Jump to content
swagondeck

Strat Help?

Recommended Posts

This.

 

...

 

If you and others want to continue this discussion, start a new thread, but come on, this is the "Help" forum, not the "Culture" forum.

 

I feel like discussing the disagreement illuminates the nature of debates that teams can have. It allows people to understand the underlying arguments better and the potential implications of their clash with other positions. Additionally, I don't think that strict moderation attempting to keep things directly relevant to the OP is a good idea because regardless of whether the discussion is relevant to OP it's still important. Stopping these kind of conversations is bad because they tend to not get started up again once they're interrupted. What's the impact as to why discussing tangents is bad, Jurisdiction? scoffs

 

It's not just about hate. Yeah debate is ahead of the curve, but our pedagogy is deeply grounded in a white, hetero-normative, euro-centric framework. And because of the infinite possibilities of debate compared to other things (say school, or anything), we carry what we learn much farther. The heart of homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. is its epistemology. We as debaters frequently break down our own epistemology. We can change this shit if we just think about it.

 

Well, this 1AC specifically is about hate and safety, not about knowledge production. I agree that arguments focused on the problems with debate epistemology are much better. When I said:

 

I think that there are good arguments as to why debate is a uniquely important site to combat racism, namely that debaters will often be powerful people someday, whether as activists or as policymakers or as scientists or as businesspeople or whatever. But even then, it's not clear to me that as much effort should be put into fixing debate culture as currently is. I think debate teams often act in a very self centered manner when they approach issues like this. Debate is mostly okay, we'll only get marginal improvements on a lot of these issues, and we should target our activism elsewhere for the most part.

 

I had that sort of case in mind. Those are the best type of critical affirmatives, in my opinion.

 

To clarify that stance further, I'm unsure how much effort we should put in to "fixing" debate's epistemology, (assuming that it's broken, although I'm inclined IRL to believe it's flawed but still mostly good and that the biggest problems are not related to race). That's mainly because assessing the impact that debaters have and that kritikal teams have is very difficult. I'm not saying that I'm opposed to these arguments (assuming that it's broken), only that some brightline is necessary and I don't know where to draw it. I think people often ignore the need for a brightline entirely though, and that's what I'm opposed to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah debate is ahead of the curve, but our pedagogy is deeply grounded in a white, hetero-normative, euro-centric framework.

 

Cooking with measuring cups is probably eurocentric.  Does that mean minorities can't compete?  

 

Does that mean minorities can't compete in debate?  Have any African americans been successful in modern Eurocentric America?

 

It neglects these narratives--that seems like a perm-able argument.  Decision-making shouldn't necessarily all be public policy literature or narrative driven all the time.  But the aff takes the procrustean stance that it should be.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cooking with measuring cups is probably eurocentric.  Does that mean minorities can't compete?  

 

Does that mean minorities can't compete?

 

It neglects these narratives--that seems like a perm-able argument.  Decision-making shouldn't necessarily all be public policy literature or narrative driven all the time.  But the aff takes the procrustean stance that it should be.

1) that's kinda a straw man 2) maybe

 

It doesn't force it. It just says maybe queer theory is ignored. In fact they say that everyone is in the policy sense and can be molded to include it. In fact if anything they are the victims of procrustean stances. They say that their debating is public policy dominated all the time so they are left out.

 

White frameworks serve to co-opt criticisms with illusions of change. Saying "you can run this but you have to defend US action". Or "you can run this but you'll probs lose on framework". Permutations are an agent of heteronormative frameworks in order to silence the queer by making it normal. In order to carry their power, Queer theories have to be Queer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

White frameworks serve to co-opt criticisms with illusions of change.

 

1. The illusion of change is on both sides.  The ballot will change the world--no it won't--or else it wouldn't have taken 10+ years of this.

2. The European model has an empirical record of change that far surpasses the.  

 

1.  And yes, its an analogy.  European or rationality driven argument doens't auto-exclude others.  You can succeed at a process that wasn't made for you.  This is proven at the Olympics.  Minorites succeed all the time--most or many of the sports are Greek or European.

2. And if its a straw person, its a straw person that points to a truth.  30 to 50% of whats on Jon Stewart is a straw person--but its still speaks truth.

