind the various “theories”.

The reason that you as a man (subject, topic) must also be included when such issues are brought out and discussed is because you too suffer from Groupthink and the intrusion of determined thought. Get it?

The issue? That we are all susceptible to these currents. Therefore, our true focus must always be ourselves. We, as men, are the focus, not (solely) an abstract argument or position.

Is any part of this getting through?!?