Jump to content
dkim

Wilderson

Recommended Posts

One response to Aubtin H.   Even though I agreed with the majority of his post.  I didn't quite get this:

 

On one hand of the debate I hear MLK's maxim "The arc of the universe is long but it bends towards justice" and on the other hand the radical blackness authors echoing Keynes "In the long run, we're all dead"

 

 

I kind of think this misses the point (i don't think its a meaningful argument in 99% of cases, perhaps even 100%)  To cite a perhaps somewhat broken analogy--I think the sun will probably implode or explode at sometime causing extinction.....but I don't think that makes the days between now and then irrelevant.

 

Plus it can end up with some really bad calculations--like screwing future generations (ie environment, health, etc...)--which I think are kind of exploitive.

 

Its basically a rationalization for all kinds of suffering & death.  

And as an analytical tool of truth--sure its true--but I don't think it really changes anything.

 

Basically when it confronts the problem of the sirens--some might say the fundamental problem of the human condition--or when it confronts the trolley problem--it could equally be used to throw your arms up.

 

Ultimately, I'm just trying to think deeper on this question--to make arguments that matter and are meaningful--rather than manipulative and lead to bad decision-making.

 

Cites for Fun--I realize Aubtin won't need these for reference:

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a warning, I am not very well versed in Wilderson, so if I explain something wrong please tell me.

 

A.  Empirically false, blacks vote.  blacks use free speech.  blacks are voted into office.  blacks run non-profits.  All these are empirical and can't be denied--there are voting records and statistics period.  That is the wedge of hope--that is the empirical proof to the arc of justice and history.

Wow, you are just fundamentally missing the point. You are really making the point that because black people CAN vote, and black people CAN get voted into office, that the system is totally fair towards them?

 

You understand covert racism right? Like fuck, that was in like page 2 of the thread. You constantly comment here but yet you haven't shown that you understand the basic concepts of the argument. Here's a hint: A SYSTEM THAT IS INSTITUTIONALLY OPPRESSIVE DOES NOT STOP BEING SO JUST BECAUSE THE OPPRESSED CAN PARTICIPATE IN IT. You can't just say "black people vote empirics prove" to dismiss that. Yeah, they can vote, but again, voter disenfranchisement stops them from being able to fully participate. Yeah, they can get voted into office, but it doesn't happen as often as it statistically should if black people REALLY have an equal chance.

 

And yes, maybe these things are improving, but that doesn't make the black body any more ontologically dead like Wilderson talks about. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Metaphor and empirical evidence of hope and change:  Barack obama, Cory Booker (former mayor in New Jersey), and Nelson Mandela. Those all prove the institution can work.

A few names =/= empirical evidence. I mean, yeah, they're in office, but show us the statistics on the percentage of black people who hold office to those that live in the country.

 

Also, do you honestly believe that Obama and Mandela are proof that the system can work? Really? Obama, the only president in recent times to be questioned about his birth place, and he just happens to be black. And the media has at times just happened to say marginalizing things or viewed his candidacy through a racial lens. Riiiiight.

 

And Mandela, the man who was THROWN IN JAIL for over 20 years trying to improve the system you seem to support. Oh yes, that's quite an efficient means to create change. No, it's okay black people, our societal institutions can work equally for you, promise! You just have to spend 20 years of your life imprisoned because of it. On top of centuries of slavery and societal oppression. 

 

I mean, I don't entirely agree with all of what I understand of afro-pessism and Wilderson, but at least I don't ignore the societal oppression of a group of people because of some bullshit "empirics" and because there's "NO ALT". Is it not extremely obvious that systems of covert oppression present themselves in a way that make them seem like the only option? Like it's completely natural?

 

You talk about this coffee metaphor, but the way you explain it is entirely a false equivalence. So you make some coffee and taste it. You realize it doesn't taste very good. So you do you're best to mask the awfulness of your coffee by adding sugar, honey, and milk to it. Although, yay! it's sweeter now, the taste of the coffee is still unpleasant. You come to the realization that the reason your coffee is shit is because of the brand you are using. Now you're saying we should never ever try to find a different brand ever because that would be a lot of work and this brand is so much easier and not so hard.

 

But, instead of coffee, it's an entire race of people. Do you see how fucked up it is to make that comparison in the first place? Society isn't like the school system or coffee. It has so much more history and works in a much more complex manner than both of those things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. This is meaningless puffery & buzzwords without a explanation or warrant

2. Your alt doesn't solve--nothing about the alt. requires an ontological shift or an ontological shift on the part of the minority or majority or with regard to race.

3. If things are getting better and ontology not shifting...that suggests the alt can't solve either.

 

A few names =/= empirical evidence. I mean, yeah, they're in office, but show us the statistics on the percentage of black people who hold office to those that live in the country.

 

 

Empirical examples.  Its like for the states counter plan, I can read Hawaii has done the plan or Mass has done the plan.  

 

In this case, the burden of proof for the K team is to prove the system is 100% screwed.  If I prove that there are counter-examples and counter-movements that proves that statement false.  I just have to point to fissures in the system.  And like a hole in a dam....its enough to prove the system isn't airtight.....that there is hope.  

 

Its like if you said there was no system to cure alcoholism and I pointed to a half dozen that were working, re-asserting those original premises isn't going to get you very far--in fact its functionally a concession in all likelihood.

Further, those prove your analysis of the situation is based on over-generalization, essentialism, and generally ungrounded argument.

 

Also, I'm leveraging those wins as both an empirical win in the SQ--as well as using them as an alternative of my own to solve racism & injustice over the long run.  I would suggest those can solve better than a method without a track record, in fact a negative track record.  For instance, the LA Riots just made the situation economically worse for African americans.  Violent alternatives are empirically counter-productive for African Americans.

 

Thats why I don't need stats on how many there are--I just need actual examples which prove the viability and credibility of alternatives.  That gives me an actual statistical basis--you have ZERO statistical or historical basis for your alternatives--if an uprising is possible, if it can be coordinated, if it can be effective, how you can communicate in that alternative world when the civil society is the actual platform for communication (and debate).

 

You say:

 

Also, do you honestly believe that Obama and Mandela are proof that the system can work? Really? Obama, the only president in recent times to be questioned about his birth place, and he just happens to be black. And the media has at times just happened to say marginalizing things or viewed his candidacy through a racial lens. Riiiiight.

 

And Mandela, the man who was THROWN IN JAIL for over 20 years trying to improve the system you seem to support. Oh yes, that's quite an efficient means to create change. No, it's okay black people, our societal institutions can work equally for you, promise! You just have to spend 20 years of your life imprisoned because of it. On top of centuries of slavery and societal oppression. 

 

 

 

You raise interesting points....but they aren't quite relevant here.  I never said the system or the world is perfect--thats not my obligation.  Just that there was opportunity and hope for change--and that significant forward progress has been made.  You don't burn down the building half-way through the building process simply because you don't have livable condos half way through the process.  You shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.  

 

Obama and Mandela both caused fundamental cultural shifts--and even global shifts which your ignore in your refutation--that massively outweighs the downside.

 

And more examples:

Another example is Colin Powell.  Another is Condi Rice.  Another is the African aids project created by USAID during the early to mid 2000s which was pushed by Bono.

The author himself, given his academic prowess & publication--suggests.  The mere ability to publish suggest he's taking part in the civil society.

 

Also, killing the civil society kills debate.  Thats bad--because switch side is awesome and increases empathy, but also because other forms of debate provide other good education too.

 

I don't ignore the societal oppression of a group of people

 

 

Please don't mischaracterize what I'm doing--I'm not ignoring it.  Just pointing out that you are ignoring the brightspots--and I would suggest either ignoring the bright spots or overlooking them results in paralysis, because we can't see the light--we literally can amplify or improve the good--because we're asserting it doesn't exist.

 

For instance, if you want to get better grades or get better at sports--its important to pay attention to your strengths and learn from others strengths.  If you have a methodology which ignores those--via afro-pessimism--you're never going to get past first base--much less get there in the first place.  

 

Is it not extremely obvious that systems of covert oppression present themselves in a way that make them seem like the only option? Like it's completely natural?

 

 

I'm not sure how thats relevant here.  I'm not saying this is the only system thats possible or available--I never made that argument--I'm open to other systems that are more socially just as long as you don't burn the system down.  (this isn't a realism is inevitable debate).  And I've already explained how the K makes this move with its determinism, over generalizations, and just papering over empirical success and hope.

Edited by nathan_debate
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ran across the work of Shelby Steel who works at the Hoover Institution at Stanford:

 

Empirical success, leadership, and heroism of the past mean that institutional reform and the system works, despite periodic and marginal problems.  Shelby Steel in 2013.

