HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » the relationship between ...

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 12:47 AM

the relationship between the delegitimization of structural identity

and the engendering of empowerment at least achieves the doubtful virtue of innocuousness.
3 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
agree
0 (0%)
disagree
1 (33%)
both
0 (0%)
other - please explain
2 (67%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

34 replies, 1638 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 34 replies Author Time Post
Reply the relationship between the delegitimization of structural identity (Original post)
arely staircase Mar 2013 OP
OffWithTheirHeads Mar 2013 #1
kenny blankenship Mar 2013 #2
arely staircase Mar 2013 #4
eridani Mar 2013 #3
arely staircase Mar 2013 #10
eridani Mar 2013 #12
BainsBane Mar 2013 #18
Kali Mar 2013 #5
tkmorris Mar 2013 #6
freshwest Mar 2013 #7
arely staircase Mar 2013 #11
petronius Mar 2013 #8
arely staircase Mar 2013 #9
Kalidurga Mar 2013 #13
arely staircase Mar 2013 #14
Kalidurga Mar 2013 #17
arely staircase Mar 2013 #34
sibelian Mar 2013 #21
Kalidurga Mar 2013 #23
sibelian Mar 2013 #24
jazzimov Mar 2013 #22
eridani Mar 2013 #15
arely staircase Mar 2013 #16
Le Taz Hot Mar 2013 #19
UnrepentantLiberal Mar 2013 #29
jazzimov Mar 2013 #20
cali Mar 2013 #25
arely staircase Mar 2013 #26
cali Mar 2013 #30
arely staircase Mar 2013 #32
bemildred Mar 2013 #27
datasuspect Mar 2013 #28
arely staircase Mar 2013 #33
UnrepentantLiberal Mar 2013 #31

Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 01:00 AM

1. Can you restate that in English?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 01:07 AM

2. I feel this post is othering me

Yes, distinctly. So I chose "other".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenny blankenship (Reply #2)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 01:14 AM

4. did you?

or did other chose you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 01:11 AM

3. WTF? No WTF? option? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #3)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 01:49 AM

10. i never use wtf. why?

because wtf is a given, not just in the OP but in life, perhaps beyond.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #10)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 01:58 AM

12. Deep

So why isn't this in the Buddhism group?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #3)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 03:05 AM

18. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 01:19 AM

5. other

beer and travel money


and many experiences

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kali (Reply #5)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 01:26 AM

6. That was rather a Random Thought

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 01:28 AM

7. Both!!! We don't *do* innocuousness at DU, but we should!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #7)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 01:56 AM

11. innocuousness is like



and we're all



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 01:41 AM

8. To posit such an ontological dichotomy as a phenomenological "real" may advance

an heuristic examination of socio-cultural discourse, but it is excessively reductionist to ignore the role of hybridity in the construction and performance of an n-dimensional, semi-chaotic, post-positivist epistemology...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #8)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 01:45 AM

9. perhaps it is reductionist

but not excessively so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 02:02 AM

13. totally disagree

there is no such thing as a legitimate structural identity. Therefore nothing is achieved by pretending to knock down such a structure that doesn't exist in the first place. But, it does happen quite often that when people do knock down such structures some people feel the need to build them back up and rage about it for decades on hate radio.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #13)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 02:05 AM

14. a straw identity!

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #14)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 03:03 AM

17. awesome

you got that!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #17)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 01:21 PM

34. and you seem to have been one of the few to "get" the whole thing

thank you for being smart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #13)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 05:01 AM

21. "...there is no such thing as a legitimate structural identity..."


Ahhhh. But is that claim falsifiable?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #21)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 05:03 AM

23. No more falsifiable than claim there are no pink unicorns...

flying around on the other side of the sun...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #23)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 05:34 AM

24. But the credibility of that analogous claim


would not ordinarily be in dispute. It's a straw unfalsifiability. !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #13)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 05:03 AM

22. Actually, there is - BUT it's impossible for anyone

to actually know what it is. Outsiders don't have enough information to accurately assess other's identities. As for ourselves, no one is totally objective when it comes to assessing our own identity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 02:07 AM

15. Outing OPs--Textual objectivism and subcultural narrative

http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/

In the works of Stone, a predominant concept is the concept of textual culture. Lyotard promotes the use of subcultural narrative to read sexual identity. In a sense, the fatal flaw, and some would say the rubicon, of subdialectic conceptualist theory which is a central theme of Stoneís Heaven and Earth emerges again in JFK, although in a more neostructuralist sense.

If one examines preconstructive discourse, one is faced with a choice: either reject cultural feminism or conclude that reality must come from the collective unconscious. Hamburger holds that we have to choose between preconstructive discourse and semioticist theory. But subdialectic conceptualist theory states that the task of the observer is social comment.

If postcultural textual theory holds, the works of Stone are not postmodern. However, Reicher implies that we have to choose between subcultural narrative and Lacanist obscurity.

The premise of preconstructive discourse states that art is used to entrench hierarchy. Thus, a number of theories concerning the paradigm of dialectic class exist.

The main theme of Prinnís analysis of subcultural narrative is not, in fact, depatriarchialism, but postdepatriarchialism. But the example of subdialectic conceptualist theory intrinsic to Stoneís Natural Born Killers is also evident in Platoon.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #15)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 02:13 AM

16. like i tell my kids everyday

postdepatriarchialism

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 04:43 AM

19. Did the philosophy group

start and I wasn't informed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 04:56 AM

20. Disagree. They are exact opposites.

Therefore, the relationship between them is anything but innocuous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 07:20 AM

25. word salad. lofty word salad, but still word salad. Orwell would have

lit into you for this. Without context- and you provide none- your words are nothing more than pretentious garble.

Orwell's rules for writing:

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.

3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.

5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit

And my observation:

The best writers are able to distill complex ideas into comprehensible language without condescending to their audience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #25)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 09:40 AM

26. it isn't condescending

condescending would be to use words like "pretentious garble."

Besides, I am changing the paradigm.

And what does Orwell know? Last I checked he's dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #26)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 10:08 AM

30. what does Orwell know? Uh, as anyone who's actually read his essays and novels

knows, he knew a great deal. And he certainly knew a fuck of a lot about writing.

If you can't distill your op into a form that is comprehensible to your readers, that is YOUR failure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #30)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 01:16 PM

32. this just gets better and better

sometimes we can't see the forest for the trees i suppose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 09:43 AM

27. I would say "doubtful virtue of vacuousness", but otherwise, yeah. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 09:52 AM

28. these words don't mean anything

 

the post is merely a display of poorly understood concepts mashed together to produce a feeble attempt at profundity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to datasuspect (Reply #28)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 01:17 PM

33. yes, yes and no eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 10:12 AM

31. The fragmentation of realism is nearly obtuse in its morphology.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread