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.

I think I can understand where you are coming from. I actually tried adding right wing commentators like Mecius Moldbug and Nick Land to this version of my essay. Most of my points in the following chapters actually sway away from what the left usually agrees on. Unfortunately, I think I made the introduction of the paper a little too left leaning (mostly because I assumed the people in the subreddit r/Philosophy is more left wing) for people to really look at the rest of the paper with an unbiased view.

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.

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.

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.