Jump to content
Garret

Middle Passage Neg strat.?

Recommended Posts

Yeah sounds like Fred Motens (or maybe Jared Sextons?) analysis of anti-blackness

 

I believe Sexton is the one who writes about social life through social death and draws jazz as an example. The difference being that iirc he still says blackness is ontological.

 

(I'm not saying I agree with afro pessimism btw)

 

The meanings of those ontological markings are contingent. That's why Black bodies can exercise agency within microcosms of civil society and Western culture - like the jazz movement. Predetermining "blackness" to mean "victimhood" or "powerlessness" actually reifies the problem. Deleuzian politics suggest that Black bodies should attempt to cultivate microcosms of power where Blackness = agency, not that Black bodies should be fluid about their Blackness.

 

Afro press typically doesn't pretedetermine the black body to be without agency or within victim hood, but rather that because civil society is irredeemable the only ethical action is to fight against civil society.

Furthermore, the black body can't truly access civil society because new laws only lead to the same oppression in different and more effective disguises. The end of slavery brought the rise of the prison system and so on. People point to the civil rights acts as signs of progress at the same time these "rights" are being stripped away both through supreme Court decisions and voter Id laws.

 

(Again, not necessarily agreeing with this viewpoint, just making arguments along what I've heard in my debates)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, framework says that their aff is bad for debate and debates should be geared towards a specific way and they should never differ from that (topical government action should be prefed because it's better for policy debate). Topicality just says the way they interpret the topic makes it hard to be negative. On T, you're not saying that their aff doesn't have a place in debate, just the way they frame it under the resolution isn't true.

Tl;dr you don't say their methodolgy doesn't have a place in debate, just the way they go about it under the resolution.

Not necessarily. A popular thing on the college circuit is soft framework, or pragmatics. The idea is that the aff should have tied their aff to a pragmatic demand on the law, although not necessarily through state action. Grass roots movements would fit under this framework.

These kinds of debates also can have topicality arguments, frequently in the block you'll see 'topical version of the aff' and standard t standards (heh) and voters along with the various method turns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, framework says that their aff is bad for debate and debates should be geared towards a specific way and they should never differ from that (topical government action should be prefed because it's better for policy debate). Topicality just says the way they interpret the topic makes it hard to be negative. On T, you're not saying that their aff doesn't have a place in debate, just the way they frame it under the resolution isn't true.

 

Tl;dr you don't say their methodolgy doesn't have a place in debate, just the way they go about it under the resolution.

As far as I can tell there's still not a distinction.  Maybe most people don't debate framework like I do, but I would NEVER say that a team's middle passage aff doesn't have a place in debate, merely that they should tie their advocacy to a topical plan.  I'd say that that is the best interpretation for debate, but it seems to me that my interpretation of framework is indistinguishable from your interpretation of T.  Am I just misunderstanding something here?  Because my understanding of the distinction is that framework says that a team SHOULD be topical, whereas T says the a team ISN'T  topical, which means that framework is the only thing that makes sense.

Edited by MartyP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can tell there's still not a distinction.  Maybe most people don't debate framework like I do, but I would NEVER say that a team's middle passage aff doesn't have a place in debate, merely that they should tie their advocacy to a topical plan.  I'd say that that is the best interpretation for debate, but it seems to me that my interpretation of framework is indistinguishable from your interpretation of T.  Am I just misunderstanding something here?  Because my understanding of the distinction is that framework says that a team SHOULD be topical, whereas T says the a team ISN'T  topical, which means that framework is the only thing that makes sense.

 

Framework says that they must defend topical state action (in most cases), that means that the aff can never happen under your interp, with T, you're just saying that they aren't topical, which is the equivalent of saying that the aff can be read as long as they're topical, and they aren't. A lot of your standards for framework are based around us needing state action and that it's good for effective debate, T doesn't take a stance on the topic or the state, just that the resolution is a good thing to be debated about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Sexton is the one who writes about social life through social death and draws jazz as an example. The difference being that iirc he still says blackness is ontological.

 

(I'm not saying I agree with afro pessimism btw)

 

Afro press typically doesn't pretedetermine the black body to be without agency or within victim hood, but rather that because civil society is irredeemable the only ethical action is to fight against civil society.

Furthermore, the black body can't truly access civil society because new laws only lead to the same oppression in different and more effective disguises. The end of slavery brought the rise of the prison system and so on. People point to the civil rights acts as signs of progress at the same time these "rights" are being stripped away both through supreme Court decisions and voter Id laws.

