[lbo-talk] dixor

[Kelley]

At 02:45 PM 10/6/03 -0400, Brian Siano wrote:
>Kelley wrote:
>
>>At 02:11 PM 10/6/03 -0400, Brian Siano wrote:
>>
>>>Kelley wrote:
>>>
>>>>Frankly, when people say that _anything_ is "socially constructed," I 
>>>>suspect that people are simply using quasi-technical terms to look 
>>>>sophisticated.
>>>>
>>>>do you have an alternative phrase that would make it more acceptable to 
>>>>you?
>>>
>>>
>>>Like I said: it'd help to define what it is you're _talking_ about 
>>>before we start assigning phrases to it.
>>
>>
>>well, if you're interested, i'd sit down and start reading about 
>>idealism, then phenomenology. then read about the emergence of the strand 
>>of sociological thought known as "social constructionism."
>>
>>let's get together for lunch in 2006 and talk about it all.
>
>I was right: "socially constructed" _is_ an empty, vacuous term, devised 
>solely for the benefit of merely _seeming_ erudite and well-reasoned. You 
>use the term, and hope that it makes you look smart. But when anyone calls 
>you on your bluff, and actually asks that it be _clarified_, get all huffy 
>and accuse the other person of being stupid.

no, i accused you of being too ignorant to make a conversation worthwhile. 
why? because, had you read the rest of my post, i think the answer to your 
orig. question was pretty clear.

stupidity can't be helped; ignorance can. you shouldn't be offended by 
being told that you sound ignorant.


>You're a fraud and a poser. Away with you, into the dustbin of tenure.

well don't i wish.

*yawn*

kelley