 

Dynamic versus Static Growth:

1. The aff has a static conception of individual potential and how they can succeed.  You create a self-fulling prophesy of African American and minority students who can't succeed at traditional debate or the skills it provides.  You also lock in an identity around "

we can't succeed at white stuff."  If business is white...we can't succeed.  If politics is white....we can't succeed.  If anything else thats crucial for our survival or enjoyment is white....we can't succeed.  This type of representation of blacks not only is false--as proven by previous African Americans in the elims of the NDT or otherwise successful in debate.  And that doesn't explain the successes of African Americans in academia, public policy, science, the legal field, or a 100 other fields--all of which involved Eurocentric models.

 

2. The auto-biography model only lets one class of society succeed.  Ultimately, it should be the untouchables in India.  They've been the most oppressed.  Everything in society and debate should be re-arranged for them.  The european model provides a clear bar of success.

 

 The heart of homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. is its epistemology. We as debaters frequently break down our own epistemology. We can change this shit if we just think about it.

 

1. Where is the non-Eurocentric hospital you'll be taking to save you or your kid's life?

2. What is the non-Eurocentric educational institution which can compete with the West?  

3. What is the non-Eurocentric business which can compete with the West? Say with a Whole Foods.

 

Why aren't you attending a non-Eurocentric school in a non-Eurocentric company drinking non-Eurocentric lattees with non-Eurocentric movies & culture.  Why should we change from our supposed Eurocentric ways if you haven't and you won't--despite knowing they are Eurocentric?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that this kid is a lot smarter than you give him credit for... Clearly he was smart in coming here to find better ways of debating these teams and I think it's messed up to assume that just because they're novices they are incapable of this type of thought. I for one think that these kids are way smarter than rawrcat gives them credit for and it's messed up to assume that they are incapable of engagement and it fails to realize the fact that if these two girls were able to develope these strategies themselves... So I don't see why a person is incapable of critical thought.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The illusion of change is on both sides.  The ballot will change the world--no it won't--or else it wouldn't have taken 10+ years of this.

2. The European model has an empirical record of change that far surpasses the.  

EXACTLY because eurocentrism is the hegemonic model. It tells us who did good and who didn't. The black panthers failed but MLK succeeded because he wasn't violent and didn't violently oppose the system. Los Mata Zetas failed Because they fought back. Eurocentrism is defined by domination of thought. It teaches us- so obviously it says that they're the only ones who worked. It's like saying fox news is running republican ads. Empirical success is defined by White.

 

1.  And yes, its an analogy.  European or rationality driven argument doens't auto-exclude others.  You can succeed at a process that wasn't made for you.  This is proven at the Olympics.  Minorites succeed all the time--most or many of the sports are Greek or European.

It was Built to. Yes you can succeed but only by succumbing to it. The caste system was built to say- you're untouchable, you're good. Christianity was founded on evil v. good dichotomy. 

2. And if its a straw person, its a straw person that points to a truth.  30 to 50% of whats on Jon Stewart is a straw person--but its still speaks truth.

No you're attacking my weakest argument. The fact is that it causes massive exclusion, racism, sexism, abelism, homophobia, misogyny, and violence.

 

Dynamic versus Static Growth:

1. The aff has a static conception of individual potential and how they can succeed.  You create a self-fulling prophesy of African American and minority students who can't succeed at traditional debate or the skills it provides.  You also lock in an identity around "

we can't succeed at white stuff."  If business is white...we can't succeed.  If politics is white....we can't succeed.  If anything else thats crucial for our survival or enjoyment is white....we can't succeed.  This type of representation of blacks not only is false--as proven by previous African Americans in the elims of the NDT or otherwise successful in debate.  And that doesn't explain the successes of African Americans in academia, public policy, science, the legal field, or a 100 other fields--all of which involved Eurocentric models.

That's a percieved success. I personally don't think they've progressed in society at all, because the foundations they try to change are exclusionary. I think that just because Emporia wins nothing will change. Maybe more narrative affs but only for victories. Those of us who perform, perform with a spirit you have to reflect on for a while, otherwise you just can't understand it. I don't know this team or how they feel, but to be successful with something like performance you must believe in it. That's how we make our home in debate. Winning NDT was a result of the home, not it's creation. I feel very at home in debate running my state K and poverty aff because I believe.

Also I do think we can't succeed in business or politics. I don't think either is "crucial" for survival. Kinda procrustean...

They tackle the thing that makes them unsuccessful. Because they're seen as evil or wrong for being queer, they can't succeed at anything.

 

The second point is that this goes back to what I was talking about- white centered frameworks define success for us so we can't truly know if progress is made. They tell us when or when not the movement has succeeded, and based on what you just said, you can't succeed UNLESS you participate in a white framework.

 

2. The auto-biography model only lets one class of society succeed.  Ultimately, it should be the untouchables in India.  They've been the most oppressed.  Everything in society and debate should be re-arranged for them.  The european model provides a clear bar of success.

 

When you're queer you can't just address the norm for change because the system was founded on fucking you. A biography model can help lots of people. Exposing your problems as a point of reference helps others understand your suffering. To say we should only prioritize the untouchables in india is just kinda racist and exclusionary. What about sex trafficking victims in mexico? The poor of africa. The underclass is countries like Nigeria. We shouldn't create a welfare line. If we find the reason that this exists. Let's critique it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

counternarrative of the aff's failure to include people of color and their plights, the aff merely blankets them and says "oppressed" people in general but specifies within queer boundaries, which basically eliminates the possibilty of PoC fighting for their rights within the room

Run a disability CP (wolbring evidence can probably be stretched to include queer theory), then have a net benefit be the lexeous "you exclude other people by overemphasizing queer theory" stuff.Not only does it as a performative example of why your F/W doesn't exclude people from having a home in debate and why the aff can be topical, but it also functions under their ROB quite well.

 

there could also be some pseudo-framework arguments that pretending to pass a policy (or a CP) better trains us for solving the impacts of the 1AC in the real world, once we actually have the ability to change stuff, which then shows a better methodological opposition to oppressive structures. If evidence exists that changing policy changes society, then you get a larger magnitude of solvency too (I'm realizing that this is just a version of roleplaying good that's been customized to work well with a counterplan, but I also think it makes for a much more cohesive strat.)

 

and is it just me, or does this aff seem almost identical to emporia's aff, but without the wiz?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EXACTLY because eurocentrism is the hegemonic model. It tells us who did good and who didn't. The black panthers failed but MLK succeeded because he wasn't violent and didn't violently oppose the system. Los Mata Zetas failed Because they fought back. Eurocentrism is defined by domination of thought. It teaches us- so obviously it says that they're the only ones who worked. It's like saying fox news is running republican ads. Empirical success is defined by White.

 

Cry me a river.....Timberlake....

 

Not a denial of the argument.  The idea that more blacks had rights and lives.  99.99% of scholars would agree with me--probably more.

You have no explanation for how they "rigged the game"

You define away the terms of success--and yes there will be no success. 

Minorities can vote with their feet--and yet we have an immigration problem--not an exodus problem.

 

Also, your method is suspect to the extent that it doesn't provide for nuance.  You are for us or against us.  You can't make numerical or nuanced distinctions.  Or at least you choose not to--despite that leading to better results for everybody.

 

It was Built to. Yes you can succeed but only by succumbing to it. The caste system was built to say- you're untouchable, you're good. Christianity was founded on evil v. good dichotomy. 

 

1. Who are these supposed conspirators?  

2. If anything we are more Lockean than we are Platoic, yet we could have gone in that direction (dictators via Platos republic).  If you don't like representative democracy....try everything else including what Somalia had.

3. They tried to build a system which would solve problems & reach truth & be successful as a model.  It did all 3.  

4. I'm super confused how you and I are guilty for the sins of our great, great, great, great grandfathers.  Plus, that wasn't mine--because they were still in Ireland & Wales.  Or they were farming--not governing.

5. Whats the alternative system for weighing competing claims?

6. How did you get to be so good at thinking & debate?  Oh yeah.....western education.  Could you get that in Ethiopia or China.  In the later, you would get even more controls.  Or..."no I could use the internet"--first this is naive.  Second, the internet exists because of western culture.  Period.  Western culture is the pre-condition for mass creativity, innovation, and progress.  

 

Thats a ton of impact turn for your framework.

 

Also, I can accept rationality as a good thing--and also accept manifest destiny when it leads to colonialism & war as a bad thing.  

 

No you're attacking my weakest argument. The fact is that it causes massive exclusion, racism, sexism, abelism, homophobia, misogyny, and violence.

1. Theres no reason I can't PIK all the bad stuff out.

2. The west saved us from Hitler or other domination (Russia, China, etc...).  That would be worse than any supposed domination via rationality.  I fail to understand how a syllogism = oppression.

3. The west founded most of the ethics we use.  Virtue ethics, utlitarianism, rights and deontology.  And probably a number of other systems.  

4.  It was the hypocrisy of the West thats the problem--its failure to live up to its principles--not living them.  

5. No nation has the record of having this much diversity on such a wide scale. We're certainly in the top 10% (I'm not a historian--but this is a semi-grounded in history).

 

You haven't live on your own yet.  Thats ok to be naive.  If you don't want to succeed at business....try poverty.....  But success at business is also a way to solve social problems (aka scarcity or gaps).  And empirically blacks have done pretty decent at business.  Its a bit of tokenism, but Oprah and Will Smith have done well for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Second, the internet exists because of western culture.  Period.  Western culture is the pre-condition for mass creativity, innovation, and progress. 

 

What? Dude, how are you gonna get offended that people call you a racist (and, two lines later say that you think "colonialism" is "bad" when you spout racist drivel like this on a public forum?

 

I could bother engaging this nonsense (paper, the printing press, gunpowder, the compass, and the astrolabe, all preconditions to Western colonialism, were invented in places outside of the West; given that Western countries colonized, enslaved, and ravaged much of the rest of the world, there are perfectly reasonable explanations for why some places aren't "hotbeds of innovation" besides their "culture"; even today, lots of new robotics, information, and communications technology is coming out of places like Japan with distinctly non-Western cultures), but what a profound waste of time.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What? Dude, how are you gonna get offended that people call you a racist (and, two lines later say that you think "colonialism" is "bad" when you spout racist drivel like this on a public forum?

 

I could bother engaging this nonsense (paper, the printing press, gunpowder, the compass, and the astrolabe, all preconditions to Western colonialism, were invented in places outside of the West; given that Western countries colonized, enslaved, and ravaged much of the rest of the world, there are perfectly reasonable explanations for why some places aren't "hotbeds of innovation" besides their "culture"; even today, lots of new robotics, information, and communications technology is coming out of places like Japan with distinctly non-Western cultures), but what a profound waste of time.

 

But didn't you hear? West is Best!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So should we turn westerners (like yourself) into slaves now?  Should we reverse the hierarchy?  Thats the real question.

 

Theres a problem:  Debate has some racist structures

Theres a solution:  100% hierarchy reversal

 

There are tons of alternatives.  Those alternatives are silenced by their model.  They haven't discussed them.

 

The west is bad...it has hierarchies.  And then it goes and MAKES MORE HIERARCHIES.  How racist is that?  Or ethnocentric is that?

 

How about lets tie one of my arms behind my back or cover one of my eyes.....to even out this injustice you speak of.  That makes total sense.  To me, why not let me use my skills.....and if anything....we can have moderate handicap on the final score.  That way the challenge during the debate isn't lowered.  The bar isn't lowered.  Expectations of minorities in terms of making arguments about government isn't lowered (a self-fulling prophesy by the way).  Turn them into rhetorical victims who impose passive aggressive solutions (my road or the highway) rather than deal-making and negotiation and alternatives--which is how problem-solving in the real world works.

 

Its almost as if the performative option implicitly chose acto-mania.  It is the worst example of the problem-solution problem

I can think of.  "We have a problem....therefore we should reverse the hierarchy."  I don't have a problem with helping or altering the rules--but turning the world on its head doesn't really serve a purpose.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cry me a river.....Timberlake....

Not a denial of the argument.  The idea that more blacks had rights and lives.  99.99% of scholars would agree with me--probably more.

Congrats, want a cookie? Scholarly modes of thought are an epistemological construct of intellectual superiority. Get off your high horse. We still destroy the black body with poverty, poor education, unfair laws, drugs, gangs, media imagery. They are just as much slaves and there's just as much racism but we pat ourselves on the back like we solved a problem

 

 

You have no explanation for how they "rigged the game"

Because they made it.

 

 

 

 

Minorities can vote with their feet--and yet we have an immigration problem--not an exodus problem.

Because western thought is extremely dominate. All modern countries have the european thought process. They were constructed under a guise of democracy. So what their suffering is less explicit here than there. We create the necessity of the west to say " your conditions are shit, come live in the west, it's awesome. It was founded on white thought to eliminate any dissidence.

 

 

Also, your method is suspect to the extent that it doesn't provide for nuance.  You are for us or against us.  You can't make numerical or nuanced distinctions.  Or at least you choose not to--despite that leading to better results for everybody.

Neither do you. Congrats you found out I'm Hitler. 

 

1. Who are these supposed conspirators?  

The elite

2. If anything we are more Lockean than we are Platoic, yet we could have gone in that direction (dictators via Platos republic).  If you don't like representative democracy....try everything else including what Somalia had.

You are the epitome of white. Creating an either/or dichotomy that the only good system is what we got. This completely ignores the problems of capitalism and statism

3. They tried to build a system which would solve problems & reach truth & be successful as a model.  It did all 3.  

No they built a system that would serve their needs under the guise of being for the people and by the people.

4. I'm super confused how you and I are guilty for the sins of our great, great, great, great grandfathers.  Plus, that wasn't mine--because they were still in Ireland & Wales.  Or they were farming--not governing.

I never argued you were guilty of anything. I just said the system we adhere to creates the Us Vs. them dichotomy.

5. Whats the alternative system for weighing competing claims?

Did I advocate an alternative?

6. How did you get to be so good at thinking & debate?  Oh yeah.....western education.  Could you get that in Ethiopia or China.  In the later, you would get even more controls.  Or..."no I could use the internet"--first this is naive.  Second, the internet exists because of western culture.  Period.  Western culture is the pre-condition for mass creativity, innovation, and progress.  

You just proved my point again. We are epistemologically grounded in western thinking. Yeah I use the modes it created. Why can't I use it to deconstruct it?

 

 

 

1. Theres no reason I can't PIK all the bad stuff out.

That's my argument- that's what the white hegemon says. "Look it sucks to be you, we'll fix things" And then continues to fuck them but in different ways.

2. The west saved us from Hitler or other domination (Russia, China, etc...).  That would be worse than any supposed domination via rationality.  I fail to understand how a syllogism = oppression.

All forms of domination stem from the west. Models such as totaltarianism, and dictatorship stem from a western mode of thought of the extremity of necessity of the state.

3. The west founded most of the ethics we use.  Virtue ethics, utlitarianism, rights and deontology.  And probably a number of other systems

These ethics were founded for us as the heard to follow them. They want us thinking we have rights or freedoms in order to instill ideas such as utilitarianism. They keep us in line.

4.  It was the hypocrisy of the West thats the problem--its failure to live up to its principles--not living them.

Not just that but it is made of hypocrisy. It formulates itself to subjugate based on freedom

5. No nation has the record of having this much diversity on such a wide scale. We're certainly in the top 10% (I'm not a historian--but this is a semi-grounded in history).

Yay? It's still western thought- my point. It permutes cultures while getting rid of undesirable aspects creating "the perfect melting pot".

 

You haven't live on your own yet.  Thats ok to be naive.  If you don't want to succeed at business....try poverty.....  But success at business is also a way to solve social problems (aka scarcity or gaps).  And empirically blacks have done pretty decent at business.  Its a bit of tokenism, but Oprah and Will Smith have done well for themselves.

Don't patronize me. And don't use ad homs. 

The poverty point just adds to my side. You create a dichotomy that buisiness is "necessary". That it must exist. Why? Because you said so? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're tilting at windmills. who said reverse the hierarchy (other than you)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you're queer you can't just address the norm for change because the system was founded

 

Because "queers" empirically have no rights now.

 

And I have no idea how you answered the static versus dynamic identities argument.  You over-determine reality.

Creating fake barriers (blacks can never compete, when empirically they have at both college & high school).  And when they didn't compete

there were probably 3 to 5 core reason--which wasn't their race.  My other args on that arg still apply.

 

* I obviously mean that in terms of re-claiming the word, not as a diminutive word or of hate.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why are there still performance teams. Why aren't people just holding hands and agreeing on policies. Why are ghettos, prisons, and alternative schools dominated by minorities and the poor? You talk about equality?