 

(Again, not necessarily agreeing with this viewpoint, just making arguments along what I've heard in my debates)

Deleuzians would criticize treating "civil society" as a constant concept either in terms of its composition or its power. Civil society is what we make of it - and if you declare it intractably anti-Black, you make it so. If you declare it in-alterable, you make it so. Instead, we should actively create a world that articulates power in a way accessible to Black bodies. 

 

 

You accurately note that the manifestations of racism in the United States have changed over time. Different manifestations have different effects and different required responses -  which makes the flexibility of Deluzian politics a net benefit to addressing racism, because they can adapt to the ways in which racism changes.

 

Whether this adaptation is effective is another question - I agree that the social and legal policies of the United States are immensely racist, but they cannot be said to be racist at the same magnitude as slavery. Things aren't perfect, but should the perfect be the enemy of the good? Michael Dunn, the murderer of the Black teenagers in Jacksonville over their loud music, was found guilty of murder and will serve jail time. Darren Wilson might get off - and it would be a travesty if he did - but 150 years ago none of them would have been held accountable. Large scale change is slow and difficult, but we cannot pretend that it has not occurred without abandoning a century of hard-fought gains. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Framework says that they must defend topical state action (in most cases), that means that the aff can never happen under your interp, with T, you're just saying that they aren't topical, which is the equivalent of saying that the aff can be read as long as they're topical, and they aren't. A lot of your standards for framework are based around us needing state action and that it's good for effective debate, T doesn't take a stance on the topic or the state, just that the resolution is a good thing to be debated about.

Am I missing something, because I genuinely can't figure out why your T violation wouldn't demand "topical state action." What is your T violation then?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah sounds like Fred Motens (or maybe Jared Sextons?) analysis of anti-blackness 

 

Not exactly. You all should just read the book "Deleuze and Race". Also if you look at the "Faciality K" on the wiki you'll see how it plays out. http://opencaselist.paperlessdebate.com/Baylor/Boor-Gustavson+Neg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I missing something, because I genuinely can't figure out why your T violation wouldn't demand "topical state action." What is your T violation then?

 

Framework excludes your aff from debate, T just says that it makes it too hard to be negative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Framework excludes your aff from debate, T just says that it makes it too hard to be negative

That's a bullshit distinction

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a bullshit distinction

that's a dumbed down distinction. The distinction comes at the point where framework argues that the discussion isn't valuable for the debate, T is just a question of following the res, not a defense of the resolution being a good thing. Your framework shell is probably going to talk about how the federal government action is net better for debate, your T shell will make limits claims. There's a difference in the functionality of the two.Framework is a question of wether or not the res is a good thing. T is saying that the res is a nessesary thing for debate, it doesn't take a stance on the resolution being good or bad in general Edited by CodyGustafson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's a dumbed down distinction. The distinction comes at the point where framework argues that the discussion isn't valuable for the debate, T is just a question of following the res, not a defense of the resolution being a good thing. Your framework shell is probably going to talk about how the federal government action is net better for debate, your T shell will make limits claims. There's a difference in the functionality of the two.

A- I don't know about you but I definitely make a limits claim of framework

B- I'll ask a very simple question: Why should we follow the res? The answer is that it is good for debate.  If you're not making that claim on your T violation you're going to lose.  It's a distinction without a difference

 

EDIT: T definitely does take a stance that the res is good otherwise the aff can just be like, "screw it, why be resolutional," and then you lose

Edited by MartyP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A- I don't know about you but I definitely make a limits claim of frameworkB- I'll ask a very simple question: Why should we follow the res? The answer is that it is good for debate.  If you're not making that claim on your T violation you're going to lose.  It's a distinction without a difference

The main internal on framework is resolutional education, not limits, that's where framework is generating the most offense

 

Your framework shell limits out affs from ever being talked about. Framework is an exclusion. Framework was meant to tell teams reading affs that ignored the resolution that those affs shouldn't have a place in debate. T is just saying that they are untopical under your interp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main internal on framework is resolutional education, not limits, that's where framework is generating the most offense

 

Your framework shell limits out affs from ever being talked about. Framework is an exclusion. Framework was meant to tell teams reading affs that ignored the resolution that those affs shouldn't have a place in debate. T is just saying that they are untopical under your interp

As someone who reads a K aff, I can tell you that if you read T against me as opposed to framework, I would impact turn it in the same way that I would framework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who reads a K aff, I can tell you that if you read T against me as opposed to framework, I would impact turn it in the same way that I would framework.

