If Mort Divine ruled the world

Oh yeah she's a tranny. My favourite thing of hers ever is this gem. She's basically arguing against the very concept of consent without realising it.



TL;DR if you prefer your women to have vaginas you're a bigot and since she's a progressive I have no doubt she'd love this kind of "transphobia" to be illegal.

She actually received a backlash from lesbians because, since transwomen (male to female) are way more seemingly common than transmen, her video ties into the LGBT schism about whether a lesbian should have sex with a chick-with-a-dick lmao.
 
CiG said:
Oh yeah she's a tranny. My favourite thing of hers ever is this gem. She's basically arguing against the very concept of consent without realising it.



TL;DR if you prefer your women to have vaginas you're a bigot and since she's a progressive I have no doubt she'd love this kind of "transphobia" to be illegal.

She actually received a backlash from lesbians because, since transwomen (male to female) are way more seemingly common than transmen, her video ties into the LGBT schism about whether a lesbian should have sex with a chick-with-a-dick lmao.
Click to expand...

just the title made me laugh my ass off
 
My undergrad thesis advisor published a piece in The Chronicle of Higher Ed. It's really good, and speaks to a lot of problems the humanities are dealing with today. The article is behind a paywall, but here are some excerpts:

I vividly remember my own rude awakening. Each year Johns Hopkins held a competition in which graduate students would submit ideas for a course. The courses would be evaluated by a board of professors from different fields, and the winner would get to teach it. I walked into the interview with my syllabus for a course that purported to explain urban decay, novels, the nature of free-market economics, and the political history of the 1970s in one brilliant synthesis. My interviewers — professors in political science and history — greeted my ideas with withering skepticism. I cited illustrious figures in my field. To my horror, my interlocutors were unimpressed. They actually asked difficult questions about the reasoning behind the stars’ dicta. All I could do was repeat the hallowed formulas about representation and language with decreasing confidence as I realized the heroes of literature-department economic, political, and historical thought had no currency here. Later one of my English professors advised me to forget the incident. "They don’t understand our discipline," he said.

The vampiric Avital Ronell flourished in this disciplinary twilight zone. A widely read essay by the former chair of the German department who hired her shows her eviscerating the discipline’s norms, skills, and even objects of study. Supported by the dean as a rising star of interdisciplinary theory, Ronell became chair. As a student said of the world she created, "We study in a German department where French theory is taught in English." Books like her own Crack Wars (University of Nebraska Press, 1992) — in which the obscurity of the prose occasionally parts to reveal an astonishing ignorance of the most basic facts about addiction — were presented as the new models. The eradication of disciplinary limits opened the way to unlimited tyranny. Kramnick defines a discipline as "a body of skills, methods, and norms able to sustain internal discussions and do explanatory work." But in Ronell’s department, the star theorist’s words became the sole standard. Students were expected to cite Ronell or her master Derrida in every essay. And as the famous emails starkly reveal, the boundary separating the life of the student from the total domination of the totally liberated professor dissolved.

Many have interpreted the Butler letter denouncing Ronell’s accuser’s "malicious campaign" as an example of how an elite closes ranks to ward off threats to its power. It is certainly true that the case presents features that can be found in academic cultures of harassment that long predate the Sokal/Ronell era. And the #MeToo movement has starkly exposed the ubiquity of sexual harassment and abuse across all institutions and social spaces. But, in the specific ways it enables and denies such abuse, each institution presents special features. And I think the Butler letter expresses features peculiar to the Sokal/Ronell era in literary studies.

Disciplinary norms, skills, and objects represent for many humanists trained in this era the face of the oppressor. The influence of Foucault — whose most famous book conjoins the words "discipline" and "punish" — shaped an emphasis on systems of oppression, on how power weaves its way into disciplinary structures. Figures like Ronell serve as avatars of anti-disciplinary energies. While few of the signatories of Butler’s letter have written a book as extreme as Crack Wars, their reflexive identification with Ronell as a laudable source of resistance to power adheres to a broader, anti-disciplinary logic. Everything she represents — from her expertise-ignoring books to her administrative disregard of rules and boundaries — is an assault on the very idea of a discipline. How can someone opposed to every form of discipline be guilty of oppression? Anti-disciplinary thinking helped to create the conditions for Ronell’s abuses, and, once those abuses were exposed, it provided the vocabulary for defending and denying them.

