Communal Hatred, The FAQ

Official Stamp O' Approval [.mp3]

Like it or not, we have become a community.  We may not like each other very much, but truth be told, we allocate time better spent sleeping to undermining the very foundation of each other's respective worldviews.  Thing is, we do so in a way that may perplex outsiders.  So I suggest we create an FAQ which new readers can consult when, for example, one of us indicts the other for "having a plane to catch" or "making some pasta."  Starter entries include:

Aeroplanes, the Boarding of v. An insidious tactic designed to allow the boardee more time to respond cleverly to entries posted in distant time zones.

Holbo, John n. An analytic blowhard who puffs fish and butchers anyone who complains. 

Kaufman, Scott the Eric of n. Confused, narcissistic graduate student who sympathizes with all folks regardless of scholarly orientation, discovers strangers in his office, thinks too much about things evolutionary and feels really, really old.

Kotsko, Adam n. Outrageously funny seminarian who loves Christ (conflictedly), refuses to smack, and defends Slovenian Lacanians from analytic blowhards.

Pasta, the Boiling of v. A rhetorical strategy designed to fool one's opponent into believing that common human courtesy overrides online commitments to continued debate.

Spivak v. The practice of failing to contribute to an event because of personal or professional obligations.  For example, "Kaufman, Scott the Eric of totally spivaked the Spivak event!"

Žižek, Slavoj n. Slovenian Lacanian whose hilarious and eminently engaging works are nonetheless savaged by those who hate to love the unpretentious sense of humor they share with him.  (See Holbo, John)

Methinks this the beginning of a collaborative FAQ.  Consider this a draft of a document whose potential to be gratifyingly self-deprecatory is infinite.  John and I encourage everyone to write their own entry, suggest changes to those sketched above, and offer other categories which belong on it.

[X-posted]

Comments

[Rich Puchalsky]

Adam's not funny.

[Scott Eric Kaufman]

LIAR!

[Scott Eric Kaufman]

Damn, that was too easy.

[T. Scrivener]

I suggest that For all the posturing of continental v analytic, universalism v relativism, Theory v theory etc there is an irony. We deny it but we share the same basic epistemological beliefs as is evident in the fact that we use the same argumentative style, All bloggers do. I hypothesise that there is a blogger world view, held by almost all bloggers, especially academic bloggers.

[Matt]

Um, Scott! You neglect the originary, founding deployment!

Oh but I give up. It's hard work not liking you Value-boys, sometimes.

(And let the record show I was unecessarily short with Mr. Schwartz, who had obviously been tipped off wongly about the pudgy wimpitude of this whole blog community affair.)

I've always thought that you were funny, Scott. In more ways than...there are stars, in the sky to be counted.

[Matt]

I'll tell you what you can do with your bloggers' worldview, T.

[Matt]

:)

[Matt]

Just joking, of course.

[Adam Roberts]

Is that mp3 Southern-States Krusty the Klown 'I heartily endorse this event or product' spiel John H in his real voice? Or is he doing, like, an impression?

[Matt]

I agree; surely everything hinges on this.

[Adam Kotsko]

The one person who doesn't seem to fit your scheme, Scrivener, is Matt Christie. I've never seen an argumentative style like his.

[Scott Eric Kaufman]

Adam, that's John's voice, and he's doing what's become a commonplace on American political ads: "I'm X, and I approve of this message" prefaces every single non-PAC political ad on television these days. But it's not his real voice so much as a strange, beer-inflected drawl which I think was supposed to approximate Bush.

Matt, I forgot about that. I thought it came from the Rufo/Holbo affair. I think, however, that it's managed to originate from both.

And I both agree and disagree with Adam and Tim, in that I think they're both correct and that Matt's the exception that proves the rule. Well, him and his new arch-uber-nemesis LCC.

[Matt]

It hardly takes much to become an uber-nemesis these days, that's for sure. I'm glad Adam can still patronize the hapless soul who makes the joke that's being begged. In all honesty, Mr. Scrivener, I thought your comments on the CT thread (catholic sequel #772) were horrendous. And what this blogger "style," in the singular, could possibly be...perhaps you care to elaborate. Or perhaps not.

[Adam Kotsko]

My dissertation is going to be called "Blogging as Ontology." It's the natural step past Heidegger's "phenomenology as ontology" and Badiou's "math as ontology." In my dedication, I will not mention any of you, since you are all merely ontic.

[T. Scrivener]

Matt, would that be the comment in which I quite reasonably pointed out that just because analytic philosophy is difficult to make relevant to literature doesn't mean it's irrelevant? And that you can't expect that just because a mutilated form of continental philosophy used by some theorists is often virtually instantly relevant to whatever text is at hand is possible that this is the standard for philosophy?

[Matt]

Nope.