Sure, the distinction only applies in a few instances, but the distinction is incredibly more helpful when it comes to race, and identity politics affs in general. Especially when it comes to the college circuit, and a lite bit more and more on the high school circuit, teams have had more success framing the round around a topicality question rather than a framework question to exclude the aff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, the distinction only applies in a few instances, but the distinction is incredibly more helpful when it comes to race, and identity politics affs in general. Especially when it comes to the college circuit, and a lite bit more and more on the high school circuit, teams have had more success framing the round around a topicality question rather than a framework question to exclude the aff

 

Eh... I don't really think this is true. There is not really a meaningful distinction between T and Framework, at least not one that would avoid any well-articulated impact turn. I've never seen this distinction really get anyone anywhere. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh... I don't really think this is true. There is not really a meaningful distinction between T and Framework, at least not one that would avoid any well-articulated impact turn. I've never seen this distinction really get anyone anywhere.

 

I've seen it get some Harvard teams a good answer to "state bad" on T, I haven't seen too many rounds where the teams framed it as T instead of Framework, but the rounds that I have seen, the judges usually tend to be persuaded by it

 

Edit: Also, St. Mark's has started to do it, and they've picked up a few rounds by framing it just as a question of topicality and not an exclusion

Edited by CodyGustafson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deleuzians would criticize treating "civil society" as a constant concept either in terms of its composition or its power. Civil society is what we make of it - and if you declare it intractably anti-Black, you make it so. If you declare it in-alterable, you make it so. Instead, we should actively create a world that articulates power in a way accessible to Black bodies. 

This is where the UQ debate comes down--it's not about what we "make" of civil society, it just is. Civil society is ontologically determined to be anti-black; with the middle passage slaves entered the slave ships and left as blacks. It matters not what Deleuzians say about the world, civil society is anti-black because it is. Attempts to change it will always fail because it is irredeemable (again, see the slavery as overt to covert with the prison system and the treatment of blacks on "welfare." AP does argue that we should actively create a world that articulates power in a way accessible to black bodies: by burning down civil society.

 

This is why as an answer to this I feel like it would be better to have a bit more diversity on the UQ flow. First, garner offense with wounded attachments. Second, win that blackness is ontic/contingent (Hujsulo and bell hooks are good here).

 

You accurately note that the manifestations of racism in the United States have changed over time. Different manifestations have different effects and different required responses -  which makes the flexibility of Deluzian politics a net benefit to addressing racism, because they can adapt to the ways in which racism changes.

Deleuzian politics won't be able to adapt to changes because they will always reinscribe whiteness.

1) Black bodies can't access your white high theory <<card>>

2) Deleuzian politics is anti-black <<There are solid cards about why DnG's theories and conceptualizations of the world themselves are anti-black>>

3) Adaptation will never be able to solve--civil society will ALWAYS be anti-black, all you'll do is make it mutate faster

 

Whether this adaptation is effective is another question - I agree that the social and legal policies of the United States are immensely racist, but they cannot be said to be racist at the same magnitude as slavery. Things aren't perfect, but should the perfect be the enemy of the good? Michael Dunn, the murderer of the Black teenagers in Jacksonville over their loud music, was found guilty of murder and will serve jail time. Darren Wilson might get off - and it would be a travesty if he did - but 150 years ago none of them would have been held accountable. Large scale change is slow and difficult, but we cannot pretend that it has not occurred without abandoning a century of hard-fought gains. 

Most AP debaters would argue that it's still racist to the same magnitude, just hidden better

1) Slavery still exists--prison (and blacks are put there through Stop and Frisk, presumption of guilt, targeting, profiling, the War on Drugs, etc.)

2) 2 isolated cases doesn't answer an ever escalating campaign of AB

2.5) Illusion of change--the state is wiling to toss a few whites to the wolves to make it seem like there's no need for revolution

3) White history (or the history of civil society to be specific) is cyclical--slavery was "ended," then came prison, blacks got voting rights but then got them taken away. Prosecuting a few white folks isn't going to last as the state cycles into another phase of oppression. 

4) Any action within a racist system is complicit with racism--a vote in negation is a tacit endorsement of the continuance of a racist system

4.5) Any risk of a link or a 1% risk the alt can't solve means that it's racist (add on the last point). If you've seen Casino Royale (the 2006 one w/ Daniel Craig) think of it like when he loses that poker game and in so doing gives a terrorist group like 117 million dollars or something. (Excluding the part where he wins it back in the end)

5) Aff solves best.

 

This is where debaters really need to double down on the examples, and also win that the state is inevitable.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Deleuzians would criticize treating "civil society" as a constant concept either in terms of its composition or its power. Civil society is what we make of it - and if you declare it intractably anti-Black, you make it so. If you declare it in-alterable, you make it so. Instead, we should actively create a world that articulates power in a way accessible to Black bodies. 

