> If you think linking to a paper obscures the fact that you're calling me out on 'bullshit', it doesn't. It's not supposed to obscure it. What you wrote is a

> If you think linking to a paper obscures the fact that you're calling me out on 'bullshit', it doesn't. It's not supposed to obscure it. What you wrote is a specific kind of bullshit that is described in the paper. > It's rude and in this case just shows your lack of education in a field. Whatever education made you write that sentence is probably bullshit as well. Or maybe you just didn't give a very good impression of it. > Just so you know, there's a whole section of philosophy dealing with beauty and taste, you're free to think it's all bullshit of course, but I hope less people would do so. There are, of course, whole sections of philosophy that are bullshit. In the words of Judith Butler: "The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power."