so now that the fun of the past few days appears to be over, i think i'll make this final post...
so now that the fun of the past few days appears to be over, i think i”ll make this final post about my concluding musings on the whole business.
the first thing i really want to convey is that it is unlikely, at this point, that i”ll ever bother to do anything to defend my ‘reputation”. i can only think of a few things ppl could say about me that would do more damage than what i”ve already done, but there isn”t much. and on the one front i actually care about, i literally cannot speak about it publicly. so that stain will always exist. and, yeah, this still hurts. anything short of this? idc. not anymore.
i”ll leave it up to ppl who follow and know me to make up their own minds. i have always said that ppl have every right to protect themselves from me, if they think its necessary. unfollow. block. do what you need. i don”t check up on my followers and i rarely even pay attention to my follower count. listen to your intuitions. listen to your friends. make the right decision for you.
since i don”t treat being online as a popularity contest, i don”t really care how ‘good” i appear to ppl. or how i appear to ppl at all.
the other thing is about jargon and cognitive inaccessibility. it might”ve seen hypocritical to some that i”d accuse someone else for being an elitist bc of how they write. i mean. the same thing has been said about my writing (many times). one of the few things i”ve seen come from radical tumblr is the idea that you ‘every day person” can”t read or understand theory is classist and patronizing. this is true. one does not need to go to college in order to read and understand foucault. nor do you need a university degree to participate in the discussion. all very true.
i”ve also said, about my own writing, that it isn”t even meant to be accessible to everyone. beyond the difficulty of writing in such a way that any given person could pick it up, read, and understand wtf i”m talking about, i simply don”t write for everyone. however, within my intended audience there are varying levels of cognitive ability, education, an whatever else impacts comprehension. but even for this subset of people, it would be impossible (imo) to write anything that would be universally accessible.
the difference, to me, was the assertion that ‘not all conversations are for everyone” such that if you don”t know the jargon, perhaps you shouldn”t be part of the conversation. perhaps you ought not to even try. its not for you. amusingly, i actually took this at face value. while, sure, i could understand it given time, but i have no interest in reading the books/article/whatever that these theories invoke. the likelihood i”ll ever read another book by foucault? slim. that i”ll read more judith butler? vanishingly small. so while i might have the cognitive ability, i don”t have the educational (self-taught or formal) background to participate. so i don”t.
again, i”m a pluralist. i don”t actually think it is desirable to have a singular resource that is universally accessible. the fact that there are many kinds of resources suited to different needs, abilities, and perspectives is a good thing. where we diverge is that i do think that, should ppl desire, that (esp if the conversation impacts them) they understand that, yes, they are welcome to join. its about leaving the door open vs. erecting barriers.
speaking of pluralism, i (again) full heartedly believe that there are many paths to freedom. this includes nihilism. sure. i don”t agree. however, i could be wrong and their approach will ultimately be successful. great. does this belief in many paths mean that i think there”s no point in criticising or cmparing? obviously not. indeed, my post about the theory was mainly about highlighting the differences and explaining why the exist (ie, ontological commitments).
just as i”m sure they have any number of critiques to level against my ‘liberalism”. indeed, i”ve seen some of them. comparison and critique is a great way to clarify your own positions and, perhaps, change your mind (but this isn”t necessary). one of the classic ways to defining a concept is to state what it is not.
and so. life goes on. those of us with entrenched positions will continue to believe as we believe.
for everyone else, as always, i encourage you to make up your own minds. pick a path to freedom that you think will work. one that suits your value and convictions. one that suits your temperament and abilities. and its always ok to change your mind.