Thank God my English major days are over. It's exactly this kind of discussion that has led to the decline of the humanities in universities. I spent four years of my formative life listening to this Marxist-feminist-intersectional drivel, writing bull... papers parroting my professors thinking just to get an A so I could move on. Drove all pleasure in reading out of the discussion. It wasn't until I sat in a conference almost a decade after a fact that a well-regarded professor of Shakespeare (Stephen Greenblatt) finally said the obvious -- "People read because it gives them pleasure. Let's for a moment just focus on what's pleasurable about Shakespeare's language" He got an applause.
Just so I stay on topic. Cross dressing and gender switching in Shakespeare was very much a thing. There may not have been the actual word homosexuality, but it was a thing. Pinning it all on the Victorians is just not accurate.
within the works themselves or primarily in the production of same?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Thank God my English major days are over. It's exactly this kind of discussion that has led to the decline of the humanities in universities. I spent four years of my formative life listening to this Marxist-feminist-intersectional drivel, writing bull... papers parroting my professors thinking just to get an A so I could move on. Drove all pleasure in reading out of the discussion. It wasn't until I sat in a conference almost a decade after a fact that a well-regarded professor of Shakespeare (Stephen Greenblatt) finally said the obvious -- "People read because it gives them pleasure. Let's for a moment just focus on what's pleasurable about Shakespeare's language" He got an applause.
Just so I stay on topic. Cross dressing and gender switching in Shakespeare was very much a thing. There may not have been the actual word homosexuality, but it was a thing. Pinning it all on the Victorians is just not accurate.
This post is unintentionally hilarious. Greenblatt is one of the people most responsible for the shift you lament.
Thank God my English major days are over. It's exactly this kind of discussion that has led to the decline of the humanities in universities. I spent four years of my formative life listening to this Marxist-feminist-intersectional drivel, writing bull... papers parroting my professors thinking just to get an A so I could move on. Drove all pleasure in reading out of the discussion. It wasn't until I sat in a conference almost a decade after a fact that a well-regarded professor of Shakespeare (Stephen Greenblatt) finally said the obvious -- "People read because it gives them pleasure. Let's for a moment just focus on what's pleasurable about Shakespeare's language" He got an applause.
Just so I stay on topic. Cross dressing and gender switching in Shakespeare was very much a thing. There may not have been the actual word homosexuality, but it was a thing. Pinning it all on the Victorians is just not accurate.
within the works themselves or primarily in the production of same?
Both. But cross dressing is NOT the same thing as transgender identity.
I disagree, please elaborate. The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same. The rates of progress and current conclusions are variably influenced by society, but that's a different topic, in my mind.
What other methods of understanding and manipulating the natural world exist? Obviously spontaneous "luck" breakthroughs will always occur sometimes, but what else?
Religion (a bunch of different ones); philosophy (several variations there); "common sense" (infinite variations there)....
And this part "The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same" is just objectively false. They have evolved over time.
You say that, but you don't present an alternative to "observe, hypothesize, experiment" I'd like to know how, as an example, humans came to learn the medicinal effects of plants that are dangerous with another system. Even the most basic form of trial and error is a scientific endeavor that is not a social construct.
Wait, you want to claim all observation, all hypothesization, and all experimentation for science? I'm a fucking scientist, y'all!!
Wait, you want to claim an alternate definition for science? That's what science is. Period.
"All science is observation" does not mean "all observation is science."
All observation followed by hypothesis and experimentation that results in greater understanding, and eventually greater ability to manipulate is science. The degree of sophistication is the variant. I know your comment about being a scientist was tongue-in-cheek, but it wasn't far off. Two of my dearest friends are lepidopterists who make a living hiking the Sierra Nevada and Great Basin around Tahoe butterfly hunting for University. Yes, I am very jealous. They consider me an equal, though I hold no degree and have no grants. I am just a farmer. The truth is that I am constantly making observations, hypothesizing, and experimenting. He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me.
You're not going to convince me that all organized thought is science. I also don't think scientists are going to be particularly keen on an English professor being granted honorary scientist status (a status I don't want).
It's far less preposterous than your apparent position that all organized thought is a social construct.
"He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me." Not extending me the same deference?
PhD in English? Nope lol. This has been fun. Actually though, I am a HUGE (and hugely amateur) lover of literature. Can you give me a sampling of your favorite literary figures? To bring it back to the topic, was there ever any part of your English professor side that grappled with using a traditionally (though never exclusively) plural pronoun for your singular child?
I see: you like experts when they say nice things about you; otherwise not.
