Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Semantics4055

Alien Threat Construction

Recommended Posts

Just wondering if there are any alien threat con files floating around that would include some evidence on how constructing aliens as a threat solves threat construction on Earth because of some kind of unification. Do these cards, or at least somewhere to find them, exist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he's asking for the opposite of Fasching, in fact he's asking for cards that say marginalizing Aliens/scapegoating them good. I'm sure there are plenty of 'common enemy' type cards floating around, I don't know them because I don't feel like losing to every K in existence.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like a much better version of Schmitt, especially since we'll probably never have contact with the aliens so we wouldn't kill them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schmitt... IN SPACE!!!!!!!!

 

Seriously though, I think that no matter how you cut it, Schmitt's philosophy is always a bit holocaust-y.

 

....what was wrong with the holocaust?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm, well, it did help build some national pride, so I suppose it couldn't have been that bad

 

I knew Hitler couldn't have been all bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I see. So he's trying to make some sort of variation of the overview effect, but in this case the argument is that having one common enemy solves Earth conflict because we ban together to stop that force.

 

Empirical solvency deficit: Russia and the US join together as allied powers to defeat Germany in WWII, and then are on the brink of nuclear exchange no less than 15 years later.

 

It seems like that your scapegoating solvency would rely on contact, because for revolutions, etc to take place there usually has to be results. I know Zizek has cards talking about how minute struggles kill revolutions, and someone could make the argument that since aliens are widely viewed as imaginary or whatever, people wouldn't jump on board and other people would probably scapegoat the US for their countermeasures against ETs, because we would be viewed as sufficiently other, just as the explorers of Project Bluebook were scapegoat. Foucault has some really good lit on the identity politics behind Project Bluebook.

 

 

Don't get me wrong, Schmitt and things like it have won many rounds, but the question that Schmitt can never answer is the basis for how we make our friend/enemy distinctions Questions like should we still view Japan as an enemy b/c of Pearl Harbor, or should we stop trade with England, because they were once our enemy always pass Schmitt over, becuase those are paradoxes to that kind of philosophy. And there could also be a objectivity/subjectivity link from a Nietzschean K of Schmitt, because Schmitt practices the flwaed belief that we have some objective method of making friend/enemy distinctions.

 

Again, not trying to tell you not to run it, just telling you what arguments would be strong against it. And things like Fasching could be devistating to this argument, if not handeled correctly because Fasching ultimitley solves back unification without scapegoating through narritives of hospitality towards difference, and that is what makes cooperation between nations possible. Eh, I'm probably biased because I've had so many aff round in a Fasching vs. Schmitt debate, but I hope I atleast helped out with your list of blocks you need

 

Good luck,

 

Sam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, Schmitt and things like it have won many rounds, but the question that Schmitt can never answer is the basis for how we make our friend/enemy distinctions Questions like should we still view Japan as an enemy b/c of Pearl Harbor, or should we stop trade with England, because they were once our enemy always pass Schmitt over, becuase those are paradoxes to that kind of philosophy. And there could also be a objectivity/subjectivity link from a Nietzschean K of Schmitt, because Schmitt practices the flwaed belief that we have some objective method of making friend/enemy distinctions.

 

I don't really think this is an issue. I've always read Schmitt as saying that we should preserve current friend/enemy distinctions, rather than saying we should go make new ones. And even if we chose our enemies arbitrarily Schmitt's argument would still function. And a Nietzschean K of Schmitt wouldn't do much, because Nietzsche liked agonism between different groups. I think Nietzsche would disagree with Schmitt, but I think their positions are largely compatible. Also, a 2AC Nietzschean counter K doesn't seem strategically wise because it would take a fair amount of time and would probably conflict with different affirmative arguments.

 

Also, on the empirical solvency deficit thing: I have a question for anyone. Does Schmitt say we should seek to annihilate our enemies, or that we should fight them? Because if it's only the latter, then I don't think your argument applies, and also the latter would also be much more compatible with agonism based arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really think this is an issue. I've always read Schmitt as saying that we should preserve current friend/enemy distinctions, rather than saying we should go make new ones. And even if we chose our enemies arbitrarily Schmitt's argument would still function. And a Nietzschean K of Schmitt wouldn't do much, because Nietzsche liked agonism between different groups. I think Nietzsche would disagree with Schmitt, but I think their positions are largely compatible. Also, a 2AC Nietzschean counter K doesn't seem strategically wise because it would take a fair amount of time and would probably conflict with different affirmative arguments.

 

Also, on the empirical solvency deficit thing: I have a question for anyone. Does Schmitt say we should seek to annihilate our enemies, or that we should fight them? Because if it's only the latter, then I don't think your argument applies, and also the latter would also be much more compatible with agonism based arguments.

 

1. But the alt is literally impossible to translate into the real world, especially in the age of nuclear and biological weapons it would end in catastrophe. You can't just fiat that we don't use nuclear weapons of annihilate eachother. People can just read China/Russia war goes nuclear as a DA to the alternative. And how do we all objectivley determine who is an enemy, or how we should act towards those enemies. A lot of people I don't like, I just ignore them The judge is the agent of the alt, and Schmitt's literature doesn't take into account individual orientation towards friends/enemies. And as for current friend/enemies, how could we even define that? We aid Pakastan, but are they a friend? We have a lot of threat con towards China, and we also have a lot of trade with them.. so what are they? Unless you advocate the USfg does the alt, there's no way the judge can advocate current friend/enemy distictions because we don't know who the judges friends/enemies are.

 

I have to go to class, I'll answer the second arg later

 

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. But the alt is literally impossible to translate into the real world, especially in the age of nuclear and biological weapons it would end in catastrophe. You can't just fiat that we don't use nuclear weapons of annihilate eachother. People can just read China/Russia war goes nuclear as a DA to the alternative.

