Jump to content

TheScuSpeaks

Member
  • Content Count

    5904
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    40

TheScuSpeaks last won the day on May 6 2010

TheScuSpeaks had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3334 Excellent

About TheScuSpeaks

  • Rank
    Retired
  • Birthday 02/12/1982

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://criticalanimal.blogspot.com

Profile Information

  • Name
    TheScu
  • School
    It changes a lot.
  • Location
    Warner Robins, GA, Atlanta, GA. Vestal, NY. Binghamton, NY. Ithaca, NY. Boca Raton, FL. Macon, GA. Arlington, VA. Washington, DC.
  • Interests
    People have time for hobbies? Seriously? I guess I follow politics. That's my "hobby."
  • Occupation
    college professor/debate coach. Except when I am not.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. TheScuSpeaks

    AT: Ecosophy

    Sheesh, I wish that was a tagline to something I had written. Like maybe something from here: http://www.phaenex.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/phaenex/article/download/4090/3163 (warning, .pdf).
  2. TheScuSpeaks

    DnG

    "The only modern myth is the myth of zombies—mortified schizos, good for work, brought back to reason." -Deleuze and Guattari, Anti-Oedipus, p. 335.
  3. So, the whole issue, including my article, is unlocked. There is also a good article in there on roadkill and policy, for people looking toward putting together an aff for next year's HS topic on infrastructure and anthropocentrism. Here is the link http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hypa.2012.27.issue-3/issuetoc
  4. See the title, here is a link to an article (currently unlocked, so read it now!) about feminism, policy, and roadkill. Great for critical affs. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2012.01295.x/full
  5. TheScuSpeaks

    Cap K Fw

    Nathan, fetish in the marxist sense has a particular use and history. It appears in the discussion of commodity fetishism in the opening chapter of the first volume of Capital. Basically, it is a system by which human relationships, societal interactions, and even internal psychic and libidinal investments become mediated by money and products. So the point isn't some sort of generalized critique of fetishism, but rather a particular form of relationship that is being criticized. This is actually a really good example, no? Seeing other human beings as merely being a possible source of financial resource probably leads to some pretty bad things--like overemphasizing the importance of rich ppl, and downgrading the importance poor ppl. Right, it might better if we value people as people, rather than as mere economic resources to be tapped. This really has nothing to do with one thing or another, but I am pretty convinced by David Graeber's argument in Debt that bartering is not the beginnings of money, but that money is actually developed by the state wishing to acquire taxes.
  6. TheScuSpeaks

    Cap K Fw

    Nathan, fetish in the marxist sense has a particular use and history. It appears in the discussion of commodity fetishism in the opening chapter of the first volume of Capital. Basically, it is a system by which human relationships, societal interactions, and even internal psychic and libidinal investments become mediated by money and products. So the point isn't some sort of generalized critique of fetishism, but rather a particular form of relationship that is being criticized. This is actually a really good example, no? Seeing other human beings as merely being a possible source of financial resource probably leads to some pretty bad things--like overemphasizing the importance of rich ppl, and downgrading the importance poor ppl. Right, it might better if we value people as people, rather than as mere economic resources to be tapped. This really has nothing to do with one thing or another, but I am pretty convinced by David Graeber's argument in Debt that bartering is not the beginnings of money, but that money is actually developed by the state wishing to acquire taxes.
  7. TheScuSpeaks

    Anthro K

    I shouldn't be doing this. I should be in bed, and if not in bed, I should writing on my new article. oh well. And Nathan, sorry for the drive by responses, but I doubt I will be checking back anytime soon. Also, I am not sure if this is the anthro k about animals, or the anthro k of the deep eco variety. If they say this, you should read your Derrida card (or whatever) explaining the point isn't that there isn;t a difference between humans and other animals, but rather that the problem is one dividing line, that will clearly delineate on one side all of humanity in its variety and presentations, and on the other side live all animal existence. Either a trait is so universal that many non-human animals will have access to it, or it is so particular that some beings we want to include as humans won't have access to it. The problem isn't one of difference, just not a singular difference. Instead there exists a multiplicity of differences, that doesn't just exist between humans and other animals, but also exists among humans. What the Aff team has to do is create an ethically important reason to limit their focus to just humans. After that, read some stuff about the desire for particular differences between species being the internal link to biopolitics (probably start with either Agamben's The Open, Matthew Calarco commentary on that book in Zoographies, or cite some of Ladelle McWhorter's "The Enemy of the Species" found in Queer Ecologies). The desire for species differentiation is behind genocidal logic, slavery, and general biopolitics stuff. Actually, the neg team doesn't have to win that util doesn't exist. If they win that part of that utilitarian calculus should include other animals or even the environment, they probably control the internal link to who gets to access util. And considering the most famous animal philosopher, Peter Singer, is a big league animal philosophers, they really should have some cards on hand, and be ready to go deeper into this debate than the team they are hitting. The same could be said of babies, or the mad, or the severally mentally handicapped. Or hell, even those who are merely asleep. This sort of logic that allows for us to exile vast numbers of humans from our moral and political projections prove the biopolitics arguments above. Okay, goodnight.
  8. TheScuSpeaks

