HARDCORE BLOGGING ACADEMIC CATFIGHTS
"Another excellent and thorough post, A. You calmly and politely pick apart B's continued haphazard investigations (improvisations) into the realm of philosophy. I must admit that I am unable to maintain so restrained a tone when dealing with such flagrant and repeated instances of philosophical duncery, as I feel compelled to make numerous caustic and mean-spirited remarks along the way. If I may uphold the dignity of a thinker whose thought I feel has been woefully misrepresented (that’s right, B, misrepresented) by B, I generally adhere to C's account of the non-identity of the concept and its object."
"You have to admit that Mr. B has one enormously effective weapon: he reads a bit of a book here and there and then formulates an opinion (however mistaken) – if a) you point out that he has not read enough, he will claim that you are uncharitably assuming that he is ignorant of the subject matter (you come across as a condescending jerk who assumes others do not read the same books as you), but if b) you point out that his “reading” of this thinker/work is mistaken, he will claim that you are accusing him of being an uneducated country bumpkin (you come across as a condescending elitist who assumes everyone else is an idiot)."
"C vaunts the “lucky feature of the English language” that authorises the invention of the word “overmining” as one side of the conceptual coin whose other side is undermining."
"There seem to be two possibilities here:
(a) D has preternaturally subtle ear for the resonant nuances of archaic French vocabulary, to such an extent that the highly educated native speakers E and F might have benefitted from some tutoring in their own native language on his watch.(b) D doesn’t know what on earth he’s talking about, and simply went on a hunt-and-peck French internet dictionary tour in a wild effort to score a public point.""A does not seem to know how to read things up without taking the eyes off his own navel: everyone is agreeing with this, and it is starting to be funnier to see how he falls each time into the same ad hominem hole. Saddly, he is just rendering a self-invoked ostracism among the philosophical blogosphere. You should not feel so worried after all"
"Yes, E you are right, but I am more sensitive than you. A tries to “crush” me with a social force that palliates his intellectual lacunae. Like you, I speak in my own name, and I say “Don’t hide behind others when you are wrong. Who are you when C and D aren’t there? I refuted you and not your big brother. Speak in your own name if you dare. Paranoia is weakness, not strength. I laugh at your sad passions and your social climbing.”
"Wait, they don’t. What is going on? F, the great wizard of philosophical position G , is in , but there’s no mention of him meeting his fellow G-ist H. What gives? F would never pass up an opportunity to build up the movement by describing a fateful reunion. Is it possible none of the other “founders” care for him anymore? Aren’t they thankful for all the promotion and hoopla? Sadness."
"The ‘G movement’ exists only in the imaginations of a group of bloggers promoting an agenda for which I have no sympathy whatsoever: I theory spiced with J metaphysics and morsels of K philosophy. I don’t believe the internet is an appropriate medium for serious philosophical debate; nor do I believe it is acceptable to try to concoct a philosophical movement online by using blogs to exploit the misguided enthusiasm of impressionable graduate students. I agree with L's remark that ultimately the most basic task of philosophy is to impede stupidity, so I see little philosophical merit in a ‘movement’ whose most signal achievement thus far is to have generated an online orgy of stupidity."
NAMES CHANGED TO PROTECT THE INNOCENT
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
There is no innocence here.
There is only death and sin.
There is no innocence, only innodollars.
Why am I surprised that A says absolutely nothing in regards to this devastating critique of his attempt at taking on logic? Fallacies are pointed out and all we get is “I never said anything about propositions…” nonsense. I should be expecting it after years of seeing this happen, right? And yet every time I think “Wow, excellent discussion, good points, amazing span of material covered – philosophical debate, here we come!”
"The less said about C, D and their witless cronies the better. I won’t attempt to disguise my contempt for them."
"If blogging is a kind of journalism, that must make this sort yellow. Thanks for filling the enormous void of tabloid-style material on the internet. Wherever else would I find immoderate, nasty opinions on the web? Or from angry white male philosophers, for that matter? Yes, let us hail the originality, the spice and refraicheur of philosophical position E!"
" If F lowered himself to speak to us lesser philosophical beings directly through blogs I have no doubt his influence would spread outside the 100 or so white males who show up to share in the mind-numbing experience of his rambling meagerly coherent lectures."
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
Thus were the problem starts. Outroot this and there is nothing to follow.
Ooh look, academic Godwin.
"Utter nonsense, and I believe Philosopher A has refuted this point 15 or 20 times by now on his blog.
Philosopher B is a lot smarter than that, so I’m not quite sure what he’s up to here."
"ONTOLOGY C DRAMA YAEEESSSS"
" Christ! Reading Philosopher D's Philosopher E piece. He's a total Philosophical Position F'ist. Says maths is now corrupted by mode of production! hahah"
"Philosopher H asks what can Philosopher G be up to? It's pretty clear, though. Responding to an incredibly arrogant interview by Philosopher H."
"you restrained your wit more than Philosopher I though. what is the Philosophical Position J drama? #fireismyfamiliardemonservantadmiremypointyhat"
"Bravo, Philosopher K . You’ll get some critics, no doubt, probably those who will maintain that you’ve skewered only Philosophical Position L and not also ‘Philosophical Position M’. But you hit the mark here."
"Good post, but watch for a pile-on from the Philosophical Position M cronies here in the comments section of your blog (that is, if they choose not to feign indifference while steaming behind their keyboards). They have a tendency to shirk substantive criticism and interpret it instead as a personal attack. In return you’ll either get a pile-on here, a casual but arrogant one-off on one of their blogs, or feigned indifference. No argument though. Glad to see more and more are recognizing re-hashed history of philosophy and flat out charlatanism."
"it would be easy enough to say Philosophical Position N is rightist libertarian (obvious too) without doing large scale absurd historical revisionism"
"Anyone criticizing Philosopher O must have a personal agenda against him! And must be exhibiting resistance to being dethroned from their place at the apex of being"
I might have more later, because there is SO FUCKING MUCH OF THIS. The philosophical blogosphere EXPLODED.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
I couldn't bring myself to assemble another compilation, it was just too depressing.
NOTHING.
Otherwise known as Triple O?
Please let it be otherwise known as Triple O.
If they come we will ban them
like a boss.
-leaves thread forever-
TORGUE!