-
Any and all textual works can be decried as “lacking exigence”, no matter their content.
-
Make vague references to “the canon”. Do not explain what canon you’re talking about.
-
Employ words like “ethic (singular)”, “schema”, “polity”. It doesn’t matter if you use them correctly, just use them.
-
Pick a noun or an adjective to use as a verb. Just give it your own definition and let the audience figure it out.
-
Use obtuse definitions of philosophical frameworks, like “it’s about bodies moving through space”. Do not elaborate or make it easier to tell what the fuck that’s supposed to mean.
-
If someone is making a good argument that you don’t like, say it’s “reinforcing teleological norms” and refuse to engage with it any more.
-
And, of course, the classic: Anything you don’t like is “deeply unserious”.
thank u for coming to my ted talk
Hey I’m pretty sure you’re not allowed to roast me like this unprompted.
mods mods mods!
Wait, shit, I am the mods.
And, of course, the classic: Anything you don’t like is “deeply unserious”.
This one is actually true though
To a certain polity, the posting ethic is merely about posting-as-schema, and while it’s clear that the author rudimentarily grasps the canon, I do think the contents of her discoursing is quite lacking exigence.
The false dualism of the schema you have posited is imminent within it’s own critique qua critique. The signifier “smarty-pants" is forever seeking its signified, its meaning always already deferred, failing to appear.
When arguing, use “ergo” a lot to make sure people know you just made a point, even if you haven’t made a point.
Also I actually used “schema” earlier today but I was explaining a bit of code for the blog logic for my web framework to my partner.
