lol i knew i liked this video a lot, there are so many fun things going on. this is exactly what i mean when i speak of my favorite genre of academic, someone with a lot of accumulated anecdotes and knowledge from their study

the myth of jewish horns and its origin, wisconsin being a part of the bible belt + its associated meaning of politeness, it’s just cute

“i’m kind of a hegelian in that way, it’s very out of fashion i know but *shrugs*” :)

“i couldn’t do that research today. my political dispositions haven’t changed along with the rest of the country, i’ve become more polarized and more extreme in my positions, and i couldn’t be as open-minded today, i’d be more offended”

“ideally you’d go in receptive instead of resentful. but because i’m aware of who funds which politics in this state and have seen such devastation, so up close in precisely the worlds i care about the most, im not in the right place to do something with people i consider hellbent on ruination”

“i do work on post-genocidal states, and i come from a place where people who commit genocide are understandable and explainable and can be forgiven and are people exactly like me. i have a much harder time right here right now because i live in this state”

“it’s a very unfair, immoral philosophical position i embrace” GANG SHIT QUEEN

“a lot of the time, you’re just sort of winging it”

be careful what you write, other people might read it

lol this is cute

i’m not sure if it’s more embarrassing to fall for the claims made by an ai content mill or to seriously engage and debunk them

this is like 2017 libs earnestly combating propaganda

do you think its too late to swap to light beige instead

i'll try a splotch of it tmrw and see what i think

im gna lay down and go to bed early tn

can someone explain to me how foucault is shoved down the throat of everyone in academia and yet no one has read the guy

as in, we’re humans yea, and we do mean things to animal guys, yea. vicious circularity in justification real likely. but like there’s not a lot to really glean from that, because it’s not just likely or suspect there’s just no alternative. idk maybe paulo will prove me wrong, i imagine ill end up

re-reading rossi too now that i have some more time apart, but im just really not inspired by this methodology

when will you learn

this is what i kinda meant here. epistemic rad realism is too flat and one-sided in service of remaining on solid analytical footing, and it suffers for it

idk ideology in this sense is just way less interesting because it's just the powerful deluding themselves

"animals, unlike humans, are unable to contest speciesist and anthropocentrist legitimation stores, not because they are in the lower rungs of the social order, but because they lack the relevant contestatory capacities. their disempowerment, then, is not enforced but constitutive." 🤨

speak more on that bro because uh constitutive of what. this is why i was hella sussed out by "for obvious reasons" above, like idk chief maybe lay that out because i don't trust you lol

this is fucking WEIRD dude

enforced and constiutive are such crude and not at all exhaustive ways of getting any understanding of power. how am i supposed to trust you with ideology critique when this is the best you got. "disempowered" is such a narrow starting place

"lacks the relevant psychological (cognitive and metacognitive) capacities required to contest legitimation stories" i lowkey think ur a fascist but beyond that this whole framing of like legitimation stories is all shit from the start I HATE YOU BERNARD WILLIAMS

i wish you were at least accidentally whimsical with him like the other guys, you leave it all implicit and its so ugly.

just like, imagine showing this paper to adorno and being like hey look i pointed out "bias", did i do a good ideology critique

I SPOKE TOO SOON, FPQ MENTIONED

lol the first objection addressed and yea idk its just so not satisfying. frankly embarrassing that an anonymous reviewer had to bring it to your attention and even worse that you just parrot enzo's line

like its fine? ish? but simply doesn't get us anywhere. the deck is just stacked in your favor because you said so. you're just giving the game away that you've decided ahead of time that the powerful are wrong. and yes, i will use the strong reading because there is no alternative to considering

them "wrong" when you count it as "debunking" and so unreliable as to be inadmissible. at least rossi et al cite some anthropology and history, this is just dorm room philosophy

i've checked out at this point. im not even gonna complain about this butchered mess of an argument for "criticism of the status quo". i'm not gonna whine about how fucking sloppy the evopsych trash is

whatever this sucked. i'm bummed

i get more and more annoyed every time i see this stupid fucking caricature, and prefixing with "often-cited" doesn't get you off the hook. just say you didn't do the reading. he has so many more interesting things to say you fucking losers.

oh wow cool, another bibliography with 2008 and 2010. yawn yawn yawn.

i prefer endnotes over footnotes

thank you for being what you are to me

i often don’t know exactly what to say and that usually results in abstention or a feckless scattershot of approximations, but i trust you to read between the lines

when i was in middle school i bought myself construction ear muffs so i didn’t have to listen to the world as much

i like the little wheelchair badge here

for all of their faults, microsoft at least knows how to make pink accent theme

so they’re pretty much good in my book

i like boy mars argo