    Ecofeminism Kritik

    I know this is about responding to ecofeminism, but I feel the need to point out that not all (maybe not even most) ecofeminists engage in essentialist arguments equating women with nature. For some examples, check out Greta Gaard's "Toward a Queer Ecofeminism" http://www.lespantheresroses.org/textes/ecology_toward_a_queer_ecofeminism.pdf Also check out Chris Cuomo's book, Feminism and Ecological Communities (there are many other resources worth citing here, but for brevity I won't). Also see Greta Gaard's important history on how ecofeminism became inherently viewed as being essentialist. http://gretagaard.efoliomn.com/Uploads/EcofeminismRevisited2011.pdf This is pretty good for putting the fight in context over issues of speciesism, as well. Which, depending on your strat, might be just the sort of internal link you need to get into a quick impact extension against this particular line of arguments. Here is another interesting article on ecofeminism and essentialism, and this one also has pretty good offense against the argument of accusing ecofeminism of being essentialist http://www.revalvaatio.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/gills_et_all-third_wave_feminism_a_critical_exploration.pdf#page=242 None of these exhaust the debate, and there are a lot of citations in those articles and book worth looking into as well. However, anyone running ecofeminism should not only be ready to prove that ecofeminism isn't essentialist, but that arguments contending ecofeminism is essentialist is both speciesist and sexist, and seeks to sabotage actual solvency for environmental concerns.
  9. TheScuSpeaks

    What Do You Think The Wacky Das/ Aff Plans Will Consist Of This Year?

    I didn't see this, yet, when I posted on another thread. This is what I said: "Possible aff for claiming anthro as an advantage might be to fund wildlife crossings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildlife_crossing Besides anthro, wildlide crossing seems to be key for preventing several keystone species from going extent, so you get standard policy-esque biodiversity impacts. Also, there are saving associated with preventing wrecks to human vehicles, which help offset the costs, and also at the same time it will save human lives and injuries. Not that is a huge impact, but just saying, there are pretty good preception spikes for politics disads, and savings will help spike spending/econ disads. " It really would be a fairly sound case.
  10. Btw, this would be good for those of you running Anthro. Also, many of you might be interested in my discussion of differentiating Butler's notion of precarious life to Agamben's notion of bare life.
  11. TheScuSpeaks

