Jump to content

YoungGun

Member
  • Content Count

    566
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

YoungGun last won the day on July 31 2012

YoungGun had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

285 Excellent

About YoungGun

  • Rank
    \m/ \m/
  • Birthday 07/05/1991

Profile Information

  • Name
    metalface
  • School
    UMKC '16
  1. Myself, Shree and AirmenSquid are judging H twice on the neg, round 1 and round 3. Also, are we giving out speaker points? If so, what scale should we use?
  2. Also, if anyone has any questions about things that are in my judge philosophy, feel free to post them here or shoot me a PM.
  3. Violence is a good one to start with. Welcome to the Desert of the Real! and Conversations with Zizek are also easier reads. Just don't do what I did and start with The Ticklish Subject. I totally got my ass kicked by that book before I really knew what was going on.
  4. I'm not saying the card you posted is talking about a thought experiment. That's where I agree with your characterization. Where I disagree is how you seem to be framing the alt/the ballot. The alternative nor the ballot actually give back the land. It's not a question of which particular action you take, but which pedagogy you endorse. Any pedagogy not focused on Indian land return always fails because it's the root of colonialism. Nowhere in the card is Churchill talking about the USfg actually giving lands back. He's talking about a reorientation of starting points within the left as a method of challenging colonialism. The one I'm referring to is about decolonizing the mind. Unless that's a typo...
  5. It's important to note, first and foremost, that the card you posted is not the card that makes the "imagine a world without the USfg" argument, just that we should pursue indigenous land return as a first priority as an act of impossible realism. Within that context, you are mostly correct. However, fiating to get the land back (and thus having to defend that the land actually gets returned) is the wrong way to read this alternative. All it says is that the left should choose to abandon whatever struggle they seem to like this week, and instead focus all efforts on getting the US out of Indian country. The ballot in this instance serves as an endorsement of that methodology. Obviously the ballot isn't going to return land to Native Americans, but it's important to orient ourselves around that method first, because it's the best way to solve [impacts of the aff]. Honestly, I'm not the biggest fan of this alt card. I usually find it more strategic to read the "decolonize the mind" alt. The argument being, we have to imagine a world (as a thought experiment) without the USfg. This is key to "throw off the colonial yoke" and allow for emancipatory movements to coalesce; the reason they aren't in the status quo is because they are locked into traditional forms of realism. That's why impossible realism is key- of course a world without the USfg seems impossible, but that's why it's done as a thought experiment.
  6. Assuming you are answering it from the perspective of a policy aff, disproving Lacan's view of the world is your best avenue. You should combine that with reasons the alternative doesn't solve (the alt tends to be the weakest portion of psychoanalysis Ks). The most common answers are: 1. Psychoanalysis can't create political change 2. Psychoanalysis is non-falisfiable 3. Science disproves psychoanalysis 4. Psychoanalysis is racist/sexist 5. Various cards that people cut from Andrew Robinson's articles (although honestly...those cards aren't that great) But, as I said earlier in the thread, psychoanalysis Ks can take on many forms. These are just some basic things that can apply to pretty much all psychoanalytic Ks.
  7. I agree with everything you've said except this part: It's definitely not a dead practice, it just doesn't get a lot of attention in some academic circles (particularly in the US) because a lot of other critical theorists just kind of write it off. It's still very much alive and kicking, you just have to dig a little for it. What people tend to forget is that psychoanalysis has a very broad and diverse literature base. For example, psychoanalysis is pretty big in film theory. Todd Mcgowan, for example, writes a lot about psychoanalytic interpretations of different films. It's actually a decent place to start reading psychoanalysis because you can watch the movie and be able to see for yourself the different concepts he brings out. I know it helped me a lot. If you want to go in a completely different direction, check out Black Sun: Melancholia and Depression by Julia Kristeva. It's basically a discussion of the ways in which melancholia and trauma are represented in art and philosophy, done through the lens of psychoanalysis. It's depressing as fuck (if you couldn't gather from the title) but super interesting. Also, Luce Irigaray is awesome. The Sex Which is Not One is one of my favorites.
  8. The Lacanian Left is ok but not nearly as helpful/useful as Lacan and the Political. Another good place to start that a friend turned me on to is "A Clinical Introduction to Lacanian Psychoanalysis: Theory and Technique" by Bruce Fink. It's a little more dense but still very doable. "Introducing Lacan" is another good one, although I found it ironic that it was illustration heavy given one of Lacan's central tenants was the failure of symbolizaion...
