Images pas cool, justice sociale & steaks saignants

[fm06]

Rice University est à Houston, Texas.

Et ce n'est pas un canular, ou alors c'est que l'admin de l'Université a un sens de l'humour très spécial.

https://ga.rice.edu/programs-study/courses/chem/

 

 

[Rübezahl]

Houston (comme beaucoup de villes)  est un ilôt dem au milieu de son état.

[Cthulhu]

Ça y est, j'ai enfin une place au sein de la communauté LGBTQIA+

 

[Marlenus]

3 hours ago, Cthulhu said:

Ça y est, j'ai enfin une place au sein de la communauté LGBTQIA+

 

Le pire c'est que la communauté visiblement discute de savoir si sérieusement cela existe ou pas:

 

https://orientation.fandom.com/wiki/Semibisexual

 

Alors Cthulhu, tu es un double genre (h/F à la fois) uniquement attiré par un genre (mais qui fait de toi un homo et un hétéro à la fois)?

 

 

 

Perso, au sein de la communauté, je suis pansexuel.

Si tu as un corps qui me fait envie, je me fous que tu te considère comme h/f/non binaire, etc.

Bon, les conservateurs vont me traiter d'hétéro vu que les corps qui m'attirent sont considéré comme féminin par eux.

Mais je suis open minded, je n'ai aucun problèmes avec mon plan cul sur son opinion sur ce qu'il est.

[Adrian]

Citation

Searle begins by reciting Paul Grice’s four Maxims of Manner: be clear, be brief, be orderly, and avoid obscurity of expression. These are systematically violated in France, Searle says, partly due to the influence of German philosophy. Searle translates Foucault’s admission to him this way: “In France, you gotta have ten percent incomprehensible, otherwise people won’t think it’s deep–they won’t think you’re a profound thinker.”

 

Searle has been careful to separate Foucault from Derrida, with whom Searle had an unfriendly debate in the 1970s over Speech Act theory. “Foucault was often lumped with Derrida,” Searle says in a 2000 interview with Reason magazine. “That’s very unfair to Foucault. He was a different caliber of thinker altogether.” Elsewhere in the interview, Searle says:

 

With Derrida, you can hardly misread him, because he’s so obscure. Every time you say, “He says so and so,” he always says, “You misunderstood me.” But if you try to figure out the correct interpretation, then that’s not so easy. I once said this to Michel Foucault, who was more hostile to Derrida even than I am, and Foucault said that Derrida practiced the method of obscurantisme terroriste (terrorism of obscurantism). We were speaking in French. And I said, “What the hell do you mean by that?” And he said, “He writes so obscurely you can’t tell what he’s saying. That’s the obscurantism part. And then when you criticize him, he can always say, ‘You didn’t understand me; you’re an idiot.’ That’s the terrorism part.” And I like that. So I wrote an article about Derrida. I asked Michel if it was OK if I quoted that passage, and he said yes.

 

https://www.openculture.com/2013/07/jean_searle_on_foucault_and_the_obscurantism_in_french_philosophy.html

 

Je savais pas où le mettre mais l'anecdote est marrante.

[Lancelot]

Il y a aussi la tactique opposée :

 

[Adrian]

Par exemple