We have seen enough to know that the eradication of disciplinary norms doesn’t create powerful new forms of knowledge by destroying old forms of oppression. Literary studies’ anti-disciplinary thought led to an empty, despised professional discourse while covering an entirely unprofessional intellectual and personal tyranny over a dwindling body of students.
Click to expand...

In another excerpt, he astutely points out what's wrong with the most recent "grievance studies" hoax while also emphasizing what it should teach literature scholars about our field:

Ronell’s NYU department represents an extreme case. Even in elite departments, anti-disciplinary thinking rarely gained complete ascendency. My own early-2000s English department at Johns Hopkins sustained a number of critics highly skeptical of the boundary-devouring energies represented by figures like Ronell. The influence of such faux-interdisciplinary "stars" on the wider intellectual culture of the university largely evaporated in the wake of the Sokal affair. Yet because the anti-disciplinary revolutionaries were careful to leave tenure and the traditional circuits of academic cronyism untouched, they continue to wield power and influence within the field. Because of this, literary studies has yet to truly confront the practices exposed by Sokal. Senior figures in the field routinely respond with denial or defensiveness when the topic is raised.

But this denial invites a return of the repressed. Since we’ve never processed the affair, the scandal remains present tense, proliferating in strange new forms, some of which confuse rather than clarify the core issues. For example, a recent series of hoaxes targeting "grievance studies," dubbed "Sokal squared," purports to carry on Sokal’s critique. It’s true that some of the defenses of the hoaxed journals — for instance, that the sample size of accepted hoax articles was too small for a meaningful critique — recall Sokal denialism. The sample size is small, but the fact that it can be pretty hard to distinguish hoax articles from non-hoax articles (like this one, on "The Perilous Whiteness of Pumpkins") can’t be a good thing. Yet these new hoaxes are framed in such a way as to distract us from reckoning with the legacies of the Sokal/Ronell era. The hoaxers seek to show that certain political commitments correlate with poor intellectual practices. But their hoaxes show nothing of the kind. There are plenty of studies advancing feminist or anti-racist ideas that are grounded in solid disciplinary practice — in my own field, such work is routinely featured in journals like ELH, Representations, and Critical Inquiry. I’ve also read plenty of bad interdisciplinary work that doesn’t express any political commitment.

The new hoaxers seem to have bought the big lie of the Sokal/Ronell era: that scholars have abandoned solid disciplinary practices for political reasons. When pressed, the luminaries of the Sokal/Ronell era go to a political defense. We serve the cause of feminism and anti-racism! Any attack on our practices is an attack on our political ideals! Ronell’s defenders, for example, were quick to point to her status as a "feminist" scholar — though her colleagues described the absence of anything resembling feminist commitments in her publications. Similarly, the "grievance studies" hoaxes confusingly equate strong politics and weak interdisciplinary work. The hoaxers are chasing a phantom, and in the process reinforcing a malign and false equation between commitment to disciplines and hostility to justice. The implication many take from the "grievance" hoax is that our politics have led us away from scholarly neutrality, and we need to discipline our ideals. But the Sokal affair should teach us the opposite lesson: The viability of scholars’ ideals depends on the intellectual integrity of our work.
Click to expand...
 
Did Sokal squared really simply attack "anti-disciplinary thinking" and not at least also the politics/practice non-divide? Separately, the author's appeal to "many studies" in journals based purely on ideas and work which can exist completely outside even social science and philosophy seems like scant supporting evidence. Psychoanalysis has its own journals, and the rest of psychology pays them no mind because they deal in non-falsifiable data akin to tarot card reading, or palm reading. Different religious denominations have their own corpus of exegeses on religious texts, yet these are not admitted as academic.
 
Dak said:
Did Sokal squared really simply attack "anti-disciplinary thinking" and not at least also the politics/practice non-divide? Separately, the author's appeal to "many studies" in journals based purely on ideas and work which can exist completely outside even social science and philosophy seems like scant supporting evidence. Psychoanalysis has its own journals, and the rest of psychology pays them no mind because they deal in non-falsifiable data akin to tarot card reading, or palm reading. Different religious denominations have their own corpus of exegeses on religious texts, yet these are not admitted as academic.
Click to expand...