  9. It's interesting that you like this song so much. In my opinion is was the most obnoxious song on the album. I think it represents a trend in "mainstream" hip hop where the production far outshines the flow and the lyrics. Ross' verses were just straight up annoying and Jay's flow wasn't nearly as good as it could have been. Also, the whole time I was listening to Ross' first verse I couldn't help but think of this: http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3omh9p/
  10. I didn't think Yeezus was that great either after a couple listens (and this is coming from someone who's a big fan of that style of production). I kinda felt like, apart from a few songs (Black Skinhead, New Slaves, Blood on the Leaves), he kinda coasted his way through this album and tried to cash in on the experimental wave that's starting to build momentum (thanks to Death Grips, among others) without really putting a whole lot of effort into it. In fairness though, I've always kinda had that perspective on Ye's albums (ie there's a few songs that I like and the rest is kinda meh) apart from maybe 808s and Heartbreak. I'm not a Mac Miller fan, and Magna Carta was nothing new or interesting either. I liked Born Sinner, and I'm interested to see how he does when he drops the project he's doing with Kendrick. Also, what about 12 Reasons to Die by Ghostface Killah and Summer Knights by Joey Bada$$? I thought both of those albums were better than the 4 mentioned in the OP.
  11. Here's a card. You can underline it yourself. Slavoj Zizek, Professor of Sociology at the Institute for Sociology, Ljubljana University, 2000, The Fragile Absolute, p. 147-150 Consequently, there are two ways of subverting the Law, the ‘masculine’ and the ‘feminine’. One can violate/transgress its prohibi­tions: this is the inherent transgression which sustains the Law, like the advocates of liberal democracy who secretly (through the CIA) train murderers-terrorists for the proto-Fascist regimes in Latin America. That is false rightist heroism: secretly doing the necessary but dirty thing’, that is, violating the explicit ruling ideology (of human Rights, and so on) in order to sustain the existing order. Much more subversive than this is simply to do what is allowed, that is, what the existing order explicitly allows, although it prohibits it at the level of implicit unwritten prohibi­tions. In short — to paraphrase Brecht’s well-known crack about how mild robbing a bank is in comparison with founding a bank — how mild transgressing the Law is in comparison with obeying it thoroughly — or, as Kierkegaard put it, in his unique way: ‘We do not laud the son who said “No,†but we endeavour to learn from the gospel how dangerous it is to say, “Sir, I will.â€â€™98 What better example is there than Hasek’s immortal ‘good soldier Schweik’, who caused total havoc in the old Imperial Austrian Army simply by obeying orders all too literally? (Although, strictly speaking, there is a better example, namely the ‘absolute example’ [Hegel], Christ himself: when Christ claims that he is here merely to fulfil the [Jewish] Law, he thereby bears witness to how his act effectively cancels the Law.) The basic paradox of the relationship between public power and its inherent transgression is that the subject is actually ‘in’ (caught in the web of) power only and precisely in so far as he does not fully identify with it but maintains a kind of distance towards it; on the other hand, the system (of public Law) is actually undermined by unreserved identification with it. Stephen King’s ‘Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption’ tackles this problem with due stringency apropos of the paradoxes of prison life. The cliché about prison life is that I am actually integrated into it, ruined by it, when my accommodation to it is so overwhelming that I can no longer stand or even imagine freedom, life outside prison, so that my release brings about a total psychic breakdown, or at least gives rise to a longing for the lost safety of prison life. The actual dialectic of prison life, however, is somewhat more refined. Prison in effect destroys me, attains a total hold over me, precisely when I do not fully consent to the fact that I am in prison but maintain a kind of inner distance towards it, stick to the illusion that ‘real life is elsewhere’ and indulge all the time in daydreaming about life outside, about nice things that are waiting for me after my release or escape. I thereby get caught in the vicious cycle of fan­tasy, so that when, eventually, I am released, the grotesque discord between fantasy and reality breaks me down. The only true solution is therefore fully to accept the rules of prison life and then, within the universe governed by these rules, to work out a way to beat them. In short, inner distance and daydreaming about Life Elsewhere in effect enchain me to prison, whereas full acceptance of the fact that I am really there, bound by prison rules, opens up a space for true hope. What this means is that in order effectively to liberate oneself from the grip of existing social reality, one should first renounce the transgressive fantasmatic supplement that attaches us to it. In what does this renunciation consist? In a series of recent (com­mercial) films, we find the same surprising radical gesture. In Speed, when the hero (Keanu Reeves) is confronting the terrorist blackmailer who is holding his partner at gunpoint, the hero shoots not the blackmailer, but his own partner in the leg — this apparently senseless act momentarily shocks the blackmailer, who releases the hostage and runs away.... In Ransom, when the media tycoon (Mel Gibson) goes on television to answer the kidnappers’ request for two million dollars as a ransom for his son, he surprises everyone by saying