dave_rhino
Closed Account
:1orglaugh
The Violence of the Global
- Thread starter Spud Crowley
- Start date
:1orglaugh
thanks everyone, except for calpoon, for confirming how full of idiots the world is. have fun with your porn addiction and trivial discussions about who should be the next president. :thefinger
i wouldn't expect a different reaction from someone who dreams of a threesome with plato and machiavelli. but anyway, post-modernism is a label baudrillard rejects as applicable to his writing, and i agree with him that the term is somewhat useless. i wouldn't call it bitching, i'd call it interesting and inspiring critique from a non-orthodox perspective that seeks a radical reversal and disconnection from globalization. too much to handle for chomskyists? I've read America, and while i don't find it to be one of his best books, i do agree with this reviewer from amazon.com who said, "america as what it is, "the spectacle", a mediated and wholly illusory paradise where the secret party line, "all is well, all is well", is frantically perpetuated by tv and magazines. scary and absolutely accurate."
S
sputnikgirl
Guest
Thought you were leaving us porn addicts to our trivial discussions? For someone who constantly posts about how ignorant we are, you sure do like to engage us in discussion. Until Baudrillard stops making up historical "facts" to suit his argument, I won't be taking him seriously. He's nothing more than a nihilist dressed up in fancy clothes. It's also too bad that Chomsky said back in the 1970s what it took Baudrillard until 1987 to figure out.
Thought you were leaving us porn addicts to our trivial discussions? For someone who constantly posts about how ignorant we are, you sure do like to engage us in discussion. Until Baudrillard stops making up historical "facts" to suit his argument, I won't be taking him seriously. He's nothing more than a nihilist dressed up in fancy clothes. It's also too bad that Chomsky said back in the 1970s what it took Baudrillard until 1987 to figure out.
well, you took the time to make a somewhat coherent reply unlike the others who couldn't even muster the energy or interest to read more than a few words or lines. it appears you have at least read one of baudrillard's books, if not the actual article i posted, so i feel it's right to reply to you. please provide evidence baudrillard made up any historical facts. i'd really like to see it, but i have a suspicion you are all talk and can't back up what you say or engage in serious discussion. "nihilist in fancy clothes." well, i don't know about the fancy clothes part, but yes, he is a nihilist of sorts, although that word has been defined different ways and applied to different people, so like post-modernism, i find it somewhat useless. and to compare baudrillard to chomsky is laughable. baudrillard has been writing since the late 1960's and has bestowed infinitely more wisdom upon the world then chomsky the democrat. even in america, i find baudrillard's insights deeper and more original than chomsky's tired old rhetoric about reforming technology to make it warm and fuzzy. Symbolic Exchange and Death blows out of the water anything Chomsky ever wrote. i don't expect you to agree or to even intelligently respond. you seem like a somewhat closed minded person.
S
sputnikgirl
Guest
You seem to be confusing having an opinion with being close-minded. Basically what you're implying is that if I don't agree with your opinion, I must be close-minded...because you're always right. Correct?
First, Baudrillard has consistently proven himself unable to give a systemic analysis of his key works. In other words, he can't define his own vocabulary without contradicting himself. Thus, nobody can argue with him. Second, he assumes nothing else in society matters except the experience of watching a screen, which is an utterly ludicrous and elitist assumption. Third, his books use overblown style and hyperbole, rather than real substance, to whip his followers into a frenzy. He's deliberately obscure, in order to mask the fact there's no substance behind the majority of his claims. Fourth, if you and Baudrillard are nihilists, I guess there's really no point to this conversation. Nihilism is the weakest philosophical stance possible.
Denis Dutton sums up my feelings on Baudrillard rather nicely:
quite ridiculous assesment. doesn't deal at all with content or specifics. just generalized denunciations that probably show an underlying timidity in dealing with intellectual heretics. i'm familiar with critics of baudrillard, and they tend to be a sad lot indeed. usually they are either trying to hopelessly defend marxism in some variety which baudrillard threw to the gutter with Mirror of Production, or they are just snotty little creeps who defend the global technological system and probably said the same disparaging things about heidegger and nietzsche. common "analytical" reaction to "absurdist continental" traditions.
how many of baudrillard's books have you actually read? and can you please tell me which ones? and did you bother reading the article i posted? and can you please provide some specific criticism of the article? otherwise, you are just a lame parrot for the anti-baudrillard witch-hunt.