I'll give you a sampling of important intellectuals on which my work relies: Immanuel Kant, Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, Jacques Derrida, Antonio Gramsci, and Louis Althusser, amongst others. They're all part of the intellectual tradition you're (unwittingly, I believe) dismissing.
As for your last question: no.
Damn, you must be a real hoot at parties lol
Yeah, I get pissed when people shit on stuff they don't understand at parties too.
Not a fair assumption that someone who values things differently doesn't understand that which you value.
I disagree, please elaborate. The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same. The rates of progress and current conclusions are variably influenced by society, but that's a different topic, in my mind.
What other methods of understanding and manipulating the natural world exist? Obviously spontaneous "luck" breakthroughs will always occur sometimes, but what else?
Religion (a bunch of different ones); philosophy (several variations there); "common sense" (infinite variations there)....
And this part "The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same" is just objectively false. They have evolved over time.
You say that, but you don't present an alternative to "observe, hypothesize, experiment" I'd like to know how, as an example, humans came to learn the medicinal effects of plants that are dangerous with another system. Even the most basic form of trial and error is a scientific endeavor that is not a social construct.
Wait, you want to claim all observation, all hypothesization, and all experimentation for science? I'm a fucking scientist, y'all!!
Wait, you want to claim an alternate definition for science? That's what science is. Period.
"All science is observation" does not mean "all observation is science."
All observation followed by hypothesis and experimentation that results in greater understanding, and eventually greater ability to manipulate is science. The degree of sophistication is the variant. I know your comment about being a scientist was tongue-in-cheek, but it wasn't far off. Two of my dearest friends are lepidopterists who make a living hiking the Sierra Nevada and Great Basin around Tahoe butterfly hunting for University. Yes, I am very jealous. They consider me an equal, though I hold no degree and have no grants. I am just a farmer. The truth is that I am constantly making observations, hypothesizing, and experimenting. He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me.
You're not going to convince me that all organized thought is science. I also don't think scientists are going to be particularly keen on an English professor being granted honorary scientist status (a status I don't want).
It's far less preposterous than your apparent position that all organized thought is a social construct.
"He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me." Not extending me the same deference?
PhD in English? Nope lol. This has been fun. Actually though, I am a HUGE (and hugely amateur) lover of literature. Can you give me a sampling of your favorite literary figures? To bring it back to the topic, was there ever any part of your English professor side that grappled with using a traditionally (though never exclusively) plural pronoun for your singular child?
I see: you like experts when they say nice things about you; otherwise not.
I'll give you a sampling of important intellectuals on which my work relies: Immanuel Kant, Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, Jacques Derrida, Antonio Gramsci, and Louis Althusser, amongst others. They're all part of the intellectual tradition you're (unwittingly, I believe) dismissing.
As for your last question: no.
Damn, you must be a real hoot at parties lol
Yeah, I get pissed when people shit on stuff they don't understand at parties too.
Not a fair assumption that someone who values things differently doesn't understand that which you value.
Hah! Just because we don't recognize your expertise (outside of your field) doesn't mean we don't recognize intellectual authority at all. Clearly you are a very intelligent person, but the desire to be immediately recognized as an authority by strangers on the internet is not a good look.
Hah! Just because we don't recognize your expertise (outside of your field) doesn't mean we don't recognize intellectual authority at all. Clearly you are a very intelligent person, but the desire to be immediately recognized as an authority by strangers on the internet is not a good look.
The social constructedness of discourse is not outside my field.
Hah! Just because we don't recognize your expertise (outside of your field) doesn't mean we don't recognize intellectual authority at all. Clearly you are a very intelligent person, but the desire to be immediately recognized as an authority by strangers on the internet is not a good look.
More to your point: in my experience, many people have a circumscribed understanding of areas in which "intellectual authority" or "expertise" exists--and at first glance, you look like one of them (I'm happy to be wrong about this). That's the backdrop of this thread's entire discussion of science.
Hah! Just because we don't recognize your expertise (outside of your field) doesn't mean we don't recognize intellectual authority at all. Clearly you are a very intelligent person, but the desire to be immediately recognized as an authority by strangers on the internet is not a good look.
The social constructedness of discourse is not outside my field.
Ok, well maybe it's in your field that we find a lack of authority. Either way, you haven't addressed a number of the issue taken with your assertion, and it doesn't seem like you are interested in doing so. I suppose we should reopen the floor for the topic at hand.
Thank God my English major days are over. It's exactly this kind of discussion that has led to the decline of the humanities in universities. I spent four years of my formative life listening to this Marxist-feminist-intersectional drivel, writing bull... papers parroting my professors thinking just to get an A so I could move on. Drove all pleasure in reading out of the discussion. It wasn't until I sat in a conference almost a decade after a fact that a well-regarded professor of Shakespeare (Stephen Greenblatt) finally said the obvious -- "People read because it gives them pleasure. Let's for a moment just focus on what's pleasurable about Shakespeare's language" He got an applause.