 

(Shelby Steel, Hoover Institute at Stanford University, July 23, 2013, Source: http://www.hoover.org/news/daily-report/152366 )

 

This would not be the first time that a movement begun in profound moral clarity, and that achieved greatness, waned away into a parody of itself—not because it was wrong but because it was successful. Today's civil-rights leaders have missed the obvious: The success of their forbearers in achieving social transformation denied to them the heroism that was inescapable for a Martin Luther King Jr. or a James Farmer or a Nelson Mandela. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton cannot write a timeless letter to us from a Birmingham jail or walk, as John Lewis did in 1965, across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Ala., into a maelstrom of police dogs and billy clubs. That America is no longer here (which is not to say that every trace of it is gone).

 

The Revs. Jackson and Sharpton have been consigned to a hard fate: They can never be more than redundancies, echoes of the great men they emulate because America has changed. Hard to be a King or Mandela today when your monstrous enemy is no more than the cherubic George Zimmerman.

Edited by nathan_debate
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you can describe George Zimmerman, a man who in cold blood shot and murdered a black boy for nothing, as "cherubic", I stop giving a shit.

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would not be the first time that a movement begun in profound moral clarity, and that achieved greatness, waned away into a parody of itself—not because it was wrong but because it was successful. Today's civil-rights leaders have missed the obvious: The success of their forbearers in achieving social transformation denied to them the heroism that was inescapable for a Martin Luther King Jr. or a James Farmer or a Nelson Mandela. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton cannot write a timeless letter to us from a Birmingham jail or walk, as John Lewis did in 1965, across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Ala., into a maelstrom of police dogs and billy clubs. That America is no longer here (which is not to say that every trace of it is gone).

 

The Revs. Jackson and Sharpton have been consigned to a hard fate: They can never be more than redundancies, echoes of the great men they emulate because America has changed. Hard to be a King or Mandela today when your monstrous enemy is no more than the cherubic George Zimmerman.

 

...

Perhaps I am alone in this, although I desperately hope I am not, but I think that there is a certain level of skepticism that should and must be applied to anyone who refers to Zimmerman as a cherub.  I will not delve into this with a racial lens in mind (because I do not wish this forum to turn into an asinine debate about Zimmerman's racism) but rather I will present the point that murderers are generally not cherubic (which is defined as: "having the childlike innocence or plump prettiness of a cherub.").  While I realize that Zimmerman's crime obviously does not extend to those of the KKK I am genuinely offended that 1) you need a card to make an argument for you on a forum where we are trying to have an actual discussion and 2) MURDER is considered a "marginal problem."

 

On that note, how  astute.  You noticed, nathan_debate, that murder is a marginal problem - or rather one that occurs on the MARGINS.  I think that if this debate is to legitimately continue you need to do two things

-first, do some soul searching, or at least improve your research skills enough to find some evidence about the arc of justice without referring to a murderer as cherubic.

-second, realize the fundamental point that those of us who have (more or less) taken the side of Wilderson in this debate.  We probably can all agree that we don't see cops using firehoses on black people anymore.  However, this is because that violence has become invisible and covert.  In the last couple months many black teenagers have been shot or assaulted in much the same way that Trayvon was; they just didn't have the benefit of media coverage.  This is something that you will never be able to justify, no matter how many statistics you search through, no matter how hard you try, no matter how much wool you unwitting pull over your eyes.  

 

I am truly and genuinely disappointed to inform you, nathan_debate, that even if there is an arc of justice it moves slower than our eyes can discern.

Edited by Bow2Baudrillard
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Revs. Jackson and Sharpton have been consigned to a hard fate: They can never be more than redundancies, echoes of the great men they emulate because America has changed. Hard to be a King or Mandela today when your monstrous enemy is no more than the cherubic George Zimmerman.

Do you purposely not understand? The exact point is that the monstrous enemy is people like him. He's the perfect everyman: Latino, working class, male, Floridian, "just standing his ground." He's the most normal goddam person in the world, and he can shoot a Black teenager and not be punished for it. Normal is able to kill the Black. Normal, normalized, the usual, the common, and simultaneously the most imminent threat to Black bodies. "Racism without racists" is the norm and thus the worst kind of racism precisely for that status as normal - there's a reason that Wilderson teams engage in an unflinching paradigmatic analysis.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slaves could run away from slavery, so slavery was just, right?....right?...

Edited by Chez-Out
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Slaves could run away from slavery, so slavery was just, right?....right?...

