Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


TLF last won the day on April 4 2013

TLF had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2147483647 Excellent

About TLF

  • Rank
    the man in the mirror
  • Birthday 11/23/1985

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • AIM

Profile Information

  • Name

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. TLF


    generally speaking, south.
  2. TLF


    dropped arg is a true arg, according to flow-go-scripto-crypto-go-go-gadget-centrism. therefore by your own logic you have conceded you wrote the weekly standard article. round over. go home, you're drunk.
  3. TLF


    i think nathan wrote the weekly standard article
  4. TLF

    Strat Help?

    hi lia! matt was just saying that the 2ac was saying that running away from a physical home may be a choice people make, but not one to run away from acceptance of ones self. i would guess this was a response to an argument about how not everyone chooses to endorse their home, their physical home. first of all, just because lots of people think west is best doesn't mean lots of people aren't implicitly racist or hold implicitly racist views. maybe it's bc i live in nebraska but i know LOTS of people who are racists. they don't think they're racists, they don't commit hate crimes, but they're racist as hell. I'm not immune to that legacy myself. the point is you needn't be consciously hostile to minorities or part of any conspiracy to be a racist. for example, one might be a racist by passively believing that white people are responsible for most of the good things in the world. like nathan does. the question you answered, "do you think most people are hate minorities" isn't the same as " is western culture coded as white". i am incredulous that you don't believe that western culture is coded white, not that you don't think most people are hateful. i think that you keep avoiding this particular issue because you know it to be true. ask yourself, all those friends of yours you're thinking about - when you talk with them about "western culture" what nations are you referring primarily to? which scientists typically get included? who usually gets credit for those awesome cultural things you attribute abstractly to "the west"? basically, who is "the west" whose culture you're so taken with? you start out the conversation by admitting that you think that category isn't stable, but then spend the rest of the time trying to defend those who stabilize it in order to make their assertions. my point is that when it is made stable, it is typically done along racial lines (and that stable, racially oriented conception of the west is the dominant one now) which either erases the work of non white scientists and rights advocates, erases their influence on white thinkers, or marginalizes them as inferior in their respective fields. I'm not going to continue to argue on a high school message board, especially one designed to ask a strategy question of a novice round, that saying science and rights are reasons the west is best is racist. At this point i'm not convinced there's anything I could say to convince you otherwise. There's this guy, Edward Said, who sort of started this school of though called "post-colonialism" where they cover this in some depth. so i'm sorry if my criticism isn't "nuanced" enough for you, but i don't feel responsible for that level of exposition. he's pretty good and nuanced on the question of cultural imperialism being racist. you all should check it out.
  5. TLF

    Strat Help?

    if you don't think the concept of "western culture" is coded white, i don't know what to say except that i think you're being willfully ignorant. if it is coded white, then all of these attempts to ascribe universally things like science and rights to western culture are coded as attempts to attribute them to whiteness, making them racist.
  6. TLF

    Strat Help?

    the conversation involved a lot more than that one point of reference, and you can look back and see that, so let's not reduce nathan's endorsement of west is best to one misstated fact. also, science and human rights are not exclusively western. finally, "western" cultural supremacy has some pretty distinct racial correlation, to understate the position dramatically. i think your attempt to suggest it's not a racist statement to blanket position western culture over others is naive, and i'm being generous.
  7. TLF

    Strat Help?

    lol dude are you being serious? it's earlier in THIS THREAD that this dude says west is best. if you can't see how that might be construed as racist given the context of the conversation, especially after kevin already demonstrated this point pretty well, then i don't think you get to call other people unintelligent.
  8. Yes, I was aware they were the same person. I do think though that not everyone reading here would have the otherwise been aware enough to check ceda forums and there's a substantial part of this conversation essentially happening in a second place. I think you're right, that the issue that "scotus' side" of this conversation seem to want to defend is ultimately not necessarily a gender issue, and that that framing has distracted from the point y'all seem to wanna make. I will say that it's essentially scotus' fault. that's where that framing originated; it didn't seem to address obvious issue with intersectionality; and i think the "that's the status quo" defense of the use of the masculine/feminine correlation to agression/passivity in the first place is pretty unpersuasive, particularly in the context of the debate community. So I understand where voices like O'Gorman are coming from. i have trouble with this paragraph: "There's also another argument made that asking for civility is a way of precluding authentic interactions with otherness. I think that post conflates displaying authentic emotion with utilizing persuasive rudeness. I also think that post assumes that all emotional reactions are justified, which they're not. There is a time and place for anger, but that place is not where you are arguing against a team that hasn't been hostile to you and the time is not when you're on display as an example for the entire community to look towards. Sometimes, emotions should be suppressed, because human emotional intuitions are not perfectly designed." you acknowledge the line you're trying to draw is subjective and yet seem to display a decided lack of empathy for the reasons that any team, ESU in this context included, could possibly be angry enough not to suppress that emotion. you say it's not justified, i'd ask why not? you say it's out of place because the opponent wasn't hostile, but isn't that also subjective? hasn't it already been suggested that hostility may be born toward a system, out of a social location, and partially in response to an argument perceived by many to be itself disrespectful? when else but when on display for the community ought we express outrage? i also think it's interesting that you talk about "seeing enemies everywhere", given that was almost exactly what i thought about I read scotus "Feminized bodies and queer bodies have no place and no home in the kingdom wrought by Emporia." which is clearly not true and is what Paul Johnson is probably talking about when he talks about theory over the object. I'm not doing a tl;dr, but i guess i'd say Paul's point about platonic forms of dialogue being inapplicable and bad probably underpins my willingness to let other subjectivities and interpretations of what counts as "good speech practices" go without policing.
  9. in the interest of conversation (and because what i said last night about this being the only place i'd found dissecting the round as a round became untrue) y'all may wanna read this as well - http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php?topic=4766.0
  10. i don't think i was hostile to anyone but nathan, and like i already said, that's about a broader context than just this thread. "blippy" maybe, but i'm not here to win a debate. I was simply pointing out what seemed a decided lack of respect for the debaters in the round coming from most commentors. i'm reading lots of conversations happening about the issue in the round, this is one of the only one discussing the round as a round in terms of strategy and speaking style (as opposed to the ones discussing the implications of the issues for debate). While you're all certainly entitled to those opinions i'm actually the one trying to get you all to be humble and understand that maybe since those teams got where they did and has as successful of careers as they did and some pretty smart people validated many of their practices, that we should be a little more celebratory in the way we talk about them in the days after their last - and a historic - round. sorry, i guess i thought it was a cool round.
  11. my point was that maybe someone, amidst this diatribe against the 2ar, should point out that he is a pretty good speaker. actually.
  12. yeah that 2ar. i bet he never gets speaker awards...
  13. one of these post is answered by the others!
  14. setting aside all the other marginally relevant rehashings you're spouting - would you care you explain what you mean by that last question about Ede?
  15. TLF

    Strat Help?

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