joe brennan: Foucault warns us about polemicists who are more concerned with
ad hominem than with finding a space for all to speak. I don't see any
attempt to answer an honest and forthright criticism in your below post. How
exactly is your attack of Cheney different than the actions of right
wingers "who make a living attacking intellectuals?" I mean, besides the
"obvious" fact that you are right...
Todd Comer
> it seems to me that some things are painfully obvious, and that Lynn Cheney,
> along with the rest of the right-wing conservatives who make a living
> attacking intellectuals -- there's a long history of this -- is among the
> most obvious. I don't know what *normative basis* one needs for this. if
> you think that Cheney, et al. make a credible case, then there's little I can
> say that would sway you. I find your characterization of my position as one
> of *moral outrage* laughable. I mean, this is very funny! Lynn Cheney in
> the same breath as Foucault?
>
> jb...
>
> In a message dated 09/23/2000 1:36:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> comertod@xxxxxxx writes:
>
> <<
> Maybe I'm out of my depth here, but from what normative basis can you make
> the above value judgement ("I don't")? The fact that, as far as I can tell,
> Foucault does not provide such a basis strikes me as exactly the argument
> that "conservatives" like Cheney (or some Marxists) would make. Foucault's
> project provides no basis for your moral outgrage and this is a glaring
> fault in my opinion. I think this would be where "relatavism" would enter
> for Cheney.
>
> Frankly, it is not clear to me how one can argue the silencing of one group
> in favor of another after reading Foucault--or perhaps I am misreading your
> post?
>>>
ad hominem than with finding a space for all to speak. I don't see any
attempt to answer an honest and forthright criticism in your below post. How
exactly is your attack of Cheney different than the actions of right
wingers "who make a living attacking intellectuals?" I mean, besides the
"obvious" fact that you are right...
Todd Comer
> it seems to me that some things are painfully obvious, and that Lynn Cheney,
> along with the rest of the right-wing conservatives who make a living
> attacking intellectuals -- there's a long history of this -- is among the
> most obvious. I don't know what *normative basis* one needs for this. if
> you think that Cheney, et al. make a credible case, then there's little I can
> say that would sway you. I find your characterization of my position as one
> of *moral outrage* laughable. I mean, this is very funny! Lynn Cheney in
> the same breath as Foucault?
>
> jb...
>
> In a message dated 09/23/2000 1:36:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> comertod@xxxxxxx writes:
>
> <<
> Maybe I'm out of my depth here, but from what normative basis can you make
> the above value judgement ("I don't")? The fact that, as far as I can tell,
> Foucault does not provide such a basis strikes me as exactly the argument
> that "conservatives" like Cheney (or some Marxists) would make. Foucault's
> project provides no basis for your moral outgrage and this is a glaring
> fault in my opinion. I think this would be where "relatavism" would enter
> for Cheney.
>
> Frankly, it is not clear to me how one can argue the silencing of one group
> in favor of another after reading Foucault--or perhaps I am misreading your
> post?
>>>