Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Hour_Director_6330 OP t1_j4x8we2 wrote

Reply to comment by Icy_Collection_1396 in The way one experiences freedom changed completely due to technocapitalism by Hour_Director_6330

I really like your summary of it. When I was writing this paper, I mostly wanted to capture this exact idea and analyze (mostly using the methodologies of Hegel and Deleuze) how the notion of freedom and security changed over time and especially put emphasis on how contingent it is to the general socio-politico-economic (I couldn’t find a better way to describe it lol) landscape in a way that has never been seen before.

1

[deleted] t1_j4xlcv0 wrote

[deleted]

−1

Hour_Director_6330 OP t1_j4xr3fq wrote

I have a hard time understanding your initial point. What do you mean by “Did you even have a thought you were trying to string together in a paragraph?” I am assuming you are talking about how certain sentences seem unrelated and I can understand that but can you be more specific as it is too reductive to summarize my entire paper as just random collection of words. Unless you are Wittgenstein, I can’t accept it unless you have a certain part of the text you find questionable.

Also, your critique on my usage of something other than “said” seems a little too stringent. I think “according to” and “replies” do just as a good job as “said.” More importantly, I think the readers are capable of understanding that these are quotes.

Edit: I just saw your post history. You seem to make a lot of ad hominem comments like how a person can’t get laid to claim your point. It’s kinda funny I guess but it does very little to add to the discussion.

1

[deleted] t1_j4y2iuv wrote

[deleted]

1

Hour_Director_6330 OP t1_j4y5bo5 wrote

I can certainly see what you mean when you say I’m using your usage as ad hominem as ad hominem myself. That wasn’t my intent. I only did this to point out that your argument was difficult to understand (at least for me) because it didn’t have sufficient content.

Also, in the line you point out from my essay, I don’t really see the over-usage of synonyms? (unless I’m wrong) Certain terms like the “State” has different connotations compared to the “governance” (as the former is speaking directly about the role of national governments while the latter has more so to do with the industrial big Other that exists only due to the fact that the operating firm’s interests line up). If I do use terms that seem similar, it’s mostly because I thought it was the better term to use. If you think it can be improved, feel free to let me know.

Also, the introduction of the paper is pretty ambiguous because most of the content is in the later pages. If you read the paper, you will see most of the terms and concepts are explored again in greater detail.

1

dFOXb t1_j500ktk wrote

Actually, can you point to an example from my comment history that was ad hominem? Also, I do not know how pointing out my comment history proves a point that my arguement was difficult to understand. They seem irrelevant of one another and I do not know how you can say tou are making this as a point unless you explain the connection.

The line from the essay I used as an example was not an example of the over usage of synonyms but an example of how you had three consecutive sentences that did not readily appear to grow upon the idea of the last but introduced a new aspect to the paragraph. Typical structure of a single paragraph should be to focus on one idea and explore it and grow upon it. Otherwise it is confusing as in your paper.

I will try to explain my meaning of the synonym metaphor, again. First, here is an article explaining the point I was trying to make,

https://medium.com/the-writers-woodshed/just-say-said-69766700568c

In regards to how it relates to your paper, I believe it would be easier to understand and, critically, enjoy if you did not go to such pains to use uncommon wording and phrasing.

Edit: did you downvote my comment history?

Edit edit: I just looked at my comment history and there is ONE example recently that I forgot about. To be fair, in the context of the comment thread it was not really an arguement and only loosely fits the definition of ad hominem because of this. It was quite imaginative if I do say so myself.

1

Hour_Director_6330 OP t1_j5321nj wrote

Don't worry. I didn't downvote your comment history. It's literally an arrow button pointing down on the internet Reddit world. I wouldn't go out of my way to sabotage you like that. Also, your comment generally makes sense. I have a tendency to jump from one idea to another. However, in my own defense, most philosophers I read (Zizek, Deleuze, etc.) sound exactly like that. I tried to make this version of the paper more accessible than the former one but I think I might have done the opposite.

Also, as you said, these comments may (or may not) be a violation of the rules. If there is generally anything you would like to add without the risk of getting banned, feel free to pm me.

1

dFOXb t1_j53bhhl wrote

No, nothing I would like to add. I have just been banned before from subreddits I enjoyed for going off topic and against the rules even in innocence. The rules here do not state going off topic in the comment section is an offense but better safe than sorry so you can still interact. Cheers mate

1