Jump to content

Enterprise

Member
  • Content Count

    841
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Enterprise last won the day on August 19 2011

Enterprise had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

371 Excellent

About Enterprise

  • Rank
    Dancing Star
  • Birthday 05/02/1990
  1. Cut this book: Nietzsche and the Drama of Historiobiography
  2. I'm sure zizek is advocating for a return of stalinism.
  3. Why are you always one of my favorite people on this site?
  4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0sLpgK20is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35TbGjt-weA Necrobump.
  5. I thought they had the perfect mix of death, black humor, and the macabre. They weren't Pulitzer material, but they were quite enjoyable.
  6. This is why I enjoy Lemony Snicket.
  7. Enterprise

    Derrida

    I'd actually recommend against reading Spectres of Marx 1st. You're probably better off doing Of Hospitality and Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness. Move onto Rogues after that, and Adieu to Emmanuel Levinas after that. After this you'll probably have a good enough taste to get into Spectres of Marx. I recommend it in this order b/c the 1st two are basically deconstructions, but done in an accessible way. the next two are a bit more difficult, and the last is probably what you're after. If you are looking to only use this in debate, only read the 5th. If you want to actually be able to talk about an important figure in a meaningful way, and to understand the critique you're running, read them in that order.
  8. Enterprise

    Kanye

    If kanye is art, then http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35TbGjt-weA
  9. The 1st rule of running critiques is you need to read the literature. The 2nd rule of running critiques is that you NEED to read the literature. Please don't run baudrillard without picking up something about/by him. EDIT: I say the above because judging a HS round when one side is running baudrillard, and neither side knows what the hell is happening is painful to somebody who enjoys debate and philosophy. It also makes me/most judges take the easy way out. Most people are lazy, and will just vote on something other than a quagmire of a K.
  10. Well, your 1st post hits the nail on the head. My understanding is that whatever phenomenon appears before these thinkers, they can easily explain it away. There is nothing that could disprove them on the basis of something happening in reality. You seemingly have to confront them on their metholodgy or internal structure to their philosophy in order to make any inroads on disproving them.
  11. 1) You're conflating science with technology 2) They do have a problem with the scientific heuristic for understanding the world Really? Not liking increased spending is radically different than not believing in evolution. One is an opinion, a normative description of what should happen-- evolution is a verifiable fact about material reality. Why do you care what they say? Obama has been Bush 2.0-- the spinelessness he showed in the debt ceiling debate was amazing. He will cave and cut more. Vote obama?
  12. http://www.cross-x.com/statuses/all/page__member_id__177476 made me think of this thread. Oh kerpy.
  13. When straight women masturbate to gay male porn, does the same apply? Why is that unique to this genre? I assume dwarf/small people porn fetishizes their existence as well. If anything, this is a critique of all sorts of categories of difference that people could potentially fetishize. Except when in the hetero scene, the man is being raped by the woman. There are plenty of hetero scenes that have the female as dominant(not all in the S/M category, either). Why is that a bad thing? I mean, all sex acts have some power dynamic, but so do almost all interpersonal interactions. Also, I don't know why second-wave feminists would have trouble with what you're describing. Most deny the categories of male/female exist in any stable fashion in reality. There aren't a whole lot of traditional feminists around-- most have moved on from it. This needs more explanation-- the fact that I can penetrate a guy doesn't mean that I can't equally penetrate a woman. To say that guy-on-guy sex means guy-on-girl sex has a different property than we thought it did previous requires a lot more explanation. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. There are specific reasons why some gay guys hate topping and love bottoming and vice versa. To them, their positions are a matter of necessity. But this isn't heterosexist, at least not only heterosexist. If you don't think the discussion of femininity/masculinity doesn't apply to people who like their own sex, you have yet to interact with a bunch of lesbians or gay guys. I highly suggest you do, and understand that there is a massive amount of power-play going on even in non-sexual situations. The feminization of bottoms, the femininization of femmes(male and female) is pretty rampant. The vast majority of LGBT people aren't concerned with breaking down preconceptions of gender/masculinity/femininity-- they are actually, I'd say, more comfortable with the idea, at least, most us are. I think queer identities can expose why they happen to be arbitrary, but I highly doubt they will destabilize or change them. Too many queers are being assimilationist for that sort of politics to be viable. I mean, yes? The question isn't a moral one, at least not for me-- the fact is that there are some people who will prefer wanking off to actual sex. I think they are in the minority, but I do know of at least one person like that. Unless it is something that is inherently harmful to a certain group of people, there's no good reason to attack it. Lastly, the greatest problem that I have with porn(at least gay porn-- I think most hetero porn has this as the norm already), is the lack of condoms. I mean, if actors want to take another men without condoms, that's their choice. What I object to it how the pornography industry tries to turn the "bareback" genre of gay porn into something to be fetishized, which in turn likely influences other gay guys to have sex without condoms. For me, it isn't so much how porn interrelates to the actors, it is how the people who watch it might be subtly persuaded to engage in stupidly risky behavior.
  14. Fred Karger if you like queers and imperialism, Obama if you like spinlessness and not-as-bad imperialism.
×
×
  • Create New...