[Glice]

'They'? Who are 'they'?

[floatingslowly]

Originally Posted by Glice

'They'? Who are 'they'?

the slutty cop hating kitchen monkeys.

[Genteel Death]

I think he means the sluts. Maybe.

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by RanaldoNecro

the fact that women find it harder to progress in the legal world, hence the legitimacy of the claim

its funny that they find it hard to progress in the legal world, because I as a male find it hard to advance in the womens soccer world.

Totally Correct. When you are about to pass the bar, after the years of studying and hard work, they take you into a little room near the graduation ceremony and make you drop your trousers. One of them holds a clipboard, the other a magnifying glass, and if they see a dick, you get a tick.

[Glice]

This still isn't really about the officer in question. Or even about the idea that the word 'slut' is generally more damning and more likely to come from the mouths of women (whether this is true or not I have no idea - most women I know aren't morons)

It's lovely that you've put a caveat in, but you're still generalising horribly.

Edit: ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????

[Glice]

If I'm a feminist, the movement's fucked.

What is the basis of whose manifesto? Are you saying that women have a manifesto? Is it online?

[Glice]

And what is at the basis of this manifesto?

I don't want you thinking I'm picking on you, but I'm really not clear what you're trying to say. If it is the case that you're talking arse, I'm only trying to illustrate that to you. Your sentences are floating about all object-less.

[Glice]

I heard feminazis eat children - is that true?

[Genteel Death]

I like it how when passive-aggressive mascunazis get called out for stuff they post on the internet and they get all vague and defensive. Of course making a point of gender politics needs a manifesto of sort, no matter how flawed it might be. Just like, you know, anything else concerning political protest in history. What exactly is wrong with that? And to equate all women rights protests with a nazi stance on those rights is such a trite cliche by now, I don't even think the more sophisticated fringes of the extreme right go into it anymore.

[Glice]

A friend of mine found out the cyst on her womb was her malformed twin she ate while in utero. I suppose feminazis would expect her to make some sort of gay rights scarf out of its teeth.

[Glice]

The officer's remarks were what initially sparked off this wave of protest. As I've said 3 or 4 times now, this is the straw that broke the camel's back. This is a metaphor which is used to indicate that the event is not causal but the attributive event which inspires counter-action. To put that in another context: Khaled Sayeed wasn't the first person to be brutalised by the Egyptian police; neither was he the root of the disquiet which led to the revolution. He was (drumlol) the straw that broke the camel's back (this is a simplification of matters, but I'm sure you can do your own reading on the Egyptian situation).

The officer's remarks are merely indicative of a wider problem.

I am part of a feminist reading group, yes - but I don't think that means much more than I occasionally have a natter over tea and cakes with some people about some books we've read (it is frightfully genteel, sadly).

[Glice]

I heard the feminazis joined forces with the fuminazis, and now they gas nondistinctmemberroaches. Which is a filthy slut to type.

[RanaldoNecro]

......

[Glice]

Uh... well, I suppose I'd say that one instance of an irreconcilable difference of opinion doesn't undermine the remainder of opinions. I theoretically hate anyone wearing trainers, but I have to swallow my pride and admit them as probable/ likely humans (on a case-by-case basis).

Does a person's faith undermine anything/ everything else they say? Is it a problem with the nuances of my understanding? Have you no room for a radical/ progressive approach to faith?

I'm trying not to do 'Derridian Jedi word games' here, by the way. Derrida is only ever a mask for the Lyotard underneath with me.

INCIDENTALLY I'm constantly baffled by how many people think of me as Derridian (except, y'know, verbose and shit)

[the ikara cult]

The SLUT manifesto : The Society for Lifting Up Tops.

[floatingslowly]

Originally Posted by Glice

I theoretically hate anyone wearing trainers, but I have to swallow

I don't run in my fancy shoes, or combat boots because I'm not a militant, like you, dyke lover.

[Glice]

Right. Well. When you phrase it those absolutist, dismissive terms, it doesn't give me any space to explain in nuanced terms. Which give the distinct impression that you have no interest in my explaining it.