This is where the UQ debate comes down--it's not about what we "make" of civil society, it just is. Civil society is ontologically determined to be anti-black; with the middle passage slaves entered the slave ships and left as blacks. It matters not what Deleuzians say about the world, civil society is anti-black because it is. Attempts to change it will always fail because it is irredeemable (again, see the slavery as overt to covert with the prison system and the treatment of blacks on "welfare." AP does argue that we should actively create a world that articulates power in a way accessible to black bodies: by burning down civil society.

 

This is why as an answer to this I feel like it would be better to have a bit more diversity on the UQ flow. First, garner offense with wounded attachments. Second, win that blackness is ontic/contingent (Hujsulo and bell hooks are good here).

 

 

 

 

This comes down to which side is winning their interpretation ontology - Deleuze would say machinic ontology, whereas Afro-Pess authors would say blackness and anti-blackness. 

 

The belief that Cilvi Society is what it is, is very Platonic and assumes an ontology that is definite. This is not the case; Deleuzeans would say Civil Society is but a mere assemblage of desiring-machines and is what it is because of the way in which we direct, or invest, our desire into the arborescence of anti-blackness. This form of transcendental politics halt the flows of desire, turning it in on itself, producing the micro-fascsist resonation of the anti-black (ontology).

 

So there is no anti-black ontology, since anti-blackness is just an arborescent assemblage of desiring-machines that were forced to invest their flows of desire onto a transcendental politics. 

 

Hardcore Deleuzeans would base their response to "anti-blackness is ontological" off of the book Difference and Repetition which says that difference is the only true essence of the world (under a materialist analysis of course) - I haven't read the book myself (soon), but I'd assume that the ontological condition of blackness is what happens when you try to homogenize identities. 

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This comes down to which side is winning their interpretation ontology - Deleuze would say machinic ontology, whereas Afro-Pess authors would say blackness and anti-blackness. 

Yep, it's all about winning your description of the world

 

The belief that Cilvi Society is what it is, is very Platonic and assumes an ontology that is definite. This is not the case; Deleuzeans would say Civil Society is but a mere assemblage of desiring-machines and is what it is because of the way in which we direct, or invest, our desire into the arborescence of anti-blackness. This form of transcendental politics halt the flows of desire, turning it in on itself, producing the micro-fascsist resonation of the anti-black (ontology).

Prove it. This is a definite case where the directness of AP carries a distinct advantage. You can point to history, you can point to present-day events and make a case. Quite a bit trickier to do that with Deleuze.

 

 

So there is no anti-black ontology, since anti-blackness is just an arborescent assemblage of desiring-machines that were forced to invest their flows of desire onto a transcendental politics. 

So a couple of white people say racism isn't real...riiiiight.********************

 

*I know that isn't what you're saying. I also know that's what you're likely to hear in a round. Why? It not only acts as a solid way to hurt your ethos if you mishandle it (and even if you do answer it, it can still be devastating), it also discredits your entire lit base.

 

Hardcore Deleuzeans would base their response to "anti-blackness is ontological" off of the book Difference and Repetition which says that difference is the only true essence of the world (under a materialist analysis of course) - I haven't read the book myself (soon), but I'd assume that the ontological condition of blackness is what happens when you try to homogenize identities. 

See above.

Also: homogenizing identity good.

 

Edit: I don't know if process would be the only true essence even under a Deleuzian system. I picked up this paper by Nuaha which seems to assert that it only makes up relations in post-capitalist society

"It is the first assemblage, which is a territorialized assemblage consisting of precapitalist,

animist and preinvidual attributes describing the archaic or despotic communities. The second

assemblage of deterritorialization can be recognized as the industrial assemblage of a transcendental

enunciator, which functions through debt, lack, neutralization and standardization. It is the overcoded

society of bourgeoisie. The last one is processual assemblage of the post-capitalist society,

which is still bourgeoning. In here, the transcendent enunciator is being folded into the autopoietic

nuclei." (Nuaha 14)

 

Edit 2: This person should have proofread their paper (or maybe it's a bad translation maybe?). The typos/grammatical mistakes, my Ashtar.

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This comes down to which side is winning their interpretation ontology - Deleuze would say machinic ontology, whereas Afro-Pess authors would say blackness and anti-blackness. 

Yep, it's all about winning your description of the world

 

The belief that Cilvi Society is what it is, is very Platonic and assumes an ontology that is definite. This is not the case; Deleuzeans would say Civil Society is but a mere assemblage of desiring-machines and is what it is because of the way in which we direct, or invest, our desire into the arborescence of anti-blackness. This form of transcendental politics halt the flows of desire, turning it in on itself, producing the micro-fascsist resonation of the anti-black (ontology).

