http://www.mcrg.ac.in/RLS_Migration/Reading_List/Module_A/65.Said,%20Edward,%20Reflections_on_Exile_and_Other_Essay(BookFi).pdf
(essay #33 in this volume)
What is the neoliberal wokester attempt at a rebuttal against Said?
The Politics of Knowledge by Edward Said
-
Why don't you want to explain how you're using the term?
"Neoliberal is a made up word that doesn't mean anything" troll is my least favorite troll on this site.
I'm sor/ry your education failed you so badly that you cannot recognize nor understand a word because it is never used on CNN, MSNBC, or the Daily Show. -
Because the people who seek to make controversy over the alleged meaningless of the term are usually exactly the sort of people the term applies to?
Again, I'm sor/ry that your education has failed you so badly or left you so politically uninformed that you're not able to immediately perceive and understand how the term is being used.
There seems to be strong push-back from some people over the leftist understanding of the term -- trying to hijack the thread to air your own linguistic grievances against the left is petty.
Deal with the content of Said's essay if you can. -
Oh, look, he's found a new author to pretend he's the only one he has read. Or scratch that, I guess he heard about Said for the first time after WSWS blogged about it or Katie Halper tweeted about it or something.
Go back to the threads you bailed on before starting a new one. We're waiting to discuss science, chief.
-
Because the people who seek to make controversy over the alleged meaningless of the term are usually exactly the sort of people the term applies to?
Again, I'm sor/ry that your education has failed you so badly or left you so politically uninformed that you're not able to immediately perceive and understand how the term is being used.
There seems to be strong push-back from some people over the leftist understanding of the term -- trying to hijack the thread to air your own linguistic grievances against the left is petty.
Deal with the content of Said's essay if you can.Nah, this is a straw man. As someone else said, you'd have nothing to work with if you didn't put words in people's mouths. That or your reading comprehension again. The argument you failed to meet wasn't that the term is meaningless. It's that it has a disputed meaning, which is why you need to justify your usage of the only guy you've read's definition.
If you don't understand that, we can't help you. And lying about what we said isn't going to change anything.
-
Why don't you want to explain how you're using the term?
"Neoliberal is a made up word that doesn't mean anything" troll is my least favorite troll on this site.
I'm sor/ry your education failed you so badly that you cannot recognize nor understand a word because it is never used on CNN, MSNBC, or the Daily Show.In a previous thread OP said that all sociologists agreed with him on its definition, undermining their entire, obsessive 8 month campaign.
-
Because the people who seek to make controversy over the alleged meaningless of the term are usually exactly the sort of people the term applies to?
Again, I'm sor/ry that your education has failed you so badly or left you so politically uninformed that you're not able to immediately perceive and understand how the term is being used.
There seems to be strong push-back from some people over the leftist understanding of the term -- trying to hijack the thread to air your own linguistic grievances against the left is petty.
Deal with the content of Said's essay if you can.
Nah, this is a straw man. As someone else said, you'd have nothing to work with if you didn't put words in people's mouths. That or your reading comprehension again. The argument you failed to meet wasn't that the term is meaningless. It's that it has a disputed meaning, which is why you need to justify your usage of the only guy you've read's definition.
If you don't understand that, we can't help you. And lying about what we said isn't going to change anything.Greenwald probably said “what about Said” to a corporate Dem, owning them with facts reason and logic.
-
Said is writ ten about a lot in so ciology. Several names that are frequently talked about here have ap pealed to him in their re se a rch. M ost si gnificantly, a rockstar in my subfield.
Very com mon in po st-c ol onial wo k e stuff. I am not sa ying they have the cor .r ect interpretatio ns, but I co nfe ss to easily finding this the w eird est “sociolo gists are una ware of” post e ver.
Anyway, pos ting a ne arly 600 page docu ment with a wide a.r;ray of content and asking for a general response does not make an incredible amount of sense. 0/10 attempt at being provocative. Too bad, because sociology could use some wise critique.
Also, are there actually a large number kr scholars publishing on neoliberalism not recognizing the etymology, disputes, and differences between disciplines in the term? I know Reed doesn’t, probably because it’s assumed the reader knows where he is coming from.
But this was a very big issue in 2016. The crossroads of academia, including Sociology, and pop culture made this really salient, when Neil liberal became a pejorative term for certain kind of progressive. I took the position that it was an accurate description, but not for the reasons offered. The debate long predates this, but I’m surprised to see people arguing that there has been. Huh.
-
Oh, look, he's found a new author to pretend he's the only one he has read. Or scratch that, I guess he heard about Said for the first time after WSWS blogged about it or Katie Halper tweeted about it or something.