 

 

Slavery speak is just like genocide speak yo.  Being like slavery and being actual slavery are two different things--just like being married, pregnant, a college graduate, or the president.

 

And I've already dealt with the word as hyperbolic and/or segmented in terms of what a person actually did (earlier in the thread).

 

And your US bad disad--creates a world where we can't stop a global onslaught of dictators, like that dude hitler.  That outweighs in terms of a) slavery B) racism c) dehumanization.  Period.

 

Also, I wasn't saying I agreed 100% with Mr. Steele analysis.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you wanna talk about why you think George Zimmerman is a cherub now or what?

Not that I agree with Nathan_debate, but he did explicitly say 

 

Also, I wasn't saying I agreed 100% with Mr. Steele analysis.

so saying that he believes George Zimmerman is a cherub would be a strawmans argument.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, How are people beating the slavery argument--it would seem like 10 possible lines of attack:

1) Its rhetoric & hyperbole--not actual slavery.  They chose their fate.

2) Rhetoric inflation impact.  Saying its slavery when its not actually slavery is bad.

3) Failure to take individual responsibility in this case = bad, bad, bad (worst crimes in history or evicerates choice entirely or evicerates ethics or society/community)

4) Retribution good (card), Prisons good (card), Punishment good (card), Taking people off the streets good (card)

5) The alternative is more racism--i.e. a world of vigilante justice (card)

6) The alternative is more slavery (card)

7) Racism decreasing.

8) Prison work is not slavery (they have quality conditions most of the time).

9) Other distinctions in the prison population (ie why they are in which creates proportionality).  This argument is leveraged with a roll back the laws for the crimes that its more like slavery.

10) Institutional protections solve.  Laws check abuse (this is the flip side of the alternative debate & the vigilante justice debate)

 

Am I missing something?  What should the answer it focus on?  How have teams beat this part of the argument?

Edited by nathan_debate
  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to mention that I botched the entire alt up. All these justifications for black vs. civil society violence are just that: justifications. That makes such violence "contingent", but Wilderson's alt is for the "gratuitous"(as opposed to continingent) violence that the black body has been subject to, to be expanded to fit all identities.

 

The alternative is not ontological life(although when pressed about the meaning of "afro-pessimism" Wilderson tries to flip this). THe alternative is for the non-black to embrace ontological death or to be put in the sphere of "gratuitous violence" as opposed to their current sphere within civil society of "contingent violence".

 

This is where it gets very problematic. Because the demarcation between "gratuitous" and "contingent" involves reference to historical events. In order to prove the "gratuitous" nature of violence against the black body, one must use these examples, but these are justifications for "contingent" violence...See how it goes around itself?

 

 

 

 

 


Schools are racist.....lets ban schools....that sounds great.  Thats the logic you are using.  

 

Well, why not? The Latin schools model that is the basis of US public schooling was based upon the model created by the Prussian military state. This model was then corporatized for the industrial revolution to create industrial middle class workers. Unfortunately nowadays we live in a post-industrial world. So yes public schools are centers of the mass production of militarized and corporatized minds. And they sure as shit are racist. "Zero tolerance" policies mean children are getting funneled in to the justice system for things like food fights. And they're educating students for a world that no longer exists considering we are a service based economy at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Today's civil-rights leaders have missed the obvious: The success of their forbearers in achieving social transformation denied to them the heroism that was inescapable for a Martin Luther King Jr. or a James Farmer or a Nelson Mandela.

 

 

I take issue with this use of "inescapable". It is easy to look back and think that the civil rights act was an inevitability. To think that MLK's position was inevitable, that it just needed a body to fill it. This is bullshit these people no doubt found reasons to quit every day that included death threats against their family or threats of false counterintelligence character smears. There is nothing "inescapable" about MLK's heroism.

 

 

 

 

I also shouldn't have quoted RFK when Malcolm X says the same thing: "No justice, no peace".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No race or ethnicity entirely escapes violence or gratuitous violence--whites included.  Every country where there is gratuitous violence against the minority or majority has already tested your alternative (thats pretty much every country).  It empirically fails.  Period.  History is on our side in terms of the alternative debate.

 

Otherwise, I don't really know what your alternative does--its kinda vague--its kinda shifty.  It doesn't seem to have a mechanism to solve, a warrant for why it works, or a metric system or methodology to determine if it actually works ever.  Its flat out failing on a whole bunch of levels before it ever gets off the ground.