Prove it. This is a definite case where the directness of AP carries a distinct advantage. You can point to history, you can point to present-day events and make a case. Quite a bit trickier to do that with Deleuze.

...you're doing violence to Black identity that sees itself as not-ontologically-dead? For a start? 

 

So there is no anti-black ontology, since anti-blackness is just an arborescent assemblage of desiring-machines that were forced to invest their flows of desire onto a transcendental politics. 

So a couple of white people say racism isn't real...riiiiight.********************

This is as supported as the assertion that "civil society is racist because it is".

 

*I know that isn't what you're saying. I also know that's what you're likely to hear in a round. Why? It not only acts as a solid way to hurt your ethos if you mishandle it (and even if you do answer it, it can still be devastating), it also discredits your entire lit base.

 

Hardcore Deleuzeans would base their response to "anti-blackness is ontological" off of the book Difference and Repetition which says that difference is the only true essence of the world (under a materialist analysis of course) - I haven't read the book myself (soon), but I'd assume that the ontological condition of blackness is what happens when you try to homogenize identities. 

See above.

Also: homogenizing identity good.

...homogenizing identity is racist and violent. You're literally creating identity molds and then committing violence against those who don't fit them, Black or not. "You don't look like I think you should look, so you're bad" is the underlying principle of racism. 

 

Edit: I don't know if process would be the only true essence even under a Deleuzian system. I picked up this paper by Nuaha which seems to assert that it only makes up relations in post-capitalist society

"It is the first assemblage, which is a territorialized assemblage consisting of precapitalist,

animist and preinvidual attributes describing the archaic or despotic communities. The second

assemblage of deterritorialization can be recognized as the industrial assemblage of a transcendental

enunciator, which functions through debt, lack, neutralization and standardization. It is the overcoded

society of bourgeoisie. The last one is processual assemblage of the post-capitalist society,

which is still bourgeoning. In here, the transcendent enunciator is being folded into the autopoietic

nuclei." (Nuaha 14)

 

Edit 2: This person should have proofread their paper (or maybe it's a bad translation maybe?). The typos/grammatical mistakes, my Ashtar.

 

 

 

 

Deleuzians would criticize treating "civil society" as a constant concept either in terms of its composition or its power. Civil society is what we make of it - and if you declare it intractably anti-Black, you make it so. If you declare it in-alterable, you make it so. Instead, we should actively create a world that articulates power in a way accessible to Black bodies. 

This is where the UQ debate comes down--it's not about what we "make" of civil society, it just is.

This is where afropessimist scholarship gets sloppy. "It is because is it" is bad reasoning; it also fails to account for the historical processes that created civil society and continue to shape it. Civil society didn't appear by magical fiat, so pretending that it remains as described by magical fiat is equally faulty. 

 

Civil society is ontologically determined to be anti-black;

This is a conclusory restatement of your conclusion - "it is because it is". By whom is it determined to be anti-Black? Under what conditions? 

 

with the middle passage slaves entered the slave ships and left as blacks. It matters not what Deleuzians say about the world, civil society is anti-black because it is. Attempts to change it will always fail because it is irredeemable

This is the exact same problem - an unquestioned repetition of unsupported conclusion. There's no warrant for why civil society is irredeemable.  

 

 (again, see the slavery as overt to covert with the prison system and the treatment of blacks on "welfare."

The prison system is undeniably evil, but to claim is is as evil as slavery is nonsense. Material welfare for Black men and women is immensely better this century than the last, and it's privileged debater bullshit to state otherwise. Ask someone who lived through being hosed and hung in the civil rights movement whether they think this decade is less violent than 1940. 

 

You accurately note that the manifestations of racism in the United States have changed over time. Different manifestations have different effects and different required responses -  which makes the flexibility of Deluzian politics a net benefit to addressing racism, because they can adapt to the ways in which racism changes.

Deleuzian politics won't be able to adapt to changes because they will always reinscribe whiteness.

1) Black bodies can't access your white high theory <<card>>

This is absolutely racist. Black people can't think about theory? Did you miss Frantz Fanon's Lacanian approach to racism? W.E.B. Dubois approach to double consciousness? How racist is it to suggest that there is an intellectual threshold for Black bodies.

 

2) Deleuzian politics is anti-black <<There are solid cards about why DnG's theories and conceptualizations of the world themselves are anti-black>>

I'm not sure how you could have a card homogenously describing the broad spectrum of diverse thought as anti-Black, since their arguments are more heterogeneous than any other author (literally the entire point of ATP  is to treat each chapter as a standalone).  But if you have it to post, I'd like to see.

