so are you a kpunk fan, devotee, critic? :)
At 01:17 PM 12/2/2009, Voyou wrote:
>In a sense that's true, but that objection seems a bit disingenuous. The
>whole point of the troll/grey vampire identification, it seems, is to
>provide an argument as to why certain criticisms _should_ be ignored,
>and to identify which criticisms these are. Is this argument wrong? If
>so, why? Does it misidentify, or not provide any substantive reasons for
>identifying, those criticisms which should be ignored? Is there a better
>way of identifying serious and non-serious criticism?
criticisms to blog posts? i don't really care whether their argument was right or wrong. we have rules of engagement all over the place, designed over the course of hundreds of years.
i forget which academic it was, but a criticism of that academic was that he hadn't addressed his critics. His critics had made good points according to the scholarly community, published their criticisms in journals, and the academic ignored them. This was brought up as a black mark against this academic -- the failure to respond to your peers. It was the mark of an unserious scholar. I think it was Ward Churchill. ??
i think what i found fascinating was that i hadn't read any self-reflection on why they think they have to respond at all. they might have. i've been too lazy to read a lot so i can learn their lingo, so they may have addressed it and I missed it.
and then there's just odd stuff like this:
> Grey Vampires, like Trolls, tend to
> be extremely self-conscious, and part of what motivates them is a poisonous
> envy of others who are possessed by this kind of depersonalising passion.
Well, where do they get this from? Nevermind that I don't know what a depersonalising passion is because I don't think it matters. What I do think matters is that, as much as I love Dwayne, what kpunk wrote was just an insult. it was an adhominem attack. Why should I take this seriously?
I say ad hominem because, while they are writing by talking to one another about trolls and gray vampires, and coming up with a rationale for not responding, I would guess that they are really also writing for their troll and gray vampire audiences. they are explaining to them why they aren't responding to them.
ha ha ha
as for branding, i'm sure it's just coincidental, but i got the impression that object oriented philosophy is being used in precisely the opposite way it's used in programming which, when you teach it to new programmers, requires you actually teach a bit about ontology -- just as you ultimately also end up talking syntactics and semantics. but object oriented software programming would, if harmon knew what it was, probably be fertile ground for research.
shag
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)