the linguistic left

[kelley]

oh what a load of horsehockey.   there is a relationship between forma and
context no?  or did you drop the dialectic at the door when it comes to
that issue?  furthermore, when someone resorts to cheap tactics in order to
engage in arguement *that* matters.  in other words, suggesting that if you
read habermas or kant, etc  you must support dodgy political strategies and
yet the person making the accusations has reand at least one of the above
fairly thoroughtly.  no one's asking yoshie to, figuratively speaking,
smile pretty and wear her best suit, we're suggesting that she doesn't even
bother to look us in the eyes, figuratively speaking.  is that style? no.
it common human courtesy.  and to expect that from someone who rallies
around the call for list civlity and politeness is simply expecting some
kind of consistency.

it's a cheap shot to argue guilt by association.  and it's a cheap shot to
read into ysomeone's argument all sorts of things that aren't there.  and
unfortunately this is what is going on.  if you all think that it's
appropriate to talk to people this way, well lots of luck getting anyone
organized and on your side.  and i'm NOT arguing for patronizing,
condescending [mean the same thing chaz] nicey nicey group hug nonsense
either.  i am though arguing for a discussion style that presumes that your
interlocutor is worthy of your respect on some level.  for if you can't
indicate that in your styles and tone, then why bother?  why bother arguing
wwith someone you've written off from the beginning.  why bother unless you
like fucking their dead skeltons.  the necrophelia is a bit much.  

it is all  just about getting your jollies at others' expense?  because
that's the message i'm getting lately.

and yes i get my jollies at other's expense on occasion, but is precisely
because all i see lately is systematica dismissals of everyone that i can
no longer take anyone seriously.  

as cranky as you can be carrol, i rarely see you do this and why i take you
seriously more often than not.

kelley

At 12:13 PM 11/1/1999 -0600, you wrote:
>Steve Perry wrote:
>
>>  the relentless tendency down unto the present day to view
>> the world as a text, and politics as a pretext for
>> turgid, interminable proto-literary theorizing.
>
>I object to this on very similar grounds to my objections to
>using "dogmatism" as a charge: it is essentially unprincipled.
>The question is the validity of the substance of an argument,
>not the personal morals or verbal felicity of the person
>making the argument..
>
>It is also extremely bad tactics. As a friend of mine used to say,
>Opportunism is seldom opportune, and this constant whine
>about style is opportunist.. Most (not all) of those who
>are called pomo operate from utterly unconvincing premises
>and arrive at utterly unconvincing conclusions (which, in
>addition, usually turn out to have reactionary political
>implications). This is true, for example, of Derrida's *Spectres
>of Marxism*. So why the fuck quibble about their
>prose style like a freshman complaining about too tough a
>reading assignment in World History?
>
>Carrol
>
>
>
>