Jump to content

Lantern360

Member
  • Content Count

    249
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Lantern360 last won the day on November 22 2012

Lantern360 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

285 Excellent

About Lantern360

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 09/02/1995
  1. Lantern360

    Puar

    omg picture?
  2. Lantern360

    Puar

    I started a head first dive into Puar's work last year. I'd be more than happy to discuss any of the works. I'd encourage others to put their emails down too, these are very cool ideas that Puar has and I like the idea of starting an email chain just to discuss those ideas. apyorko [at] gmail.com
  3. I'll chime in for just a second, don't really want to stay in this mess of a thread for very long. On the note of being watched as you "live" as your chosen gender for 2 years, I think the main problem is that healthcare, psychology, and the general state workers who deal with this kind of gender study on the individual signifies that there is a particular and correct way to perform a gender. Right? Like, when a psychologist and state worker who are authorized to check in on you see that you are not wearing (assuming a binary MTF transfolk here) a sundress during your walk in the park but rather jeans and a t-shirt, they have the power to discontinue your time under the study and call your performance unsuitable/incorrect. That's a huge problem. When you see a normative female (assuming fully functioning sexual organs that the hospital assigns to that body) who wears an Aerosmith t-shirt and ripped black jeans, you and a psychologist probably have no doubt that they are performing a female identity (whatever that word means anymore), although potentially different from past norms. Psychological barriers to transitioning transfolk like this are wrong to assume that there is some mystical brightline of who are and are not performing gender correctly. Note: This comes kinda full circle back to the time old question of what constitutes man/womyn/female/male/queer body, which I have no answer to.
  4. lol. We were sitting together at our debate retreat and I did it just because. Some friendly partner hating haha.
  5. Did you just watch The Wolf of Wall Street or something? Who actually does this in a normal business setting?
  6. Interesting. I would actually rather know why you down voted my comment and gave Miro an up vote. If it's that I ignored the other half of conflict in my initial reaction, then it's because from my standpoint I have mainly witnessed and been subjected to what I described. If it's something else, I'd legitimately love to hear it.
  7. No offense taken! There's always research and a new theoretical horizon to be explored. The Trinity arguments were used against kritikal teams only, and an exploration into application to policy affs would be interesting. I remember Maggie (the 'S' in Trinity RS) found some literature talking about an aesthetic of policy making, presidential authority, heg, etc etc. I can ask her for cites to more policy oriented lit and report back.
  8. This has actually taken some form before. Michigan AP read an aesthetics aff (I think). What I do know for sure, is that one of our teams read a beauty aff last year. Anyone interested should be able to check out Trinity RS wiki for cites and an idea of what this could look like.
  9. I've gotten some messages about it and have been really busy, so sorry to the people I said I promised an email to. I'll post the cites as soon as I get off work on this page to make things easier.
  10. I actually think this will be leaning the opposite way, in that it's gonna take a lot more neg work. The mechanism (legalization) entails a lot of things by itself. Regulation, sales, management requirements, etc. So you have your generic K links about control and whatever other shit you can think of, which is good in many instances. The problem (not really a bad problem, just one the community needs to learn how to adapt to) is the actor. We have a non-FG actor, which means affs can now advocate the power of states, the federal, different bureaucratic organizations, people...what have you. That leaves room for some really squirrelly moves depending on what your interpretation of the "United States" is. With the FG topics, we reserved the ability to whip up a generic states CP to defeat an aff or two in case we didn't have a whole lot. With this new actor that has never before been experimented with, I'm excited to see what affs are going to do, but also a little nervous because CP ground is, um, a little not there. In other words, until we see what teams are going to try and pull on the aff, I recommend preparing some solid generic Ks and T to ensure some essence of ground in the first few rounds. With that said, a specific case neg is going to be needed for all the core areas on this topic to have adequate args - a lot of work, it would seem. Also, just curious: where are you attending uni?
  11. Aaaaand we have a topic. http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php/topic,5976.msg13278.html#msg13278
  12. Yupp, final wording comes out today. We had the following line-up for rez preferences: 6, 2, 1, 9, 7, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10.
×
×
  • Create New...