 

 

3) Adaptation will never be able to solve--civil society will ALWAYS be anti-black, all you'll do is make it mutate faster

This is another unsupported assertion of debaterspeak. What does it mean to "mutate"? What does it mean to solve? Certainly civil society kills fewer Black bodies than it did a century ago, and certainly the gratuitousness of violence is reined in (a century ago, you could openly torture Black bodies). Treating "solve" as a yes/no is ridiculous in this context.

 

 

Whether this adaptation is effective is another question - I agree that the social and legal policies of the United States are immensely racist, but they cannot be said to be racist at the same magnitude as slavery. Things aren't perfect, but should the perfect be the enemy of the good? Michael Dunn, the murderer of the Black teenagers in Jacksonville over their loud music, was found guilty of murder and will serve jail time. Darren Wilson might get off - and it would be a travesty if he did - but 150 years ago none of them would have been held accountable. Large scale change is slow and difficult, but we cannot pretend that it has not occurred without abandoning a century of hard-fought gains. 

Most AP debaters would argue that it's still racist to the same magnitude, just hidden better

1) Slavery still exists--prison (and blacks are put there through Stop and Frisk, presumption of guilt, targeting, profiling, the War on Drugs, etc.)

2) 2 isolated cases doesn't answer an ever escalating campaign of AB

2.5) Illusion of change--the state is wiling to toss a few whites to the wolves to make it seem like there's no need for revolution

3) White history (or the history of civil society to be specific) is cyclical--slavery was "ended," then came prison, blacks got voting rights but then got them taken away. Prosecuting a few white folks isn't going to last as the state cycles into another phase of oppression. 

4) Any action within a racist system is complicit with racism--a vote in negation is a tacit endorsement of the continuance of a racist system

....this is the kind of ridiculous debater jargon that's so frustrating to listen to. Would convicting George Zimmerman to the death penalty be "complicit with racism"? The others are answered above, but Jesus Christ this is insane

4.5) Any risk of a link or a 1% risk the alt can't solve means that it's racist (add on the last point). If you've seen Casino Royale (the 2006 one w/ Daniel Craig) think of it like when he loses that poker game and in so doing gives a terrorist group like 117 million dollars or something. (Excluding the part where he wins it back in the end)

5) Aff solves best.

 

This is where debaters really need to double down on the examples, and also win that the state is inevitable.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, the distinction only applies in a few instances, but the distinction is incredibly more helpful when it comes to race, and identity politics affs in general. Especially when it comes to the college circuit, and a lite bit more and more on the high school circuit, teams have had more success framing the round around a topicality question rather than a framework question to exclude the aff

The problem is even if there is a distinction between T and FW, its not the one you're making.  If you say they're not T and they should lose, that is still explicitly saying that their aff has no place in debate and therefore they should lose.  By centering your argument around limits/ground, you are by nature excluding them by saying anything outside of your topical bubble is bad for education.

 

You can maybe duck out of state bad turns with this interp, however the problem is aff can argue that state education=fascist/anti-black/whatever which means the critical thinking claims are useless because we only learn how to critically think on how to be the best fascist, meaning you probably have to impact turn state bad anyway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The belief that Cilvi Society is what it is, is very Platonic and assumes an ontology that is definite. This is not the case; Deleuzeans would say Civil Society is but a mere assemblage of desiring-machines and is what it is because of the way in which we direct, or invest, our desire into the arborescence of anti-blackness. This form of transcendental politics halt the flows of desire, turning it in on itself, producing the micro-fascsist resonation of the anti-black (ontology).

Prove it. This is a definite case where the directness of AP carries a distinct advantage. You can point to history, you can point to present-day events and make a case. Quite a bit trickier to do that with Deleuze.

...you're doing violence to Black identity that sees itself as not-ontologically-dead? For a start? 

 

That doesn't prove that the Deleuzian conceptualization of the world is correct.

I'm not sure how (in particular) Wilderson and Martinot account for the those experiences, so I can only defend that point so far.

 

So there is no anti-black ontology, since anti-blackness is just an arborescent assemblage of desiring-machines that were forced to invest their flows of desire onto a transcendental politics. 

So a couple of white people say racism isn't real...riiiiight.********************

This is as supported as the assertion that "civil society is racist because it is".

On the other hand, the assertion that anti-blackness is the result of desiring machines arising out of transcendental politics also has no warrant and I see little way to be able to successfully prove that assertion in the real world.

 

Also: homogenizing identity good.

...homogenizing identity is racist and violent. You're literally creating identity molds and then committing violence against those who don't fit them, Black or not. "You don't look like I think you should look, so you're bad" is the underlying principle of racism. 