I say 'absolutist' on the assumption that you think fictions and falsehood are absolutely negative things. I could strongly contest that they are 'fictions', but then we're stuck in that cycle of bad dialectics, which just goes around and around getting no where. I'm happy to explain, but it just seems futile seeing as you have such a violent opposition to it all.

Have you read Zizeks Christian books, by the way?

[Glice]

Right.

First of all, creationism is utter bullshit - but it's a particular sort of bullshit. Genesis as a allegorical myth? Brilliant. Creationism as a far-right 'Christian' movement, protecting other anti-progressive epistemologies and badly covering a suspicion about anything purporting to expand human understanding? Bullshit.

It's interesting you mention Freud - you could relate that to my general take on things in as far as there's a definite sense, in some circles, that psychoanalysis is 'the' true empirical framework for society, attenuating the truth of the human condition. It might well be. But I'm cautious about any epistemology which purports to explain the world 'as it really is'. I tend to treat it as an Enlightenment lie that any single epistemology can explain all the others, can take and demand sovereignty. Which is, amusingly, where Hegel relates to Christianity the imperial monster.

Fundamentally, I can and do believe some of 'that shit', in the same way that you seem to think that a fantastical narrative is unbelievable. I'm not putting you in the box marked 'Enlightenment activist', but... well, I suppose I appeal to a form of postmodernist 'truth', not the chimerical Baudriallardian one, but the atomic truths inherited from Feyerabend (who, incidentally, absolutely hate Derrida). Does Christianity represent epistemic anarchy to many other people? Probably not, but it works fine for me, though I've yet to round off all the rough edges (an-arche, as in without structure, tabula rasa and the Holy Spirit)

I don't really care to proselytise, but I think it's a very worrying form of progressive thought which would seek to elide other counterpart ideologies and epistemics. Would I defend parapsychology, divination, voodoo, horseracing, Morris Dancing (etc)? Yes, with reservations. Always with reservations. Belief doesn't fall away in the face of alterior narratives, regardless of how those narratives colonise epistemology. I'm unfair on Hegel, always, because it's not his fault, but I think it's important that we don't let anything colonise again, even if that seems like a contradictory position from someone who's at the heart of the worst empire the world has ever seen (that doesn't make me an apologist, yet).

Any of this make sense? Writing in a bit of a rush.

[Glice]

And we're back at square one again.

You ask me to answer the questions. I answer the questions. You tell me I'm not answering the questions. I haven't got a clear position because not having a clear position is important.

I don't care that they're 'fictions'. I happen to think fictions are important. I happen to think that a fantastical approach to life is not only desirable but essential to every epistemology. Call them preferential fantasies, if you like.

When you say 'just answer the questions' I immediately think you want me to reduce my answer to your terms of engagement, which would ineluctably draw me to agree with you, regardless of the fact I don't. Why don't you ask better questions?

[Glice]

I said 'yes to some of it, with reservations'. I couldn't give you a precise taxonomy of which aspects I believe in with greater or less veracity because, frankly, ecclesiology is a sprawling wreck of mindwrong. Simply, I believe in most of the fundamental tenets of Roman Catholic faith. This includes maintaining that the Genesis myth is allegorical (as per Nostra Aetate/ VII), that transubstantiation is true (per Nicene Creed, I think), 'an afterlife' (which is a massive fuckcannon of Theological debate, hence a vague demurring), Jesus' miracles as per the canonical gospels and other bits and bobs. At base, most of this is pretty simple things, but my qualifications to those outside of faith systems needs quite a bit of legwork (or pomo bollocks, as you might have it) to get past the invidious tropes of post-Enlightenment 'secular' (iffy term) colonisation of logos. If I were having this conversation with Gail, it'd be over pretty sharpish - 'hey, Jesus is pretty awesome, right?' 'yeah he is. High five?' 'High five!' With suchfriends, it's a different thing again, because he's a lot closer to the sort of properly theological dialogue that I'm on about, though he has a massively different approach to me.

Where is suchfriends, he usually like this sort of thing...