>> Daniel F. Vukovich wrote:
>> >psycho-cyber-stalinist in Furuhi
>>
>> A couple of people have complained that this is, oh, excessive. It
>> probably is. And it's Yoshie Furuhashi; don't know a Furuhi.
>> Doug
>
>...so I'm listening to Bush Tetras and checking e-mail when song *Too
>Many Creeps* starts playing and I read above post...
>
>calling someone *stalinist* is stereotypical pejorative comment, adding
>*cyber* makes it sooo kewl, but calling lister *psychotic* - as in
>suffering from psychosis, as in severe mental disorder involving a person's
>whole personality - is more than 'probably excessive', it is highly
>offensive...
>
>I'd say that Daniel F. Vukovich will, henceforth, be on my permanent
>delete list but for the fact that he is already on that list...
>
>did I mention that I was listening to Bush Tetras and checking e-mail
>when song *Too Many Creeps* came on while I was reading above post?...
Well, a bright side of it all is, though, that LBO-pomoistas do a pretty good job giving a bad name to postmodernism, since it appears that speaking in defense of postmodernism here entails practically an unlimited liberty to make an ass of oneself _in public_. Who needs careful criticisms by Aijaz Ahmad, Ellen Wood, Terry Eagleton, etc., when you have a Dan, a Ted, an Angela, etc.! During the heyday of anticommunism, liberals had a stock argument for this sort of occasion: a Dan is not a postmodernist, he's in fact a "dupe" of "cyber-stalinism," trying to discredit "serious postmodern anti-cyber-stalinism."
So, according to the logic of the Manchurian Candidate (which is also the logic of specular doubling that postmodernists are fond of), it is Spivak, Derrida, & Andrew Ross who should be offended by LBO-pomoistas' performance. And, in fact, I suspect that they might be. If nothing else, they are smart & decent people, as far as I know. Besides, Andrew Ross is gorgeous, and I have Doug's own testimony to vouch for his beauty.
Yoshie