The post quoted below is a rich example of the pitfalls of extra- logical analytical adventures. Comments below.
On Dec 6, 2007, at 6:36 PM, bitch at pulpculture.org wrote:
>
> i missed that discussion, but from what you describe, it's simply a
> logical
> fallacy. or, when not used in argument, it's just a way of insulting
> people
> by insulting yourself first. Somehow, people think it's OK if they
> call
> someone a name, diagnose them with depression, blah blah -- as long
> as they
> cop to the dreaded condition themselves. clever.
>
Except even that's not what is being claimed as my pose, in the psycho- analytical critique. So, for instance, I do not "cop to the dreaded condition" of being slow in order to insult people (men) who are slow but proficient at math -- that is largely irrelevant since we are not discussing these traits of men. Nor do I insult women by somehow identifying myself with them (in the case of my post, that would be by suggesting that I am better at physics or biology but not that interested in math because I am not slow!). If you really wish to continue down this ill-conceived path, the best route would be to suggest that I am insulting women by [pretending to] praising them for other things, and downplaying things (maths) that I implicitly hold they are not good at (of course neither of those is true as noted in my response to Dwayne: I do not consider mathematics a worthless pursuit, etc).
So if there is something clever at work, it is once again the tendency to analyse the idea by focusing on the individual. Perhaps you will follow-up with your usual claims about what I am really doing, thinking, "whining", etc, etc, and we will go through another *merry* iteration!
--ravi