 

The queer has no rights because it doesn't adhere to the norm. They're bullied, hated and distraught because people hate what is not them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So should we turn westerners (like yourself) into slaves now?  Should we reverse the hierarchy?  Thats the real question.

 

Reversing the hierarchy? I don't see the slave ships coming for you anywhere. That's in the past, you say? How about structural inequality, rampant police discrimination, systematic poverty and ghettoization, mass negative stereotyping due to your name and skin color when it comes to serious avenues of societal advancement like employment or societal disenfranchisement like the legal system? Nope, that's not happening either, nathan debate. In fact, regardless of how people vote in a debate round, I don't see any of that happening to white people. Because it can't, because white people still have power.

 

You're a racist. You say things like western culture is the only way people can innovate, and when people call you a racist you act like you're being persecuted. Honestly, I hope you see what real persecution is like, and trust me, it's a lot less nice than in argument in a debate round.

 

There is nothing in a debate that can possibly reverse structures of inequality in Western society. Even if they did, a reversal of hierarchies would be more ethical than the current system, given that it would give people who are currently excluded from access to arbitrary, racist privilege access to arbitrary, racist, privilege, because it would equalize the amounts of time people have access to those privileges rather than letting them all accrue to white people over the course of generations. Ideally, we can have a society that doesn't have any racial hierarchies, but maybe that's just crazy talk...

 

But even then, we're still getting way ahead of ourselves. Nothing anyone says and nothing anyone votes for in a debate round reverses racial and structural hierarchies to put white people on the bottom. We live in a racist society and many arguments in a debate are merely a reaction to that, and a repudiation of those standards and the logic that allows them to continue.

 

The west is bad...it has hierarchies.  And then it goes and MAKES MORE HIERARCHIES.  How racist is that?  Or ethnocentric is that?

 

I picture you foaming at the mouth when you say this, mainly because it's A. racist and B. completely incoherent. Is is racist that the west has hierarchies with negative effects on people? ...Yes.

 

You're right about one thing: expectations of making arguments about the government for minorities are not lowered. Emporia, etc makes lots and lots of arguments about the government, and they often make them better than white people (hence winning the NDT). You seem like you want them to be artificially raised to protect and safeguard your precious white privilege.

 

I don't think I'm going to continue to "engage" with you in this topic. You make the same arguments over and over and over and over again, and your main intentions do not seem to be about combating racism, or oppression, or anything that I think deserves to be respected. There's a reason you probably have the lowest post-to-rep ratio on the website.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blacks winning debates does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to solve poverty in the inner city or any of the other problems.

 

The I'm X identity (specifically oppressed & a victim)......I deserve X isn't a sustainable model for political change or ANY kind of change.  If this is part of the narrative its a much more complex or holistic story--not static and universalized and essentialized stories of victimhood.

 

The West is uniquely the way to solve the problems of the West.  This is Zizeks "using the letter of the law against itself."  Thats a rationalist & logical orientation.  That has worked to expand those enfranchised more than any other worldview.

 

Reversing the hierarchy? I don't see the slave ships coming for you anywhere.

 

Reversing the debate hierarchy.  Reversing the epistemology hierarchy.

They say thats the internal link to all the -isms they are creating.  Ergo, its the precondition for the viability of an ideology in which slave ships come for white people....and maybe even more folks.

 

If eurocentrism is oppressive in all the ways they describe--the logical conclusion is exclude it.  Also, this model excludes those who have european identity from the ballot.  That reverses the hierachy & reverses the racism--replicating all the harms the performing team speaks to:

 

Even if they did, a reversal of hierarchies would be more ethical than the current system, given that it would give people who are currently excluded from access to arbitrary, racist privilege access to arbitrary, racist, privilege, because it would equalize the amounts of time people have access to those privileges rather than letting them all accrue to white people over the course of generations. Ideally, we can have a society that doesn't have any racial hierarchies, but maybe that's just crazy talk...

 

My argument wasn't so much that those outside of Eurocentric culture can't innovate.  My argument was more than without the tools of western innovation & western markets....innovation at scale is impossible.  This is where western medicine & other truly transformative technologies go from serving 10,000s to 10 million.

 

* I apologize for not clarifyng that earlier.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are these elites?  Why hasn't Obama fired them?  Which companies?  Which CEOs?  Which specific government?  If you're making accussations you better be able to bring the bacon.   You better have a smoking gun.  Or in this case multiple smoking guns.  