Go back to the threads you bailed on before starting a new one. We're waiting to discuss science, chief.You show your political illiteracy pretty clearly here. Are you even an undergrad yet? If so, I'm sor/ry your education has failed you so badly. I'm sure your parents had higher aspirations for you.
-
Said is writ ten about a lot in so ciology. Several names that are frequently talked about here have ap pealed to him in their re se a rch. M ost si gnificantly, a rockstar in my subfield.
Very com mon in po st-c ol onial wo k e stuff. I am not sa ying they have the cor .r ect interpretatio ns, but I co nfe ss to easily finding this the w eird est �sociolo gists are una ware of� post e ver.
Anyway, pos ting a ne arly 600 page docu ment with a wide a.r;ray of content and asking for a general response does not make an incredible amount of sense. 0/10 attempt at being provocative. Too bad, because sociology could use some wise critique.
Also, are there actually a large number kr scholars publishing on neoliberalism not recognizing the etymology, disputes, and differences between disciplines in the term? I know Reed doesn�t, probably because it�s assumed the reader knows where he is coming from.
But this was a very big issue in 2016. The crossroads of academia, including Sociology, and pop culture made this really salient, when Neil liberal became a pejorative term for certain kind of progressive. I took the position that it was an accurate description, but not for the reasons offered. The debate long predates this, but I�m surprised to see people arguing that there has been. Huh.No one including yourself is responding to Said's essay, which devastates the wokester discourse.
There is one essay in the book, nobody is asking you to read all of the essays.If every sociology grad student were required to read "The Politics of Knowledge," ignorance like the Cite Black Women campaign would never have existed. That's why your response is so strange -- you have clearly not read this essay, because you are not responding to any of its content.
Also, Said was not a Marxist and so the reference to WSWS is weird and inexplicable.
This thread is not about, "Debate the leftist definiti
...See full post -
Anyway, we're not your research assistants. We're not at your beck and call. Tell us what specifically you want us to to respond to. I doubt anyone wants to guess what your application is. I'm certainly not going to spend an hour unpacking Said, in a general sense, because some stranger asked.
Nobody here is identified as a "wokester." But, whatever you wanna guess I guess.
-
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/1993/09/said-s13.html
Womp WompThe fact that you had to find an article from 30 years ago to point to any reference to Said in the publication does not prove whatever point you were trying to make (which was not even clear).
You're trying to smear Said as somehow being a Marxist? He avowedly was not.Edward Said is very commonly assigned to even undergrads in many disciplines in the humanities. He was also extremely active in the anti-war movement in 2003 and his activist activity would sometimes appear on C-SPAN in that time period. It's like pretending people haven't heard of Chomsky or Foucault or Bertrand Russell -- these are very close to being household names even among the general American public (maybe depending on the demographics). I have no idea about your frame of reference regarding what thinkers you consider to be obscure or why, but the fact that you imagine Said as an obscure figure is very strange.
-
Your capability to read very detailed things, which don't exist, into people seems to form the premises for about 90 percent of your arguments.
No. I'm not smearing Said. Nobody called Said a Marxist. Nobody said anything negative about him. Positive, even. You made all of that up out of thin air. You're arguing with yourself here.
My observation is that someone shows up in "dirtbag left" (their own label for themselves, and content I enjoy) media then, in short order, appears on SJMR with someone thinking it's shocking to us (it isn't).
The only person pretending anyone has unfamiliarity with Said is you. The entire point of most of these responses has been, "yea, we know Said, so what?"
You haven't give a single argument out of Said, and we're not obligated to guess.
And there's plenty recent. I like the 1993 one because Edward Said is literally the first word.
-
No. I'm not smearing Said. Nobody called Said a Marxist. Nobody said anything negative about him. Positive, even. You made all of that up out of thin air. You're arguing with yourself here.
You seem to imagine he has a deep connection with the WSWS that simply does not exist. Two articles in 30 years is not a deep connection. Take off the tinfoil hat, boy.
My observation is that someone shows up in "dirtbag left" (their own label for themselves, and content I enjoy) media then, in short order, appears on SJMR with someone thinking it's shocking to us (it isn't).
Dirtbag Left refers to things like the Chapo podcast (which I've never listened to). It certainly does not refer to Edward Said or Adolph Reed. (find a reference indicating otherwise if you believe I'm wrong.)
The only person pretending anyone has unfamiliarity with Said is you.
You made a post imagining that people had in this thread had only just heard of Said as a writer. Then you seemed to indicate it was through WSWS articles from 30 years ago. Scroll up.
The entire point of most of these responses has been, "yea, we know Said, so what?"
You apparently do not know his views on political cor/rectness (now known as Wokeism), as you have not responded to them.