Review of Sokal & Bricmonts' _FASHIONABLE NONSENSE_ in NY Times Book Review

Jim heartfield jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk
Wed Nov 18 11:06:29 PST 1998


In message <199811181511.IAA29972 at smtp04.primenet.com>, Doyle Saylor <djsaylor at primenet.com> writes


> I realize you don't feel
>disabled people are not human.

Well, that's mighty big of you.


> I am trying to get you to examine why you
>unconsciously need to use this sort of thinking to talk about
>marginalization of someone.

My choice of metaphor was conscious and deliberate (I like to think I always try to choose my words carefully). You can't avoid the argument by this underhand attempt to imply some unconscious motivation. My unconscious motivatiosn are my own. I am only offering my consciously expressed thought for your judgement.

I insist, blindness is a disadvantage. Sight is preferable. That in no sense implies that the blind are morally inferior to the sighted.

You say that some people choose blindness. I would like to see statistics on that. I myself wear glasses. Opticians seem to be doing very good business whenever I visit. Very few people given the opportunity would embrace their cataracts.

I'm interested. How would you make an argument for the superiority of blindness over sightedness?

-- Jim heartfield



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list