 

Nope.  The 14th Amendment keeps a lot of this in check.  Our Bill of rights keeps a lot of this in check.

 

I'm not quite done....I will have return.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are these elites?  Why hasn't Obama fired them?  Which companies?  Which CEOs?  Which specific government?  If you're making accussations you better be able to bring the bacon.   You better have a smoking gun.  Or in this case multiple smoking guns.  

 

Nope.  The 14th Amendment keeps a lot of this in check.  Our Bill of rights keeps a lot of this in check.

 

Every. Single. Fucking. One. 

 

The ideas of capitalism and the U.S. itself are the problem. It is they who construct these ideas of exclusion. They are founded in white thought. They are the eurocentric agents.

 

You must be joking. That was an appeasement of a system that was built on slavery. it was built on the creation of a capitalist empire. The system can't just fix itself because afterwards it literally sets up a new form of slavery through abject poverty, drug peddling, gang wars, and extreme white framing. The only blacks allowed out are the ones who conform to white thought and reject their black thought in the name of the "master". They subject them to a life where they are either forced into crime or new slavery. It legitimized the black body by saying it was white. Allowing the black to be free only if they are a citizen of the U.S. You think that makes up for it? Hey sorry we enslaved your ancestor, raped your women, destroyed your land. AND WE'RE STILL FUCKING DOING IT.

Here's some examples- Shell hanging Nigerian activists for speaking out against a ruthless dictatorship; Governments not recognizing climate change while it destroys indigenous and impoverished lands 30 years ago; distribution of crack in the inner cities. You want more. The state conglomerate is just as racist than ever. 

 

Not to mention that it's equally racist against indians. It literally says "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed." 

 

Did it stop racialized education? No. Plessy V ferguson? No. Jim crow? No.

 

God bless america

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blacks winning debates does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to solve poverty in the inner city or any of the other problems.

 

Neither does white people winning in debate. But the impact of the social and political strategies that debaters make advocate might, and the discussion makes both teams in a debate smarter and more able to implement good ones. According to the judges, Emporia had a good political strategy (relative to Northwestern), so like... get over it?

 

The I'm X identity (specifically oppressed & a victim)......I deserve X isn't a sustainable model for political change or ANY kind of change.  If this is part of the narrative its a much more complex or holistic story--not static and universalized and essentialized stories of victimhood.

 

If you think that's the model, you're not listening. I would say that Emporia's arguments are both "complex" and "holistic". In fact, anyone good enough at debate to qualify to the NDT (or debate in Open, or even debate at all) certainly makes both complex and holistic arguments.

 

The West is uniquely the way to solve the problems of the West.  This is Zizeks "using the letter of the law against itself."  Thats a rationalist & logical orientation.  That has worked to expand those enfranchised more than any other worldview.

 

I see you haven't read Zizek either (no, Zizek does not say the West is uniquely the way to solve all the world's problems). Psychoanalysis (his method) also problematizes the ability of one to have that rationalist and logical orientation, so it's hilarious that you even attempt to cite him as on your side...

 

If it's true that groups of people can only solve problems from within, why should (Western) white people be able to solve (Western) black people' problems?

 

Reversing the debate hierarchy.  Reversing the epistemology hierarchy.

They say thats the internal link to all the -isms they are creating.  Ergo, its the precondition for the viability of an ideology in which slave ships come for white people....and maybe even more folks.

 

What isms? What people? What rounds? What root cause?  (lol asking lots of rhetorical questions makes me smart :D)

 

Seriously, that's not their argument. Making a home for an excluded identity class in debate is not racist, it's definitionally anti-racist. The only group it excludes are people who don't want black people in debate (i.e. racists). You're just spewing debate jargon about "accessing internal links" or whatever as a cover for the fact that you don't have an argument and don't know what you're talking about.

 

If eurocentrism is oppressive in all the ways they describe--the logical conclusion is exclude it.  Also, this model excludes those who have european identity from the ballot.  That reverses the hierachy & reverses the racism--replicating all the harms the performing team speaks to:

 

Um, no? I talked about this more in the other thread, but saying that we shouldn't have racists in debate isn't saying that we shouldn't have white people. Making a home in debate is somewhat zero-sum, in that we do have to choose between people who hate black people and black people. I choose black people. Everyone else (except people that hate black people) is welcome, regardless of political belief, creed, class, religion, race, etc. Well, I guess we can also get rid of people who hate women, queer folk, poor folk, etc as well. You don't even have to like them. But no, this is not reversing any hierarchies, except perhaps the hierarchy of racists at the top (if that does exist- I tend to think that the majority of debate people really, genuinely, don't want to have a racist community).

