korean boys with earrings

i'm realizing i have made shockingly little progress on the science wars

i made my way through hegel faster than this

kasey is wrong i have to finish and make myself miserable

oh my god bruh 😭

there's unfortunately only one phrase for this

we're gonna have to unpack antirealism2 a lot more, and i have a feeling we're lumping a lot of distinct views in this one bucket, some of which are more or less defensible

i will note though that at least the gesture of general disaggregation is appreciated, a lot of my complaining so far has been trying to figure out what exactly he's even talking about

i dont really think we landed on anything definitive with the kant discussion, which is kinda unfortunate considering its obviously massive implications

like fair enough, i'd be more offended if you half-assed an attempt to seriously engage with what he was saying in a couple pages and then acted like you defeated him once and for all

which like he kind of did but, shrug. idk i can't be offended anymore

antirealism5 is just more ramblez

ngl i think philosophy of science is hella boring blawg, i don't even wanna be here why am i reading this

just as an aside, the discussion on arrogance is weird, especially considering his prior invocations of the term.

gah now that we're in more moral territory i'm gonna be groaning a lot

it's so funny to hear him argue for epistemic rigor and when it comes to morality, which ostensibly he also cares a great deal about, he just completely gives up on it

authoritarians (like engels [remember engels guys, im super heccin anarkist]) say violence is equivalent to domination, but we wise anarchists say "there are clear differences around the total amount of freedom provided to folks". so yeah. boom.

there are like 12 nested concepts in the phrase you set up for yourself and the best rejoinder you can come up with is "well there's like clearly a difference"

😭😭😭😭 kill meeeee "any average person would see informed choice in the world around us as the very definition of freedom - a matter of options, avenues in which to act"

it's also so funny that we keep clinging to ordinary language philosophy

LMFAO WHAT "it's my opinion that all appeals to sexual psychology are vapid and without general insight" you weren't kidding when you bashed psychoanalysis earlier lmfao

we keep spitefully quoting adorno/horkheimer but not actually talking about them

i like the start of the "broader scientist moral narratives" section. the inversion is generative and cute, and that's all it's meant to be

i'm a little confused about his characterization of rorty "twisting around in awkward distress", when he's pretty up-front about the non-neutrality of basically everything, i don't really see how that fails to dovetail with his particularist pragmatism

if nothing else, this book has definitively convinced me to never produce anything like my old-style blog posts ever again. it's not essay-as-form beauty; it's intellectual laziness, deficient in discipline, and lacking in literary skill

i've already described and lived through my uncomfortability with voice recordings and it's the same vices on display. i think they're fine tools in circumscribed domains for initial organization, and if that's all you're ever really interested in, that's fine enough, but the meaning changes a lot

when it's ever exposed to another person, especially intentionally revealed and not merely discovered

sometimes i see things on puter

(sometimes i see things on puter that make me laugh like lain's dad)

it's funnier when there's no proximate inducing object, my thoughts are usually my entertainment

:3

<3

our sky's smile

:)

lol cute i had a wordpress account

holy shit its marxist william gillis

genuinely this tickles me so much, you could find-replace and slot this into the blurb on the back cover

You can argue that, but it doesn't negate what I'm saying: it’s not an atproto app in the slightest

retard

like maybe im just being incredulous or simply wasn't there for the undocumented history of this sub-culture. but this reads less like a coherent position or group of people and just disagreement with a grab-bag of tendencies on the left that don't form any coherent group at all

lol this is just the laziest, ugliest genealogical strand of ideological critique. people that don't like universalism are privileged, boom mic drop

gonna cry dude like even when we're stating a fine position (anti-anti-legibility) we're all awkward and stilted with it. like what are these random quotes. it's just so weird to see an eagleton sentence where democracy is taken for granted as good

we're so messy and all over the place, a hodge-podge of concepts and they don't paint a very pretty picture

"the nouveau riche might be crass and arrogant, and the poor - usually more tightly tied to objective materiality - might be obliged to speak plainly and directly of practical factuality, but today’s ossified and comfortable middle classes prefer indirectness."

i don't even have to say anything right

OKAY STOP NO THERES NO WAY

literally i will not allow you to loop in an anti-berlinian critique of negative freedom into the same crowd

okay okay from this point on i am making a vow to interpret this as a free association session where he lists out everything he doesn't like

"bookchin was notoriously crude in lumping together a variety of anti-modern subcultural strands" wow that sounds really annoying i bet