My apologies for triggering you. It was certainly inadvertent.Oneiros666 wrote:What the raging cuntfuck are you on about?AndrewV69 wrote: Looking at the answer provided by Lewis and the post by Oneiros666 above yours reminds me of the topic of academic mobbing written about by Kenneth Westhues, and his opinions on conflicting modes of discourse, which he labels as modern and postmodern.
Which to my mind is typical baboon behaviour. Note that I am not saying that Lewis is a typical baboon (not yet anyway).
You try to equate A+theism and the Slymepit's campaign against them with radical students at universities "mobbing" their professors in the sixties? The hell? And then proceeds to call me a baboon. That's your prerogative, and it's my prerogative to say go suck a donkey's cock.
I have no, I repeat, no intention of taking A+theism plus seriously anymore. I tried to debate them rationally and was treated much the same way as everyone else who has tried: By fucking insanity and cult-behaviour. A+theism and FftB are ruining the good name of atheism that we were finally on the way of creating (i.e. making atheism mainstream). Those fuckers are encouraging the myth that atheism=>communism/radical feminism/etc that the fundies have been scaring the american populace with for over 60 years.
So I say again: Fuck those fuckers to the ground. Hard.
I certainly did not intend to call you a baboon. I think many people here would be justifiably upset with the inference, and I believe that you seeing your name in close conjunction with that may have triggered you into jumping the gun.
But that was not my intent, so let us review.
My post was here:
http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 103#p53103
And was in reply to Michael J here:
http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 088#p53088
And your post was this one where you illustrated the emotional nature of the attacks on Noelplum:
http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 087#p53087
So I thought it was a useful illustration of the contrasting styles of discourse, modern vs postmodern involved in academic mobbing. My thought is that the baboon style matched the postmodern, and the example you gave on the emotional nature of the attacks on Noelplum and his responses was an appropriate example of said same.
Here they are again, modern vs postmodern styles:
Following are ten key characteristics of modern discourse, what many professors and students even now consider the normal or standard way to think, study and argue in the academy:
â€¢ "personal detachment from the issues under discussion," the separation of participants' personal identities from subjects of inquiry and topics of debate;
â€¢ values on "confidence, originality, agonism, independence of thought, creativity, assertiveness, the mastery of oneâ€™s feelings, a thick skin and high tolerance for your own and othersâ€™ discomfort";
â€¢ suited to a heterotopic space like a university class, scholarly journal, or session of a learned society conference, a place apart much like a playing field for sports events, where competitors engage in ritual combat before returning with a handshake to the realm of friendly, personal interaction;
â€¢ illustrated by debate in the British House of Commons;
â€¢ epitomized by the debates a century ago between socialist G. B. Shaw and distributist G. K. Chesterton;
â€¢ playfulness is legitimate: one can play devilâ€™s advocate, speak tongue in cheek, overstate and use hyperbole, the object being not to capture the truth in a single, balanced monologue, but to expose the strengths and weaknesses of various positions;
â€¢ "scathing satire and sharp criticism" are also legitimate;
â€¢ the best ideas are thought to emerge from mutual, merciless probing and attacking of arguments, with resultant exposure of blindspots in vision, cracks in theories, inconsistencies in logic;
â€¢ participants are forced again and again to return to the drawing board and produce better arguments;
â€¢ the truth is understood not to be located in any single voice, but to emerge from the conversation as a whole.
Over the past half century, a competing mode of discourse, the one I call postmodern, has become steadily more entrenched in academe. Following are ten of its hallmarks, as Roberts and Sailer describe on their blogs:
â€¢ "persons and positions are ordinarily closely related," with little insistence on keeping personal identity separate from the questions or issues under discussion;
â€¢ "sensitivity, inclusivity, and inoffensiveness are key values";
â€¢ priority on "cooperation, collaboration, quietness, sedentariness, empathy, equality, non-competitiveness, conformity, a communal focus";
â€¢ "seems lacking in rationality and ideological challenge," in the eyes of proponents of modern discourse;
â€¢ tends to perceive the satire and criticism of modern discourse as "vicious and personal attack, driven by a hateful animus";
â€¢ is oriented to " the standard measures of grades, tests, and a closely defined curriculum";
â€¢ lacking "means by which to negotiate or accommodate such intractable differences within its mode of conversation," it will "typically resort to the most fiercely antagonistic, demonizing, and personal attacks upon the opposition";
â€¢ "will typically try, not to answer opponents with better arguments, but to silence them completely as â€˜hatefulâ€™, â€˜intolerantâ€™, â€˜bigotedâ€™, â€˜misogynisticâ€™, â€˜homophobicâ€™, etc.";
â€¢ has a more feminine flavour, as opposed to the more masculine flavour of modern discourse;
â€¢ results in "stale monologues" and contexts that "seldom produce strong thought, but rather tend to become echo chambers."