"Tendentious" means that from the outset, the conclusions are overdetermined.
"Different" opinions may well be labeled sectarian and biased, but the best
way to defuse the charge is to build up the narrative tension in the text by
fairly and completely describing other positions. Then, when you
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
I'm looking forward to the PEN-L econ textbook, but no doubt some of my
students will find it "biased." The ruling ideas are in the interest of
the ruling class, and those who go against common sense have to be prepared
for a charge of "bias" and "tendentiousness."
OK, if Lou wants to
think of me as an anticommunist cold-warrior in the neighorhood of the
Reaganites, that is his right.
--Justin
Don't take it too hard. He thinks I'm a libertarian troll...
:-)
Brad DeLong
Louis Proyect wrote:
No surprise here, Justin. We've been through this in previous go-rounds.
You are a supporter of Sam Farber's approach, who argues that there's a
dotted line between Lenin and Stalin. Zizek's arguments would appeal to
somebody whose understanding of the Russian Revolution is
Louis Proyect wrote:
Part of every student's cold war indoctrination at my high school in
upstate New York in the 1950s was Arthur Koestler's "Darkness at Noon." We
were told that the novel, in which an "old Bolshevik" confesses to crimes
he did not commit for the sake of the revolution, was
Louis Proyect wrote:
Part of every student's cold war indoctrination at my high school in
upstate New York in the 1950s was Arthur Koestler's "Darkness at Noon." We
were told that the novel, in which an "old Bolshevik" confesses to crimes
he did not commit for the sake of the revolution, was
I, personally, was delighted and amazed by Zizek's article, rather to my own
astonishment, as I have never been able to read anything else he had written.
You wouldn't knbwo it from Lou's comment, but the article is a review essay
of J. Arch Getty's The Road to Terror, which I have not read
I hope that we do not let this degenerate into a debate about Stalin. We
have already been through that.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please, let's not debate Stalin and the Russian Revolution. We've been through
it before.
Louis Proyect wrote:
Justin Schwartz wrote:
I, personally, was delighted and amazed by Zizek's article, rather to my own
astonishment, as I have never been able to read anything else he had
written.
In a message dated 00-01-30 20:51:25 EST, you write:
You are a supporter of Sam Farber's approach, who argues that there's a
dotted line between Lenin and Stalin. Zizek's arguments would appeal to
somebody whose understanding of the Russian Revolution is consistent with
Robert Conquest's and
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
The Oxford English Dictionary says that the word "tendentious" means
"having a purposed tendency; composed or written with such a tendency or
aim." Given this meaning, why should the word "tendentious" be used as if
it meant something (vaguely) bad?
Because the
Louis Proyect wrote:
No surprise here, Justin. We've been through this in previous go-rounds.
You are a supporter of Sam Farber's approach, who argues that there's a
dotted line between Lenin and Stalin. Zizek's arguments would appeal to
somebody whose understanding of the Russian Revolution is
This discussion is starting to get catty. I would like it to stop right
now.
I think that we can do better than going over Stalin, the Russian rev.,
and the like.
Please stop, all of you.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
Having a perspective or "a purposed tendency" is not only _not_ a crime
against truth, accuracy, etc.; a "bias" is _necessary_.
For as long almost as long as I've been on any of these lists, I've
argued against *both* Doug and Lou that "dogmatic" and "sectarian"
14 matches
Mail list logo