 

I like that argument.

 

And how do we all objectivley determine who is an enemy, or how we should act towards those enemies. A lot of people I don't like, I just ignore them

 

I don't think it matters much how we treat our enemies so long as it's in a less than friendly way. Or maybe with enough dislike that we develop deterrence systems. Or, depending on the claims made as to the nature of violence, maybe we need to treat them in such a way that we expend the minimum amount of violence that is biologically inevitable on our enemies.

 

(This has the same problems as the nuclear weapons argument, and the violence inevitable point would preclude not hurting the aliens.)

 

The point is that there are plausible arguments to be made in determining how we should treat our enemies.

 

The judge is the agent of the alt, and Schmitt's literature doesn't take into account individual orientation towards friends/enemies. And as for current friend/enemies, how could we even define that? We aid Pakastan, but are they a friend? We have a lot of threat con towards China, and we also have a lot of trade with them.. so what are they? Unless you advocate the USfg does the alt, there's no way the judge can advocate current friend/enemy distictions because we don't know who the judges friends/enemies are.

 

This is a pretty good point, but I think arbitrarily choosing an enemy is sufficient to get the unity Schmitt wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I'm not entirely against the Schmitt, I think a Schmitt K would still link back the 1AC (or wherever I assume he'll be reading that card). The card he is looking for advocates the destruction of our current friend/enemy distinction in favor of a new one (human/alien), which (and I don't know anything about Schmitt outside card tags) I think would still link back to Schmitt. Even past that, I seriously doubt Schmitt was the route the OP wanted to take, and really an aff that advocates enemy construction and scapegoating literraly links to any critical author who has written anything since WWII

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I'm not entirely against the Schmitt, I think a Schmitt K would still link back the 1AC (or wherever I assume he'll be reading that card). The card he is looking for advocates the destruction of our current friend/enemy distinction in favor of a new one (human/alien), which (and I don't know anything about Schmitt outside card tags) I think would still link back to Schmitt. Even past that, I seriously doubt Schmitt was the route the OP wanted to take, and really an aff that advocates enemy construction and scapegoating literraly links to any critical author who has written anything since WWII

 

Exactly. I thought of this argument a short time after I left my last post. And unless we actually found aliens (in the world of the alt/aff) we wouldn't have ANY enemies. This argument relies on contact with ETs because until we actually find aliens to make as our enemy, we are all just friends, which of course links right back into the difference/meaning impacts that Schmitt articulates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, Schmitt totally foresees the alien question. And we will get back to this in the end of this brief discussion.

 

Second, it has been a few years since I was heavily reading Schmitt, but...

 

The friend/enemy distinction is how Schmitt defines the political sphere--in the same way the beautiful and ugly defines the aesthetic sphere, illegal/legal defines the legal sphere, good and evil defines the moral sphere, profitable and unprofitable defines the economic sphere, and so on. Schmitt is not saying the decision of friends and enemies are at all what we should be doing with politics, he is saying it is the very nature of the political to define friends and enemies. Anyone who tries to deny this is simply lying, hiding, or confused about what enemies they are creating. Thus, the political concerns the state's relationship to other states in figuring out who are its friends, and who are its enemies.

There is nothing particularly sinister here with the way that Schmitt is using the term enemy, though it might sound that way. By enemy Schmitt means the just enemy, not the unjust enemy. Let us pause here. Anyone who has read accounts of the first World War have probably been struck by stories of in which soldiers in other sides might decide to suspend fighting to have a soccer match, or celebrate the holidays together. All of that seems odd, because, well, aren't they trying to kill each other? And of course we can turn to the Geneva conventions on Prisoners of War. They are to be treated well, they are to be released at certain points, etc etc. How do you go from having someone trying to kill you, and when you overwhelm that person, suddenly treat them as an honored guest in many ways? This is possible because you recognized your enemy as enemy, but also as legitimate. However, as Schmitt notes, that sort of view of a legitimate enemy has tended to fall away. Now when we wage wars, we wage them on behalf of humanity as a whole. When we fight enemies, we fight people we do not see as fully human. We invent new legal constructs (enemy combatants) to not have to treat our new enemies as prisoners of war. As war becomes increasingly seen as policing missions (and as policing becomes increasingly warlike), we come to see our military actions as what Schmitt refers to as "social pest control". It is frightening and horrifying to imagine military actions as the same as hiring your local exterminator, but increasingly that is what military actions are viewed as, and pests and vermin are how we increasingly come to view our enemies and opponents.

This brings us back to aliens. If we turn to page 54 in The Concept of the Political (1996 edition). "Humanity as such cannot wage war because it has no enemy, at least not on this planet". See, aliens.

The way William Rasch reads all of this in his book Sovereignty and its Discontents (which if you are using Schmitt in debate, is sorta a must read), is that many of the lefty sort of political philosophers we like to read in debate are trying to end the political. He sees in the work of Agamben, Hardt and Negri, Deleuze and Guattari (among others), and also certain pacifist philosophers as justifying the worst sorts of violences. If you have a world of the multitude, or a world of pacifism, or what have you, what do you do with a disturber of the peace? Such a person cannot be seen merely as a criminal or an enemy. Instead such a person is seen as someone who threatens the very social order, the very possibility of your utopian dreams. And with such a person, any violence and any oppression becomes justified.

 

Now obviously I don't agree with all of this. Or at least not fully. Or not in all of the details. But these are important questions for those of us on the critical left. And you probably shouldn't confuse Schmitt with any sort of lefty (this is a criticism of, among others, Chantal Mouffe), regardless of how your read his nazism, he certainly was an authoritarian.

 

I hope this clarifies some things.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...