> Not that it really matters, since Angela has decided to proceed by
proclamations, instead of well-reasoned arguments, in politics and
philosophy.<
i tried that already, countless times. reasoned discussion would assume that you read what others write. that never seems to happen and it has nothing to do with whether or not someone's been reasonable. it's enough that they disagree with you. and i've seen little from you that's amounted to reasoned discussion. you seem to enjoy tossing out the unreasoned and un-arged accusations, but you get real shirty when they head in your direction. my suggestion, and why i've hoed in in the first place, is that you should either put a halt to the unreasoned and unargued accusations yourself, or expect them to come back and bite you. you can't have it both ways.
> What happened to her 'radical' idea of 'arguing for the abolition of the
bill of rights'?
again, what's with this inability to read what is before you? "i wonder why the US left has never argued for the abolition of the bill of rights" is not an argument for the abolition of the US bill of rights. if i had wanted to say the latter, i would have. i'm not shy. context: it was a discussion about the form that struggles for protections take and a serious question wonder as to why this particular form has never been the subject of opposition in the US, dan lazare perhaps notwithstanding. my context: what have been regarded as affording basic protections have for quite significant periods been opposed as a limitation on struggles because of the form those protections have taken: eg., the CPA opposed compulsory arbitration between 1920 and WW2. i don't expect people to assume my context, but i expect that what i write will be taken as what i write.
>beyond Foucauldian micropolitics<
what foucauldian micropolitics? let me see, if i disagree with you about foucault, this makes me a foucauldian. if i disagree with your idealist nonsense about postmodernism, this makes me a postmodernist. if i disagree with your position of a few weeks ago on kant (since you seem to have changed your mind), this makes me a kantian. what was that about "reasoned argument" again? you can't even manage one single proof or reasoned argument on any of these scores, it's all assertion in the face of a distinct lack of evidence -- and that's leaving aside the accusations you've made against others. so much for the claim to factuality.
> Should we give a damn about what she says on any subject?<
no, but who's this 'we'? why invest so much energy in not giving a damn? is that what a performative contradiction would look like? but hardly a contradiction, since this performative 'we' is part and parcel of ideological list cop role you seem to enjoy so much, and in order to generate this 'we', you have to expend a lot of energy as to why this 'we' should not include me and anyone else who takes issue with your increasingly crude missrepresentations as apparently the only means you have available to present yourself.
Angela _________