Cocaine (1 Viewer)

[Dktr. Faustus]

cocaine is a good replacement for baking powder in emergencies

 

[ernesto]

so anyway whats with cocaine?

the overpricing?

coke schmoke..............

wait...........schmoke......... great. hurray!!

yep

 

[Space]

Its official. I'm fucking speechless.

 

[Pat Pockets]

so anyway whats with cocaine?

Sounds like the first line of a Jerry Seinfeld standup gag

 

[RSJ]

Sounds like the first line of a Jerry Seinfeld standup gag

So i took a bunch of coke but it made my dick the size of a roll of quarters. What's with thaaaaaaaaaat?

 

[theinvisiblerep]

As long as you agree Luce Irigaray is bullshit I'm happy

I think you have a secret crush on Luce Irigaray.

You're pulling her cyber-pigtails as far as I see it.

 

[SONYMEGADRIVE]

threads are so cool

 

[therealjohnny]

Ixnay on the Luce Irigaray

 

[zero_hero]

cocaine can be used as sugar.... like in starsky and hutch when they put it in coffee

 

[Bellatrix]

Lets tackle the diversity thing first:

Nobody would do such a course if they didn't first think it worthwhile. I guarantee you that no matter how diverse a group you classmates were there was no one there who didn't share that fundamental belief. There is no way anyone who disagreed with that belief was going to bother with the course in the first place. It would be like a Richard Dawkins taking a year out to study Creationism at the Oral Roberts University.

So no matter how much diversity and exchange of ideas there was your classmates were all alike in on very major and very relevant respect. They though a year spent on a womans study MA was a year well spent.

What was the split of the class sex wise? 50/50? Was there anyone in the class who like me thinks the whole idea preposterous and stood up every day to remind you all how you were wasting you time?

Lets look at the scholarly standards bit:

While I'm sure much of what is studied in this area is valid - the areas where GS intersects with Economics and Sociology for example - there is much of it which is unadulterated nonsense.

It is what Fenynman describes as "cargo cult science". It is completely unverifiable and simply borrows the language and forms of science in order to masquerade as science.

For example take this example of Katherine Hayles discussing that queen of feminist bullshit Luce Irigaray:

The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids. . . From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders.

You dont have to know much science to know that this is horseshit of the highest order yet despite this Irigaray remains well respected in femininst circles. Why?

Like I say Irigaray use the language of science but it is jut camouflage nothing more. It is not science or truth or even a rummage in the neighborhood of truth.

Now I might be wrong and you might have more sense than to believe crap like this but lets be honest any discipline that accepts this kind of gibberish is deeply suspect.

Uhhh. If you disagree with Heidegger or, say, as would be more analogous here, a single paragraph of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit, does that make Philosophy bullshit? If a free market capitalist disagrees with the premise of The Communist Manifesto, does that render the study of Politics bullshit?

Irigaray's sole appearance this year has been a mention with regard to alternative approaches to narrative. Which, as far as I know, was what the bulk of her work was about.

Claiming that a class of students represents a homogenous group because they all share the belief that a year spent studying what they're studying would be well spent is...bizarre.

 

[Mormon Nailer]

Uhhh. If you disagree with Heidegger or, say, as would be more analogous here, a single paragraph of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit, does that make Philosophy bullshit? If a free market capitalist disagrees with the premise of The Communist Manifesto, does that render the study of Politics bullshit?

Thats true there are bullshit artists in every field. What I am more concered about are the mechanisms by which a bulshitter is identifed. In science theroies are compare againt observation, in philosophy I can follow the logic (well not me personally but...) of say Hegel. However Irigaray who uses words almost randomly is held in pretty high regard.

Claiming that a class of students represents a homogenous group because they all share the belief that a year spent studying what they're studying would be well spent is...bizarre.

I dont think it's bizarre at all. How many communists or anarcho-syndicalists do you think studied accontancy with me? Therefore any time we discussed economics it was always with the presumption that capatilism is OK and works pretty well and free markets are good. If we didn't believe those things we wouldn't have chosen accountnacy in the first place. Same is true to a greter or lesser extent with any course.

 

[Mormon Nailer]

Can I go home for me dinner now please?

 

[taubstumm]

who was it who said stuff about not liking sloppy thinking?

here's some sloppy thinking: comparing a masters degree in women's studies to a science degree, and analogously implying that the associated rigour of the scientific experimental method should apply to conceptual thinking about gender relations. women's studies courses are, to the best of my knowledge, usually affiliated with the humanities section of whatever institution they're part of. it's akin to arguing that an english literature student should spend their time, say, trying to mathematically prove that ezra pound is better than t.s. eliot.

here's some more sloppy thinking: using the word 'prove' in relation to science. science does not 'prove' anything - science demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt.

anyway, apart from those and a couple of other things, it's a good read, carry on.

 

[Mormon Nailer]

Better than sloppy reading anyway

 

[Mormon Nailer]

And find the word "prove" in the post

 

[Scientician 0.8]

Cocaine?

 

[Lili Marlene]

Cocaine?

prove it

 

[Mormon Nailer]

And really and fucking truly. Its not a difficult argument to follow - whether you agree or disagree, does everyone here feel the need to invent some random interpretation of what they think I said and make me defend it.

I'm just after my dinner. It was nice

I'm not really in the mood for humouring you. Go away, we can play tomorrow.

 

[taubstumm]

And find the word "prove" in the post

wasn't a dig at you, my good man - i'm an equal opportunities complainer - it got mentioned, and it's a personal peeve.

by the way, i just read the rest of this thread after starting at the end - was this the thread that got rep banned?

 

[taubstumm]

I'm not really in the mood for humouring you. Go away, we can play tomorrow.

'you' meaning me? or a more general 'ye'-type of 'you'?

i'll hang on and talk about cocaine instead if that's ok