 

Reflective question (it kinda links to both sides): When has violence against 2nd parties ever resulted in in less violence toward 3rd parties?  

 

I think you are taking a different frame for what constitutes "inescabability."  It wasn't he literally had no choice--but rather the kairos of the moment was such that it was his time--doing what he did lead inextricably to a series of reform.

 

This guy works at Stanford and writes for big name newspapers--I'm pretty sure he understands the history on the issue.  But, rhetorically its possible another word would have worked better.

 

And I don't think that that inescabability or non-escabability with respect to one of those examples quite.

Edited by nathan_debate
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No race or ethnicity entirely escapes violence or gratuitous violence--whites included.  Every country where there is gratuitous violence against the minority or majority has already tested your alternative (thats pretty much every country).  It empirically fails.  Period.  History is on our side in terms of the alternative debate.

Not true. Anti-blackness is much worse. Refer to above analysis on oscillating between the poles of genocide and enslavement.

 

 

 

Otherwise, I don't really know what your alternative does--its kinda vague--its kinda shifty.  It doesn't seem to have a mechanism to solve, a warrant for why it works, or a metric system or methodology to determine if it actually works ever.  Its flat out failing on a whole bunch of levels before it ever gets off the ground.

Alt destroys civil society. Alt expands the realm of gratuitous violence to the non-black. The alt is non-whites embrace the dance of death. I think a judge would get it by now given all the shit above.

 

 

Reflective question (it kinda links to both sides): When has violence against 2nd parties ever resulted in in less violence toward 3rd parties?  

 

You continue to make the mistake of marking black on civil society violence as pathological and civil society on black violence as banal. This only links to you. The analysis is above. Judge would think I'm winning that.

 

 

I think you are taking a different frame for what constitutes "inescabability."  It wasn't he literally had no choice--but rather the kairos of the moment was such that it was his time--doing what he did lead inextricably to a series of reform.

It was hardly his time. The text this card cites "letter from a Birmingham jail" is King's resistance to the overwhelming force against him. It is him saying hes going to proceed even though the alternative looks impossible. Sound familiar?

 

 

This guy works at Stanford and writes for big name newspapers--I'm pretty sure he understands the history on the issue.  But, rhetorically its possible another word would have worked better.

Any turd can get a job at a university and a job writing for a paper. I see no reason why that means hes familiar with ideas of natal alienation or ontological death. And he probably was educated in the same way all of you were by the common core fucking standards that teach the civil rights movement like it was an "inescapable" event that redeemed the US from its history of racist violence.

 

And I don't think that that inescabability or non-escabability with respect to one of those examples quite.

 

The alt is not fugitivity. The alt is to fight back. Trying to use the rhetorical flourish of the symbol will not get anywhere in this context. It is Nat Turner, not Harriet Tubman.

 

I'm just curious where John Brown gets in on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not true. Anti-blackness is much worse. Refer to above analysis on oscillating between the poles of genocide and enslavement.

 

 

This is in response to a historical alternative solvency argument--that empirically proved you have NO solvency based on the wealth of history.

 

This argument is handled on the rest of the solvency debate (aka cross apply the multiple levels of solvency turn).

 

Alt destroys civil society. Alt expands the realm of gratuitous violence to the non-black.

 

By definition you cause more harm than you could ever solve.  This argument is like give slavery & the barrel of a gun to the other 70% of the population.  You can only solve for harms for 30%.

Not to mention--

a) thats guaranteed harm versus probabalistic or no solvency (see above)

b] in the short-run which coopts and turns back the alternative.  Racial violence isn't a magical potion for rational harmony--its the exact opposite.

 

-----

 

2nd and/or 3rd party violence:

You continue to make the mistake of marking black on civil society violence as pathological and civil society on black violence as banal. This only links to you. The analysis is above. Judge would think I'm winning

that.

 

 

Thats meaningless--or a claim without a warrant--or it needs to cross apply something more specific above.  Your alt intentionally fiats violence on third parties versus the definition of unconscious or unintentional racism--not to mention the risk comparisons.

 

Nat turner alt.

 

 

First, my empirical examples are decent solvency.

Second, the historical debate was decided at the top of the debate--where you failed to answer it.  This is the squo in many societies--gratuitous violence is inevitable in the SQ everywhere--its just a question of how much--but the historical record proves this never ever ever works.  I'm winning the historical alternative debate flat out.