Just so I stay on topic. Cross dressing and gender switching in Shakespeare was very much a thing. There may not have been the actual word homosexuality, but it was a thing. Pinning it all on the Victorians is just not accurate.
within the works themselves or primarily in the production of same?
Both. But cross dressing is NOT the same thing as transgender identity.
and that seems to be where Eddie Izard began. Labeling himself as such. Until the language was developed for him(on a given day, her on another) to state gender fluidity.
Isnt identity an expressed vision of self? Same might be said for transvestites or cross-dressers , depending on who is using which term.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Thank God my English major days are over. It's exactly this kind of discussion that has led to the decline of the humanities in universities. I spent four years of my formative life listening to this Marxist-feminist-intersectional drivel, writing bull... papers parroting my professors thinking just to get an A so I could move on. Drove all pleasure in reading out of the discussion. It wasn't until I sat in a conference almost a decade after a fact that a well-regarded professor of Shakespeare (Stephen Greenblatt) finally said the obvious -- "People read because it gives them pleasure. Let's for a moment just focus on what's pleasurable about Shakespeare's language" He got an applause.
Just so I stay on topic. Cross dressing and gender switching in Shakespeare was very much a thing. There may not have been the actual word homosexuality, but it was a thing. Pinning it all on the Victorians is just not accurate.
within the works themselves or primarily in the production of same?
Within the works. During the era in which Shakespeare wrote, women were not allowed on stage. All female characters were played by boys. Several plays feature female characters (played by boys) who "disguise" themselves as men to acquire freedom or power. Twelfth Night, As You Like It most prominently. To see a contemporary treatment of it, I highly recommend the movie Shakespeare in Live, which is just a really FUN look at the theater of the time
EDIT: so as an English major, I was subject to much research on "Homoeroticism and Gender Identity in Name Your Play." Basically the same stuff we are discussing today, boys kissing boys on stage.
Hah! Just because we don't recognize your expertise (outside of your field) doesn't mean we don't recognize intellectual authority at all. Clearly you are a very intelligent person, but the desire to be immediately recognized as an authority by strangers on the internet is not a good look.
The social constructedness of discourse is not outside my field.
Ok, well maybe it's in your field that we find a lack of authority. Either way, you haven't addressed a number of the issue taken with your assertion, and it doesn't seem like you are interested in doing so. I suppose we should reopen the floor for the topic at hand.
At least you admit you’re dismissing entire intellectual disciplines.
Hah! Just because we don't recognize your expertise (outside of your field) doesn't mean we don't recognize intellectual authority at all. Clearly you are a very intelligent person, but the desire to be immediately recognized as an authority by strangers on the internet is not a good look.
More to your point: in my experience, many people have a circumscribed understanding of areas in which "intellectual authority" or "expertise" exists--and at first glance, you look like one of them (I'm happy to be wrong about this). That's the backdrop of this thread's entire discussion of science.
Well, despite my love for the art of literature, I tend to favor (heavily, I suppose) intellectual authority in objective topics.
Hah! Just because we don't recognize your expertise (outside of your field) doesn't mean we don't recognize intellectual authority at all. Clearly you are a very intelligent person, but the desire to be immediately recognized as an authority by strangers on the internet is not a good look.
The social constructedness of discourse is not outside my field.
Ok, well maybe it's in your field that we find a lack of authority. Either way, you haven't addressed a number of the issue taken with your assertion, and it doesn't seem like you are interested in doing so. I suppose we should reopen the floor for the topic at hand.
At least you admit you’re dismissing entire intellectual disciplines.
Don't we all? Like I said, I'm more into objective disciplines. 🤷♂️
Hah! Just because we don't recognize your expertise (outside of your field) doesn't mean we don't recognize intellectual authority at all. Clearly you are a very intelligent person, but the desire to be immediately recognized as an authority by strangers on the internet is not a good look.
The social constructedness of discourse is not outside my field.
Ok, well maybe it's in your field that we find a lack of authority. Either way, you haven't addressed a number of the issue taken with your assertion, and it doesn't seem like you are interested in doing so. I suppose we should reopen the floor for the topic at hand.
At least you admit you’re dismissing entire intellectual disciplines.
Don't we all? Like I said, I'm more into objective disciplines. 🤷♂️
Hah! Just because we don't recognize your expertise (outside of your field) doesn't mean we don't recognize intellectual authority at all. Clearly you are a very intelligent person, but the desire to be immediately recognized as an authority by strangers on the internet is not a good look.