 

My argument wasn't so much that those outside of Eurocentric culture can't innovate.  My argument was more than without the tools of western innovation & western markets....innovation at scale is impossible.  This is where western medicine & other truly transformative technologies go from serving 10,000s to 10 million.

 

* I apologize for not clarifyng that earlier.

 

...wow. You realize a lot of Smith's conception of markets is based off of non-Western sources (Avicenna anyone?), tht a lot of Chinese and Japanese economic models (while still delivering things "to scale" and innovating very effectively) operate under different assumptions of how markets work, and that you're just cherry-picking inventions that happened to be in the West to justify a totally racist attitude that says your culture is smarter than others? Saying that becuase a white person invited vaccines, only a white person could have invented vaccines is like saying a white person couldn't have invented the compass or gunpowder because a non-white person did. This is self-evidently a terrible rationalization of idiotic, racist, garbage.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tht a lot of Chinese and Japanese economic models (while still delivering things "to scale" and innovating very effectively) operate under different assumptions of how markets work

 

I didn't know this, with any real degree of detail. Anyone want to throw some resources into this thread describing the strongest differences between the schools of thought? Most approaches to economics that I've seen have yet to satisfy me, although I'm not very good at using them. Looking elsewhere might be nice.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I didn't know this, with any real degree of detail. Anyone want to throw some resources into this thread describing the strongest differences between the schools of thought? Most approaches to economics that I've seen have yet to satisfy me, although I'm not very good at using them. Looking elsewhere might be nice.

 

There was a whole body of literature that emerged when Japan's economic boom happened in the 60's and 70's. Some of it argues that firm behavior is organized differently. Some of it centers around the different savings rate and centrality of rapid growth to basic models. Post-Keynesians tend to favor the Japanese economic model as a refutation of neoliberalism. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize for the inability to get to all the posts--I will make an effort to tonight or in the morning.  Given the two threads that are going.....with at least 2 people in the comments....its a fairly steady stream.  Plus, I took an 1.5 nap after dinner, which didn't help things.

 

Will continue here....

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, that's not their argument. Making a home for an excluded identity class in debate is not racist, it's definitionally anti-racist.

 

Maybe overall anti-racist intent.....racist means.  And one which is far more destructive to race relations and diversity

of thought than rationality and logic are.  

 

RE: Zizek.  I've only read 3 parts of Zizek.

1. Apparently the part you didn't read about "using the letter of the law against itself"  A fairly famous line from a book edited by someone else.  It was pretty popular on the treaties topic....but I'm sure its been used elsewhere.

2. The other 2: the book about the twin towers & parts of the tickelish subject.

I never said I was a Zizek expert.   

3. And this line from Zizek is the controlling interpretation of his work.  He is saying Western ideals can check back the bad parts of Western ideals that Zizek is describing elsewhere.  Thats a paradoxical, but unique value to Western values and institutions.  The prime example of this would be using international law to create accountability for Iraq, torture, or other forms of abuse by elites in the system.

 

So is capitalism western or non-western or some where in between?

 

The inbetweenness suggests a my PIK.....using the West to criticize itself or using the non-western to combine with the western are viable alternatives to your worst-case scenario projection of what it can be.

 

You mischaracterize what I said here:

Saying that becuase a white person invited vaccines, only a white person could have invented vaccines is like saying a white person couldn't have invented the compass or gunpowder because a non-white person did. This is self-evidently a terrible rationalization of idiotic, racist, garbage.

 

First I didn't say that.  I said Western institutions like capitalism help scale innovations which save lives.

 

[and remember, my using Western institutions and values against themselves as a kind of accountability....forms a PIK which you don't have an answer to.  I access all of the advantages and none of the disadvantages.]

 

Second, I'm saying Western science and universities and R & D dollars helped provide the solutions.  They haven't been perfect, but again the PIK solves those problems back.

  • Downvote 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...

×
×
  • Create New...