@@undonecessaryvictories grow up. you will enjoy life when you learn to think rather than rehearse scripted sentences & inane cliché insults. so: i’m not “obsessing,” influential scholars warrant critique no matter how “elderly,” i am “living my life,” & so on.
@@undonecessaryvictories 1. so be more careful in the future. 2. no, it is not contradictory to have a tit-for-tat policy; deterrence is based on responding in kind; the idea is that *in response* to actions of others i do what i normally would not. you insulted me so i reacted in kind. there is zero contradiction in this. 3 & 5. you seriously expect me to provide a full critique of Harvey Mansfield’s famously patriarchal arguments…on YT?! 😂. his arguments and their criticisms are widely known, and i’m presuming people are up to date. 4. in a world of scarce resources we all must make choices; if you wish to call this inevitable selectivity “deplatforming,” then it’s not my concern. 6. unless someone else if writing these notes for you, you are fluent in english & using non-native language as an excuse for being obnoxious is simply bullshit. nice try.
@@undonecessaryvictories if you say anything interesting, serious, or thoughtful i’ll happily reply. so far you have shown only one capacity: to caricature arguments & then label them as things you don’t like. e.g., reducing deterrence to anti-democracy, or standards for selectivity to tyranny or the state of exception. these are just dogmatic non sequiturs & i can’t imagine how anyone interested in real thinking can respond to them. you’re just dismissing things by calling them bad names. then you’re insulting me for some strange reason. i don’t know you & you don’t know me. i have no idea why you have fixated on attacking me as your invented enemy & the opponent of all that is good in the world! but evidently i’ve come to mean or represent something that has traumatized or hurt or angered you & you want to punish me for it. this is apparent from your wild & escalating insults here. i’m not a therapist so it’s not obvious how i can reply to you helpfully, so i will simply exhibit precisely the virtues you pretend i lack: with an open, inviting, & democratic disposition, i will welcome your offensive personal attacks and superficial nominalist political free associations without firing back anymore. as our comrade Žizek writes, the one core psychoanalytic crime is to deny a person’s fantasy. & i have no interest in denying your fantasy that you can bully & berate me into submission or that you can establish i’m a Schmittian fascist opposed to all that is decent in humanity! have your fantasy, wallow in it, ENJOY!
I, too, was surprised at his appearance here. 🤷🏻♂️ I hope Johnny is working on securing Charles Taylor, at present aged 90 or so, for a future episode.
I just searched thinkers and found this glad I did
The attempt to combine religion and philosophy produced scholasticism, and all that Hobbes rightly condemned.
Huge fan of this show, the reputation of which is undermined by platforming reactionary hacks like Mansfield
beautiful
@@undonecessaryvictories grow up. you will enjoy life when you learn to think rather than rehearse scripted sentences & inane cliché insults. so: i’m not “obsessing,” influential scholars warrant critique no matter how “elderly,” i am “living my life,” & so on.
@@undonecessaryvictories 1. so be more careful in the future. 2. no, it is not contradictory to have a tit-for-tat policy; deterrence is based on responding in kind; the idea is that *in response* to actions of others i do what i normally would not. you insulted me so i reacted in kind. there is zero contradiction in this. 3 & 5. you seriously expect me to provide a full critique of Harvey Mansfield’s famously patriarchal arguments…on YT?! 😂. his arguments and their criticisms are widely known, and i’m presuming people are up to date. 4. in a world of scarce resources we all must make choices; if you wish to call this inevitable selectivity “deplatforming,” then it’s not my concern. 6. unless someone else if writing these notes for you, you are fluent in english & using non-native language as an excuse for being obnoxious is simply bullshit. nice try.
@@undonecessaryvictories if you say anything interesting, serious, or thoughtful i’ll happily reply. so far you have shown only one capacity: to caricature arguments & then label them as things you don’t like. e.g., reducing deterrence to anti-democracy, or standards for selectivity to tyranny or the state of exception. these are just dogmatic non sequiturs & i can’t imagine how anyone interested in real thinking can respond to them. you’re just dismissing things by calling them bad names. then you’re insulting me for some strange reason. i don’t know you & you don’t know me. i have no idea why you have fixated on attacking me as your invented enemy & the opponent of all that is good in the world! but evidently i’ve come to mean or represent something that has traumatized or hurt or angered you & you want to punish me for it. this is apparent from your wild & escalating insults here. i’m not a therapist so it’s not obvious how i can reply to you helpfully, so i will simply exhibit precisely the virtues you pretend i lack: with an open, inviting, & democratic disposition, i will welcome your offensive personal attacks and superficial nominalist political free associations without firing back anymore. as our comrade Žizek writes, the one core psychoanalytic crime is to deny a person’s fantasy. & i have no interest in denying your fantasy that you can bully & berate me into submission or that you can establish i’m a Schmittian fascist opposed to all that is decent in humanity! have your fantasy, wallow in it, ENJOY!
I, too, was surprised at his appearance here. 🤷🏻♂️ I hope Johnny is working on securing Charles Taylor, at present aged 90 or so, for a future episode.