If I remember correctly the warrant is that it's key to the struggle. I'd have to go back and check some of the cards that were read as a response to that bell hooks 96 card in some of my rounds.

 

This is where afropessimist scholarship gets sloppy. "It is because is it" is bad reasoning; it also fails to account for the historical processes that created civil society and continue to shape it. Civil society didn't appear by magical fiat, so pretending that it remains as described by magical fiat is equally faulty. 

The historical process was slavery itself. Social death as it was explained to me is the result of the middle passage and the processes of slavery that stripped Africans of their identity and their heritage--they were no longer African, but black, and marked for violence.

 

It does not remain by fiat, but is constantly reinvented and sustained by anti-black practices of the state

“The foundations of US white supremacy are far from stable. Owing to the instability of white supremacy, the social structures of whiteness must ever be re-secured in an obsessive fashion…The cold, gray institutions of this society—courts, schools, prisons, police, army, law, religion, the two-party system—become the arenas of this brutality, its excess and spectacle, which they then normalize throughout the social field. It is not simply by understanding the forms of state violence that the structures of hyper-injustice and their excess of hegemony will be addressed. If they foster policing as their paradigm—including imprisonment, police occupations, commodified governmental operations, a renewed Jim Crow, and a re-criminalization of race as their version of social order…”

(Martinot and Sexton 03)

 

Civil society is ontologically determined to be anti-black;

This is a conclusory restatement of your conclusion - "it is because it is". By whom is it determined to be anti-Black? Under what conditions? 

I don't know if determined was by best choice of wording there. Perhaps: "is ontologically anti-black [by the assertion of certain scholars]" 

 

 

with the middle passage slaves entered the slave ships and left as blacks. It matters not what Deleuzians say about the world, civil society is anti-black because it is. Attempts to change it will always fail because it is irredeemable

This is the exact same problem - an unquestioned repetition of unsupported conclusion. There's no warrant for why civil society is irredeemable.  

Part of the irredeemable debate comes from the idea that whenever people have attempted to change civil society that it just ends up being the same thing in a different disguise. You point to prosecutions which makes a valuable counter-point, and I don't know of the responses to those specific things in the literature, everything I've read or been hit with has been macro scale. The counter-arguments I'm going to have to fall back on 

2) 2 isolated cases doesn't answer an ever escalating campaign of AB

2.5) Illusion of change--the state is wiling to toss a few whites to the wolves to make it seem like there's no need for revolution

3) White history (or the history of civil society to be specific) is cyclical--slavery was "ended," then came prison, blacks got voting rights but then got them taken away. Prosecuting a few white folks isn't going to last as the state cycles into another phase of oppression. 

Okay, I found Wilderson's response to arguments like the "empirics debate." He argues that that the grammar of suffering is a bad metric, but it looks like it's an appeal to macro scale stuff on this flow (when he's not rejecting the historical record): 

 

"In other words, why should we think of today’s Blacks in the US as Slaves and everyone else (with the exception of Indians) as Masters? One could answer these questions by demonstrating how nothing remotely approaching claims successfully made on the State has come to pass. In other words, the election of a Black President aside, police brutality, mass incarceration, segregated and substandard schools and housing, astronomical rates of HIV infection, and the threat of being turned away en masse at the polls still constitute the lived experience of Black life. But such empirically based rejoinders would lead us in the wrong direction; we would find ourselves on “solid” ground, which would only mystify, rather than clarify, the question. We would be forced to appeal to “facts,” the “historical record,” and empirical markers of stasis and change, all of which could be turned on their head with more of the same…The Black qua the worker. Orlando Patterson has already dispelled this faulty ontological grammar in Slavery and Social Death, where he demonstrates how and why work, or forced labor, is not a constituent element of slavery. Once the “solid” plank of “work” is removed from slavery, then the conceptually coherent notion of “claims against the state”—the proposition that the state and civil society are elastic enough to even contemplate the possibility of an emancipatory project for the Black position—disintegrates into thin air. The imaginary of the state and civil society is parasitic on the Middle Passage. Put another way: no slave, no world. And, in addition, as Patterson argues, no slave is in the world. If, as an ontological position, that is, as a grammar of suffering, the Slave is not a laborer but an anti-Human, a positionality against which Humanity establishes, maintains, and renews it coherence, its corporeal integrity; if the Slave is, to borrow from Patterson, generally dishonored, perpetually open to gratuitous violence, and void of kinship structure, that is, having no relations that need be recognized, a being outside of relationality, then our analysis cannot be approached through the rubric of gains or reversals in struggles with the state and civil society, not unless and until the interlocutor first explains how the Slave is of the world.

