Correct, as the following paragraph's once again proved that you just dont have the ability to look at things in any other way than what you were taught, sadly. Generalizing their statements in your own way and referring to facts as "conspiratorial" or "insane" was and is expected from people like you. Anyway, my mission here is accomplished. And so was theirs, thats why we have people with your mindset. You ARE the facts
I didn't generalize their statements. I actually referred directly to their statements, because that's what adults in debates do. I didn't refer to all of them, if that's what you mean--but that's because doing so would require an extensive post detailing many things and specifying retorts, and I'm not going to do that if you've already decided not to consider me credible.
If you actually listened to their language, you'd hear the conspiratorial rhetoric too: that the Frankfurt group attacked Western culture for the express purpose of destroying it, that they saw capitalism was winning in the West and were determined to fight back, that they attacked the foundational element of Western culture itself... This is conspiratorial rhetoric. It's born of fear, not of intellectual engagement with what the Frankfurt writers actually wrote. Nowhere in those interviews do either of them demonstrate any extensive knowledge of actual writings by the Frankfurt School. They don't quote them, nor do they even summarize arguments of specific texts.
These people are not presenting you with the truth, they're presenting you with a highly prejudiced, polemical, and strategic rhetorical rejection of the Frankfurt School. You laugh at me because you think I'm brainwashed, but I seriously cannot fathom how you don't question any of this based on what I'm telling you. It's too bad we can't have a real discussion, since you're clearly not informed enough in this area to actually have one.
Also, you do know that Andrew Breitbart is dead right? "he isn't" "he sees". Oh and the irony in leftist kooks calling his writing insane. Oh dear gods lmao
It's called the perfect present tense. It's used frequently in academic writing to discuss issues of continuing consequence. For example, if I cite literary critic Hugh Kenner in an essay, who died in 2003, I would say "In his essay on Joyce, Kenner argues that..." Even though Kenner's dead, I don't frame the argument in the past tense. Seeing as this is a habit academic writers cultivate, and I was trying to deal with this situation in an academic manner, I chose to use the perfect present.
Not that I'm saying Breitbart is as smart as Hugh Kenner. Oh, I'm sorry--
was.
It's lame that you have to criticize me for little things like apparently not realizing that someone was dead instead of the content of my post.
this guy is amazing.