that he will offer two million dollars to anyone who will give him any information about the kidnappers, and announces that he will pursue them to the end, with all his resources, if they do not release his son immediately. This radical gesture not only stuns the kidnappers — immediately after accomplishing it, Gibson himself almost breaks down, aware of the risk he is courting. . . . And, finally, the supreme case: when, in the flashback scene from The Usual Suspects, the mysteri­ous Keyser Soeze returns home and finds his wife and small daughter held at gunpoint by the members of a rival mob, he resorts to the radical gesture of shooting his wife and daughter themselves dead — this act enables him mercilessly to pursue members of the rival gang, their families, parents and friends, killing them all. . . . What these three gestures have in common is that in a situation of forced choice, the subject makes the ‘crazy’, impossible choice of, in a way, striking at himself at what is most precious to himself. This act, far from amounting to a case of impotent aggressivity turned against oneself, rather changes the co-ordinates of the situation in which the subject finds himself: by cutting himself loose from the precious object through whose possession the enemy kept him in check, the subject gains the space of free action. Is not such a radical gesture of ‘striking at oneself’ constitutive of subjectivity as such? And, since it's Zizek, here's his answer to himself: Slavoj Zizek, professor of philosophy at the university of Ljubljana, The Ticklish Subject: The Absent Centre of Political Ontology, 1999, pg. 380 So is there a third way between humanist hysterical shirking the act and the perverse overidentification with the act, or are we caught in the vicious cycle of violence in which the very revolutionary attempt to break radically with the past reproduces its worst features? Therein lies Muller’s displace­ment with regard to Brecht: the revolutionary act of self-obliteration preached by Brecht doesn’t work; the revolutionary negation of the past gets caught in the loop of repeating what it negates, so that history appears to be dominated by a deadly compulsion to repeat. The third way advocated by the Party Chorus in Mauser involves a nice paradox: you can maintain a distance towards your act of revolutionary violence (killing the enemies of the revolution) in so far as you conceive of yourself as the instrument of the big Other, that is, in so far as you identify yourself as the one through whom the big Other itself — History — directly acts. This opposition between direct overidentification (in which the violent act turns into the (self-)destructive orgy as an end-in-itself) and identifying oneself as the instrument of the big Other of History (in which the violent act looks like the means of creating conditions in which such acts will no longer be necessary), far from being exhaustive, designates precisely the two ways of eschewing the proper dimension of the ethical act. While the act should not be confused with the (self-)destructive orgy as an end-in-itself it is an ‘end-in-itself’ in the sense that it is deprived of any guarantee in the big Other (an act is, by definition, ‘authorized only by itself’~ it precludes any self-instrumentalization, any justification through reference to some figure of the big Other). Furthermore, if there is a lesson to be learned from psychoanalysis, it is that direct overidentification and self­instrumentalization ultimately coincide: perverse self-instrumentalization (positing oneself as the instrument of the big Other) necessarily becomes violence as an end-in-itself — to put it in Hegelian terms, the ‘truth’ of the pervert’s claim that he is accomplishing his acts as the instrument of the big Other is its exact opposite: he is staging the fiction of the big Other in order to conceal the jouissance be derives from the destructive orgy of his acts.
  12. It's a bigger time commitment, due in large part to the amount of specificity needed. In high school you could sometimes get away with just running generics all the time, whereas in college the preference tends to go to specificity. That doesn't mean generics aren't important, it just means you won't be getting very far with your cap K if all you have are topic links. I'm not sure what your local circuit was like, but you can anticipate everybody to go fast- oftentimes faster than you were used to in high school. It's not a huge deal as you will adapt just be ready for it. Also, Ks and K affs are a lot more common (even traditional "policy" schools like Northwestern and Georgetown bust out Ks from time to time), particularly in D2 (where UW is) and D3. Speaking drills. You should also be looking into generics and general things about the topic until we know what the resolutions might be. This is individual, but blocking out times where I work on debate, study, go to class etc. helps me a lot. It's also helpful (at least for me) if you try and get most of your classes on Tuesday/Thursday. You will miss a lot of Fridays and Mondays because of tournaments, and having your classes on Tuesdays and Thursdays cuts back on the amount of class you will miss. I know it sounds super lame to have all your classes on 2 days (especially since your class periods tend to be longer to compensate), but if you space them out a little bit it's isn't a huge deal. It's also nice to always have Wednesdays off, that way you have more time to work on whatever you need.
  13. Are you referring to the Baudrillard '94 (I think) cards? Because if so, that's not really the argument.
×
×
  • Create New...