S
sputnikgirl
Guest
Nope, sorry. I've stated my opinion, and I'm not wasting anymore time arguing with you. It's more than obvious you're the type of person Denis Dutton was referring to when he wrote that quote (which you conveniently ignored, because it was a little too close to the truth). If you want to go on arguing with yourself, feel free. But since you've made hateful comments about everyone on the board, I doubt anybody else is going to engage you in discussion. As I said before, anyone who doesn't agree 100% with your assessment is "close-minded". You don't want an intellectual debate, you want everyone to get on their knees and fellate Baudrillard's elitist ideas. Quite frankly, you bore me and your choice of texts bores me even more.
Nope, sorry. I've stated my opinion, and I'm not wasting anymore time arguing with you. It's more than obvious you're the type of person Denis Dutton was referring to when he wrote that quote (which you conveniently ignored, because it was a little too close to the truth). If you want to go on arguing with yourself, feel free. But since you've made hateful comments about everyone on the board, I doubt anybody else is going to engage you in discussion. As I said before, anyone who doesn't agree 100% with your assessment is "close-minded". You don't want an intellectual debate, you want everyone to get on their knees and fellate Baudrillard's elitist ideas. Quite frankly, you bore me and your choice of texts bores me even more.
you copied and pasted two quotes from wikipedia to show a "critique" of baudrillard. are you serious? you haven't stated any opinion about anything in the article i posted. you haven't demonstrated one iota that you've read one word baudrillard has ever written. there is nothing of substance in dutton's "critique." he talks about not defining terms, but where is the example of a term baudrillard doesn't define? and who decides how unintelligible a term is? i have no difficulty understanding buadrillard and feel his terms are defined adequately enough. talk about him using "hyperbolic language" and all this other nonsense is not really critiquing anything he is saying. again, you cut and paste something that gives no specifics. if you haven't actually read baudrillard, you probably shouldn't be attempting to have a discussion about him. i think you are close minded for various reasons. one is your choice of favorite philosophers from the other thread, most of who i thought were pretty lame. also, your berating of me to separate the quotes in my post and not "spam" is another sign of some type of neurotic obsessive compulsive problem thats shows a close-minded intolerance of something relatively minor. also, the fact that you asked me to explain why descartes and plato fucked up the world, and then i give a brief explanation and then you don't respond to it at all, that doesn't show me much either. it has nothing to do with if you don't agree with me then you are automatically close-minded. we've only talked a little bit, but from what i've gathered from everything i just said, i'll stand by my initial comment that you SEEM like a SOMEWHAT close-minded person. you've really taken my words and blown them out of proportion. are you going to get serious, or just continue to look like an ass in these topics i start?
dave_rhino
Closed Account
I don't have a porn addiction, and I don't really care about presidential elections.
You know what, I have a good idea for you. Next time you decide to spew out a shit load of "intellectual" garbage; HAVE A POINT. It makes it so much more interesting for everyone else.
you didn't even read it you dickwad. how could you call it "garbage"? the point was for you to read it and if you feel like posting a comment in reply to the article, then great. you obviously have more important things to do like designing "hip" rhino pictures to go alone with your "virtual identity."
dave_rhino
Closed Account
Actually, dickwad, I eventually got round to reading it. I got half way through and concluded that it was infact pointless and boring. And all it proved is that you know how to use the copy and paste button, so weelllllll fucking done. I'd send you a gold star if I hadn't run out. I used up the last of them on a dog I saw that could walk on it's hind legs. Far more impressive than what you have accomplished here.
When did anyone say having a signature is important? Because I certainly fucking didn't.
And you know what? My virtual identity could kick your virtual identities ass any day.
So here, sit on it.
wow, i'm impressed. real solid critique. you actually mustered up the energy to say the article was "pointless and boring." i'm glad you were able to enligthen me so much as to the inadequate state of baudrillard's mental powers by saying something specific. i guess that's too much to ask. whether you realize it or not, in this article baudrillard is dealing with a very intricate explanation as to the present state of the world. but i guess one would think such topics are "pointless and boring" when rhino design seems to be of priority.
dave_rhino
Closed Account
Why are you still talking?
Similar threads
