i wrote a 3 paragraph response to this and my router crashed when i clicked submit, putting me back to an empty respond box.
i'll reply later, but my point was basically:
1) jay totally put himself out there with a contrived/pretentious/'look at me!' thread about hegel. he'd read about one non-fic book and was clearly just posting his little notes online to gain some recognition for reading something 'intellectual'. it had no debating potential and no interest to anyone. it was hopelessly esoteric and, furthermore, more deliciously, was a very poor understanding of hegel's thought. i've dissed him since for that when he gets on the 'anti-intellectual' or 'anti-academic' line of hectoring, because it's funny, because he clearly self-fancies himself as one in moments of delusion. if i had submitted a thread or two to d&st that was basically an excuse to discuss out-loud my reading of hopelessly technical post-structuralist theory, then maybe you'd have the same grounds to laugh and diss me. as such: no.
2) don't see what 1989/1991 has to do with killing brown people. period. which is what we were discussing. 21st century so far in western politics has been 'the war on terror'. maybe right to say 9/11 is more 'significant' than two large-scale wars, but i disagree. more media-friendly and more spectacle-memorable, sure. but i take the deaths of a few hundred thousand civilians to be of more historical importance than a few americans in a tower. i am talking about 'history' as read from centuries in the future, of course. 9/11 was the start, but the thinly-veiled geopolitical reshuffle that is 'the war on terror' (imo) will be more important.
3) yes, i realize the neocon fearmongering and militating against an islamic phantom enemy can be seen as a continuation of the history of the cold war mentality. yes, i realize the soviet history in afghan and the middle-east as another theater of political power. but my post was a short response to dilbert's sarcasm, not an attempt to systematically explain the entirety of 21st century history. thus i think you're being a little pedantic/over-extending. we're not really killing brown people today for reasons directly tied to the USSR. the ideology has shifted focus, and the whole history of islamic militants being trained in the context of the cold war is just one of those historical ironies that people will wank over in 150 years' time.
e: oh and also i think the iraq war had fuck-all to do with 9/11, really, so that's why i'm disagreeing with you and saying 'the war on terror' characterizes the main events of the early 21st century more so than the AQ attacks. as more and more time goes on, we see just how spurious the connection was.
fin (if this doesn't submit i'm quitting for the day).
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-04-04 07:54:24)
