I have no idea how we go from OP to black women’s genitalia and Linus Torvalds.
But if it’s important to you to make sure people know you are a “philosopher”, I’ll let you go about your sophistry in peace. All us phllistines will just sit back in awe at how cultured and erudite you are.
dr. nash’s article is about the politically loaded significance of linguistic practices/naming, not just “black women’s genitalia”, as a basis for analyzing the material conditions reflected in forms of gentrification.
you are enjoying the soft bigotry of low expectations, or to read her without the principle of charity. i have every reason to suppose you’re intentionally weaponizing obtuseness/reductionist posturing.
tbh, it’s one of the drier bits like what you might find any day on language log (upenn). do you read much philosophy of art anyway?
I have no idea how we go from OP to black women’s genitalia and Linus Torvalds.
But if it’s important to you to make sure people know you are a “philosopher”, I’ll let you go about your sophistry in peace. All us phllistines will just sit back in awe at how cultured and erudite you are.
i’m drawing on the confluence of political circumstances involving spoofing identity in a post-identitarian world: https://infosecwriteups.com/the-curious-case-of-github-commit-spoofing-a-lighthearted-exploration-54ddbaaaf40a
dr. nash’s article is about the politically loaded significance of linguistic practices/naming, not just “black women’s genitalia”, as a basis for analyzing the material conditions reflected in forms of gentrification.
you are enjoying the soft bigotry of low expectations, or to read her without the principle of charity. i have every reason to suppose you’re intentionally weaponizing obtuseness/reductionist posturing.