    Alien Threat Construction

    First, Schmitt totally foresees the alien question. And we will get back to this in the end of this brief discussion. Second, it has been a few years since I was heavily reading Schmitt, but... The friend/enemy distinction is how Schmitt defines the political sphere--in the same way the beautiful and ugly defines the aesthetic sphere, illegal/legal defines the legal sphere, good and evil defines the moral sphere, profitable and unprofitable defines the economic sphere, and so on. Schmitt is not saying the decision of friends and enemies are at all what we should be doing with politics, he is saying it is the very nature of the political to define friends and enemies. Anyone who tries to deny this is simply lying, hiding, or confused about what enemies they are creating. Thus, the political concerns the state's relationship to other states in figuring out who are its friends, and who are its enemies. There is nothing particularly sinister here with the way that Schmitt is using the term enemy, though it might sound that way. By enemy Schmitt means the just enemy, not the unjust enemy. Let us pause here. Anyone who has read accounts of the first World War have probably been struck by stories of in which soldiers in other sides might decide to suspend fighting to have a soccer match, or celebrate the holidays together. All of that seems odd, because, well, aren't they trying to kill each other? And of course we can turn to the Geneva conventions on Prisoners of War. They are to be treated well, they are to be released at certain points, etc etc. How do you go from having someone trying to kill you, and when you overwhelm that person, suddenly treat them as an honored guest in many ways? This is possible because you recognized your enemy as enemy, but also as legitimate. However, as Schmitt notes, that sort of view of a legitimate enemy has tended to fall away. Now when we wage wars, we wage them on behalf of humanity as a whole. When we fight enemies, we fight people we do not see as fully human. We invent new legal constructs (enemy combatants) to not have to treat our new enemies as prisoners of war. As war becomes increasingly seen as policing missions (and as policing becomes increasingly warlike), we come to see our military actions as what Schmitt refers to as "social pest control". It is frightening and horrifying to imagine military actions as the same as hiring your local exterminator, but increasingly that is what military actions are viewed as, and pests and vermin are how we increasingly come to view our enemies and opponents. This brings us back to aliens. If we turn to page 54 in The Concept of the Political (1996 edition). "Humanity as such cannot wage war because it has no enemy, at least not on this planet". See, aliens. The way William Rasch reads all of this in his book Sovereignty and its Discontents (which if you are using Schmitt in debate, is sorta a must read), is that many of the lefty sort of political philosophers we like to read in debate are trying to end the political. He sees in the work of Agamben, Hardt and Negri, Deleuze and Guattari (among others), and also certain pacifist philosophers as justifying the worst sorts of violences. If you have a world of the multitude, or a world of pacifism, or what have you, what do you do with a disturber of the peace? Such a person cannot be seen merely as a criminal or an enemy. Instead such a person is seen as someone who threatens the very social order, the very possibility of your utopian dreams. And with such a person, any violence and any oppression becomes justified. Now obviously I don't agree with all of this. Or at least not fully. Or not in all of the details. But these are important questions for those of us on the critical left. And you probably shouldn't confuse Schmitt with any sort of lefty (this is a criticism of, among others, Chantal Mouffe), regardless of how your read his nazism, he certainly was an authoritarian. I hope this clarifies some things.
  12. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2012.01280.x/abstract Right now you can get get the whole article off their website, without needing an academic access to Hypatia. Abstract: "This article utilizes the work of Judith Butler in order to chart a queer and feminist animal studies, an animal studies that celebrates our shared embodied finitude. Butler's commentary on other animals remains dispersed and fragmented throughout books, lectures, and interviews over the course of the last several years. This work is critically synthesized in conjunction with her work on mourning and precarious lives. By developing an anti-anthropocentric understanding of mourning and precarious lives, this article hopes to create ontological, ethical, and political concepts that resist the violence of the present. In so doing, the article contrasts Butler's understanding of precarious life with Giorgio Agamben's understanding of bare life in order to conceive of precariousness as constitutive of social reality. This intellectual labor lays the groundwork for understanding mourning the lives of other animals as a political act that produces new communities, rather than as an individuating and isolating emotion."
  13. TheScuSpeaks

    A History of Cross-x.com

    Heck, what are most of the old timers up to in this thread? I'm, as usual, really easy to stalk online. I coach debate at Mercer University and adjunct profess. I am ABD at Binghamton University, and fairly close to becoming Dr. Scu. I am getting married this summer. Life is good.
  14. TheScuSpeaks

    A History of Cross-x.com

    That would be helpful. I had good answers for a while, but I have lost track of most everyone who hasn't stayed active in the debate community.
  15. TheScuSpeaks

    A History of Cross-x.com

    Uhm, first, I don't know how Burns is doing these days, but I am curious. History: Oren Cass (Nero, Oren spelled backwards) founded the website in 1999, he was a high school debater at the time. Mostly the website at first consisted of Oren talking to himself under different puppet accounts. The website attracted some people, but it also attracted random trolls. There were a small handful of us talking debate theory, etc. back in the day. We asked for mods to be installed in order to handle the situation. At the same time, there was a private forum, named Gomerland, that we all hung out in. So, the website had a strange tension between Gomers and non-Gomers, and Oren decided to have elections in order to handle the tension at the time (full disclosure, I am the current moderator of GomerLand, such as it is). Moderator elections became regularized. In various forms, for the first four years or so of the website, the Gomers represented many of the more senior members of the website. It was always a little silly, and a horrible secret society. For a while Oren closed cross-x, and created a website called InASphere, with one of the spheres being DebateSphere. It was a great idea, and he should have kept at it. But it didn't make a lot of money, and he went to college. So, he killed InASphere, and restarted cross-x. He never migrated the posts from InASphere, so those posts are lost. Somewhere around now Oren approached Kerpen about buying the website. Kerpen was running his own, competing, HS debate website. However, it wasn't doing very well and cross-x was bought by Kerpen. Kerpen decided to create the office of the SuperMod, and the first one was not Mat, but Nate. The SuperMod was held by a few people during this time, before Mat finally won election. At some point Nate divided up the forum "specific arguments" into the various kinds of sub arguments, creating the critique forum. Other forums matter, of course. But the K forum was my major watering hole in these boards. I can't say if it was as good as people made it out to be, but I remember my early participation with a great deal of fondness. I think the key was a group of us trying to figure out what certain authors were saying. Anyway, it was a good time. And I think it was helpful to all sorts of people. Terry running the coaching forum and Tomak in Novice were forums of similar scope for actually being helpful. Mat's helm at Misc was not so helpful, but also marked that forum with a particular charm and usefulness. I'm bad with knowing what the important parts of cross-x history are vs. the unimportant. I've met a lot of really smart, and helpful people off of here.
×