Clune is saying that Sokal squared only attacked the politics/practice non-divide, and that in doing so missed the more grievous (pun intended) intellectual oversight: namely, that the push for interdisciplinary scholarship cultivated an unearned sense of expertise in humanities scholars in disciplines not their own.

His critique of Sokal squared lies specifically in its emphasis on the political motivations of humanities journals. Their argument was that politics interferes with intellectual rigor, and that journals will overlook lack of said rigor for the right political motivations; but we can plainly see this isn't the case when we can identify many well-researched and well-argued essays in numerous humanities journals that still do exhibit a political stance. Alternatively, we can also identify plenty of poorly researched and poorly argued articles that have no discernible political motivation.

His claim is that the problem lies not with politics, but with an ideological turn--in the 1980s and '90s--toward interdisciplinarity and the unwarranted belief that literature scholars were experts in every field (since every field employs representation).
 
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/academics-truth-justice/574165/

We have not tackled the question of how scholarship — in journal articles and books — amplifies the reputation and credibility of people who do not deserve that recognition.

One implication of this argument is that scholarly recognition should hinge not only on a scholar’s contribution to advancing human knowledge, or his utility to present and future scholars, but on his character.
Click to expand...

Not content to merely argue against the value of herself in academia, she suggests that the level of navel gazing has blown through all methods of measurement:

In my case, the specific revise-and-resubmit instructions from the editor essentially said: Cite this guy, and pay particular attention to his contributions. A friend offered a somewhat sketchy solution: Do what the editor wanted so that when he sent the revised manuscript back to reviewers, they would see I had followed their instructions and added the requisite citations. Then, my friend said, when I got the manuscript back before final publication, surreptitiously remove the citations.
Click to expand...
 
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/11/peaceful-violent-protests-effective.html

Are peaceful or violent protests more effective at achieving policy change? I study the effect of protests during the Civil Rights Era on legislator votes in the US House. Using a fixed-effects specification, my identifying variation is changes within the congressional district over time. I find that peaceful protests made legislators vote more liberally, consistent with the goals of the Civil Rights Movement. By contrast, violent protests backfired and made legislators vote more conservatively. The effect of peaceful protests was limited to civil rights-related votes. The effect of violent protests extended to welfare-related votes. I explore alternative explanations for these results and show that the results are robust to them. Congressional districts where incumbents were replaced responded more strongly. Furthermore, congressional districts with a larger population share of whites responded more strongly. This is consistent with a signaling model of protests where protests transmitted new information to white voters but not to black voters.
Click to expand...

Turns out the data has backed up one half of my longstanding critique on riots.
 
Haven't been keeping up with JBP but this interview seems to be getting shared around a lot. This tiny clip is pretty interesting because she goes from defending a Burmese comedian because he was arrested for a joke to literally condemning Count Dankula's Nazi pug joke because she doesn't agree that he's a comedian... wot?



sfdsgf.jpg

Why is it that only slimy cunts interview this guy? Are they intentionally trying to fuel the "SJW GETS REKT PWND LOL" Youtube videos and make JBP more money etc?
 
If anyone would like a daily dose of cancer, follow Umair Haque on Medium. I had to google him to make sure it wasn't just a bot; he puts out an opinion piece or more a day(!) rehashing the same thing(s, but of course). With these articles as evidence, his thinking/product is so poor that vapid polemic doesn't do them justice. That such an intellectual troglodyte is on some "Thinker" list is evidence of the profound intellectual decay in the West.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JayKeeley
Who ruled the 90's?
Replies
70
Views
2K
RC
NAD
N
no country for old wainds
  • Locked
mort divine found
Replies
0
Views
477
GMD Social Forum
no country for old wainds
N
skeptik
Re: Mort Divine
Replies
37
Views
2K
GMD Social Forum
Death Delirium
D
MetalAges
FOSCOR Debut “Cançó de Mort” Music Video
Replies
0
Views
116
Metal News 2
MetalAges
MetalAges
UM Store
THE GUITARS THAT RULED THE WORLD CD 1991 HEAVY METAL
Replies
0
Views
224
Metal CD
UM Store
U
Top Bottom