 

You failed to answer the warrant of the argument--the Zimmerman trial doesn't prove that racism is getting worse.  It proves that the media has to massively repeat one killing--as an attempt to demonstrate racism.  Zimmerman just proves its at the margin.

 

While I respect your determination and enjoy the exchanges at times--I don't quite see your "meta" strategy on winning the debate.  Like you said--you got zip taco on the alternative.

 

Any turd can get a job at a university and a job writing for a paper. I see no reason why that means hes familiar with ideas of natal alienation or ontological death. And he probably was educated in the same way all of you were by the common core fucking standards that teach the civil rights movement like it was an "inescapable" event that redeemed the US from its history of racist violence.

 

The brain washing refrain is getting a little old.  (All your base belong to us).

 

You haven't made any args about natal alienation.

 

Your brain washing arguments are bad--first, they aren't true--otherwise the alt and your author wouldn't be a possibility.  Plus, the determinism and responsibility debates.  Burning schools to the ground metaphorically or actually doesn't solve.  Debate is a parasite on the education system--although not in a bad way.

 

Dude--your author works for the state.  His literature and advocacy is a DA to killing the state.  Killing the state kills intellectual revolutionaries--they die on the vine without funding.  Not to mention he's a walking performative contradiction.  He's like the Tea Partier who works for the government and forgets that Ted Cruz is talking about cutting his job when he talks about cutting goverment spending.  He's a government employee--tax dollars pay his salary.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[edited] on second thought, I'm not all that interested in posting. [edited]

Edited by Snarf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW "putting the settler out of the picture" does not necessarily mean violence, I just wanted to defend the most controversial way to interpret it.

 

 

If this metaphorical settler doesn't want to go....isn't coersion & violence the next step?

 

What other ways are you suggesting?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this metaphorical settler doesn't want to go....isn't coersion & violence the next step?

 

What other ways are you suggesting?

 

Empirical events/figures: Assata Shakur, Angela Davis, Malcolm X, Marcus Garvey, Rastafarianism, W.D. Fard Muhammad, Maroon societies, Nuwabianism, etc.

Ideological labels: Separatism(theological, political, etc), Fugitivity, embracing of ontological death, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm going to respond to statements on another thread here, because it makes the information easier to locate.

 

 

 

Just out of curiosity, what are your views/opinions on Wildersons alternative towards anti-blackness/racism?

 

It is an argument. Arguments can win debate rounds.

 

 

 Also, what are your views/opinions on debaters who have run the position in the past, do you believe they ran the position well (as in, it was convincing) or what is it a half-assed attempt to win the ballot - a form of false-heroism?

Why would your attempt to read econ/heg good not be a form of false heroism? Why would your attempts to role play the heroic protagonist of the "state" not be a form of false heroism?

 

 

 

 

For some background knowledge - Wilderson advocates for the destruction of civil society through an "unflinching paradigmatic analysis."

 

I know that we have to treat "civil society" as synonymous with the state in order for Wilderson to function in debate, but "civil society" is a technical term that Wilderson borrows from Antonio Gramsci. Read it yourself if you want to know.

 

 

 

 

 You will be hard pressed to find a "bad" Wilderson debater, but even if they go 1 off every neg round that doesn't mean they will be great (or even that good) from a logos standpoint.

I disagree. I have seen some very bad Wilderson debaters who do not understand the arguments they are making and therefore can't give convincing warrants responding to the opponents attacks. I also think that it is pretty much.....lets say prejudiced of you to say that Wilderson debaters will not be deft with their use of logic and technical skill. I have seen quite a few debaters who run Wilderson be VERY logical and VERY skilled at technical execution.

 

 

 

As far as false-heroism. No. Nobody believes they are actually destroying civil society, although they may very well be changing the debate space.

 

If we are always already educating eachother. And every interaction changes us irreparably, how is it that any given round(whether Wilderson or not) does not change civil society and the debate space forever? How has there ever been a way in which civil society or the debate space has been changed(barring violence or top-down edicts) apart from this methodology?

 

 

 

 

As far as personal opinions, i hate the arg. In debate, if Wildersons social death claims were legit, we could just ignore the argument and win.

The K/alt IS the political constitution(verb) of the black body. I mean in round you would just prove the argument right. But this tactic you assume would end in this manner betrays another assumption which proves the argument true: you think you should be able to ignore analysis of the US's continuing genocide and win the round. This is an example of the white privilege being critiqued.

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...

×
×
  • Create New...