The social constructedness of discourse is not outside my field.
Ok, well maybe it's in your field that we find a lack of authority. Either way, you haven't addressed a number of the issue taken with your assertion, and it doesn't seem like you are interested in doing so. I suppose we should reopen the floor for the topic at hand.
At least you admit you’re dismissing entire intellectual disciplines.
Don't we all? Like I said, I'm more into objective disciplines. 🤷♂️
There aren’t any
Hahaha tell that to your doctor when he prescribes you a treatment, Sir Edgelord.
Hah! Just because we don't recognize your expertise (outside of your field) doesn't mean we don't recognize intellectual authority at all. Clearly you are a very intelligent person, but the desire to be immediately recognized as an authority by strangers on the internet is not a good look.
The social constructedness of discourse is not outside my field.
Ok, well maybe it's in your field that we find a lack of authority. Either way, you haven't addressed a number of the issue taken with your assertion, and it doesn't seem like you are interested in doing so. I suppose we should reopen the floor for the topic at hand.
At least you admit you’re dismissing entire intellectual disciplines.
Don't we all? Like I said, I'm more into objective disciplines. 🤷♂️
There aren’t any
Hahaha tell that to your doctor when he prescribes you a treatment, Sir Edgelord.
To get back on topic... I've heard theybe before, but never really given it any thought? Is baby a gendered term, or is it a way to signify to people a desire to avoid gendering. Or something else?
To get back on topic... I've heard theybe before, but never really given it any thought? Is baby a gendered term, or is it a way to signify to people a desire to avoid gendering. Or something else?
Hah! Just because we don't recognize your expertise (outside of your field) doesn't mean we don't recognize intellectual authority at all. Clearly you are a very intelligent person, but the desire to be immediately recognized as an authority by strangers on the internet is not a good look.
The social constructedness of discourse is not outside my field.
Ok, well maybe it's in your field that we find a lack of authority. Either way, you haven't addressed a number of the issue taken with your assertion, and it doesn't seem like you are interested in doing so. I suppose we should reopen the floor for the topic at hand.
At least you admit you’re dismissing entire intellectual disciplines.
Don't we all? Like I said, I'm more into objective disciplines. 🤷♂️
There aren’t any
Hahaha tell that to your doctor when he prescribes you a treatment, Sir Edgelord.
I don’t think you know what “objective” means.
Hahaha I bet you have a definition that positively transcends a mere dictionary!
To get back on topic... I've heard theybe before, but never really given it any thought? Is baby a gendered term, or is it a way to signify to people a desire to avoid gendering. Or something else?
To get back on topic... I've heard theybe before, but never really given it any thought? Is baby a gendered term, or is it a way to signify to people a desire to avoid gendering. Or something else?
To get back on topic... I've heard theybe before, but never really given it any thought? Is baby a gendered term, or is it a way to signify to people a desire to avoid gendering. Or something else?
Read the thread
Thank you, very helpful.
You said you like reading
Hahaha touché, but you've now spent more time trying to zing me than you would have in just answering my question and alleviating my ignorance.
Hah! Just because we don't recognize your expertise (outside of your field) doesn't mean we don't recognize intellectual authority at all. Clearly you are a very intelligent person, but the desire to be immediately recognized as an authority by strangers on the internet is not a good look.
The social constructedness of discourse is not outside my field.
Ok, well maybe it's in your field that we find a lack of authority. Either way, you haven't addressed a number of the issue taken with your assertion, and it doesn't seem like you are interested in doing so. I suppose we should reopen the floor for the topic at hand.
At least you admit you’re dismissing entire intellectual disciplines.
Don't we all? Like I said, I'm more into objective disciplines. 🤷♂️
There aren’t any
Hahaha tell that to your doctor when he prescribes you a treatment, Sir Edgelord.
I don’t think you know what “objective” means.
Hahaha I bet you have a definition that positively transcends a mere dictionary!
I hope your doctor knows more about the flu than what’s in the dictionary.
Comments
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Doc: Sir, you have a fatal disease.
Patient: What makes you such an expert?
Doc: .......
Patient: Agree to disagree.
Clearly you are a very intelligent person, but the desire to be immediately recognized as an authority by strangers on the internet is not a good look.
Either way, you haven't addressed a number of the issue taken with your assertion, and it doesn't seem like you are interested in doing so. I suppose we should reopen the floor for the topic at hand.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
EDIT: so as an English major, I was subject to much research on "Homoeroticism and Gender Identity in Name Your Play." Basically the same stuff we are discussing today, boys kissing boys on stage.
Is baby a gendered term, or is it a way to signify to people a desire to avoid gendering. Or something else?