 

 (again, see the slavery as overt to covert with the prison system and the treatment of blacks on "welfare."

The prison system is undeniably evil, but to claim is is as evil as slavery is nonsense. Material welfare for Black men and women is immensely better this century than the last, and it's privileged debater bullshit to state otherwise. Ask someone who lived through being hosed and hung in the civil rights movement whether they think this decade is less violent than 1940. 

Well, it's not debaters making those conclusions, it's the authors we cite

 

"… The formation and astronomical growth of the prison industrial complex has become a commonly identified institutional marker of massively scaled racist state mobilization, and the fundamental violence of this apparatus is in the prison's translation of the 13th Amendment's racist animus. By "reforming" slavery and anti-slave violence, and directly transcribing both into criminal justice rituals, proceedings, and punishments, the 13th Amendment permanently inscribes slavery on "post-emancipation" US statecraft. The state remains a "slave state" to the extent that it erects an array of institutional apparatuses that are specifically conceived to reproduce or enhance the state's capacity to "create" (i.e., criminalize and convict) prison chattel and politically legitimate the processes of enslavement/imprisonment therein. ... In excess of its political economic, geographic, and juridical registers, the contemporary US prison regime must be centrally understood as constituting an epoch-defining statecraft of race: a historically specific conceptualization, planning, and institutional mobilization of state institutional capacities and state-influenced cultural structures to reproduce and/or reassemble the social relations of power, dominance, and violence that constitute the ontology …  of racial meaning itself (da Silva, 2007; Goldberg, 1993). In this case, the racial ontology of the postslavery and post-civil rights prison is anchored in the crisis of social meaning wrought on white civil society by the 13th Amendment's apparent juridical elimination of the Black chattel slave being." (Rodriguez 2011)

 

1) Black bodies can't access your white high theory <<card>>

This is absolutely racist. Black people can't think about theory? Did you miss Frantz Fanon's Lacanian approach to racism? W.E.B. Dubois approach to double consciousness? How racist is it to suggest that there is an intellectual threshold for Black bodies.

I don't agree with the argument I've presented, but it is one I've seen used in rounds. I don't remember the exact warrants, so if someone who's been hit with this knows what the specific argument was that would be helpful towards evaluating it.

 

2) Deleuzian politics is anti-black <<There are solid cards about why DnG's theories and conceptualizations of the world themselves are anti-black>>

I'm not sure how you could have a card homogenously describing the broad spectrum of diverse thought as anti-Black, since their arguments are more heterogeneous than any other author (literally the entire point of ATP  is to treat each chapter as a standalone).  But if you have it to post, I'd like to see.

-Don't take into account non-subjectivity as an inescapeable reality
-Don't analyze non-oedipal zones when critcizing psychoanalysis 
-Affect dismantles and imprisons the [black] subject
-Blackness is biologically coded, DnG don't really address that--their privileging of fluid subjectivity assumes a white subject

 

And of course there are the cards about their representations being bad (like nomads being colonialist, and their portrayal of precapitalist societies being racist/colonialist, but those aren't directly focused on the anti-blackness being discussed here

 

3) Adaptation will never be able to solve--civil society will ALWAYS be anti-black, all you'll do is make it mutate faster

This is another unsupported assertion of debaterspeak. What does it mean to "mutate"? What does it mean to solve? Certainly civil society kills fewer Black bodies than it did a century ago, and certainly the gratuitousness of violence is reined in (a century ago, you could openly torture Black bodies). Treating "solve" as a yes/no is ridiculous in this context.

Well wouldn't some assert that you still can today? At the very least violence (and in particular, police violence) against the black body still is okay in certain parts of the country. Also, I can't speak to this with 100% certainty, but I believe some authors assert that the prison system et al constitutes a form of torture.

 

4) Any action within a racist system is complicit with racism--a vote in negation is a tacit endorsement of the continuance of a racist system

....this is the kind of ridiculous debater jargon that's so frustrating to listen to. Would convicting George Zimmerman to the death penalty be "complicit with racism"? The others are answered above, but Jesus Christ this is insane

It may be ridiculous debater jargon, but that's how debates play out. It's not so much that convicting Zimmerman is in and of itself complicit, but that

1) It delays action (well the advocacy) because it masks the intractability of civil society [here's again where winning the UQ flow is crucial for the argument to make any sense]

2) Acting through the state (regardless of context) is bad. [This one is also polemic and reductionist, but that's what the cards say. This also requires winning UQ for it to have any weight]

  • 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...

×
×
  • Create New...