Jump to content

freewayrickyross

Member
  • Content Count

    281
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

freewayrickyross last won the day on November 28 2013

freewayrickyross had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

110 Excellent

About freewayrickyross

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday January 1

Profile Information

  • Biography
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNsvb3vVWhw


    This is just a character I play on the internet.

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. omg how is this voted down! this may be the greatest baudrillard review ever. Also DDoS can get you incarcerated, u really shouldn't fuck with it: http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2268703/man-sentenced-to-jail-for-ddos-attacks-on-police-and-oxbridge-websites Thats over a year, I know its britain but thats felony shit, don't do it.
  2. Heidegger is very much influenced by Nietzsche. And one could argue that it is the Nietzsche he borrowed that he uses to radicalize phenomenology to the point that it collapsed in on itself. Digger's arg is freddy did not do ontology properly, because of the will. Nietzsche says: do nothing (but at the same time strive to get to the post-human[lets say that instead of ubermensch]). "Take your time/ hurry up/ choice is yours/ don't be late" its not a paradox its a contradiction. A fissure in his groundless ground. I have read this article. And I probably can take them at their word. But I really really REAAAALLLLY like to read primary texts for myself. And I don't sprachen the deutch. So I kind of want to wait until I am in possession of most of the facts until making a judgement on this. But Slate's shit is probably true and his philosophy was entwined with his anti-semitism. Consequently this is also an indictment of post-structuralism writ large. Is there any piece of post-structuralism that is not tainted if its foundation is built on hokey racist tropes?
  3. if anyone already said this sorry. But you're talking about Foucault here. And the way people use to phrase it in debate(and in academia) is that "truth and power are co-productive". But we entirely miss the french play on words! Savoir y pouvoir!
  4. We talking about Nietzsche, Heidegger, Nietzsche-Heidegger, or Heidegger-Nietzsche? They both so similar. Nietzsche pulled out of the state died stateless, but embraced race. Heidegger didn't throw himself behind the Nazi racial programme (In what has been published[i have not read the black books yet]), but he embraced nationalism(whether opportunistic or not). They both found Hegel(the ultimate idea[eidos]) in different concepts: state and race. What else. I think they both served in wars and had the job of monitoring balloons that spotted chemical warfare or something. You'd have to verify that one though. Heidegger's main arg against Nietzsche is that the will to power, becomes a will to will.....in debate terms: Willing is goals(telos) based philosophy which is therefore "managerial"(to use simple debate words). It exposes the fault in Nietzsche, which in my opinion distinguishes the two types ways in which to read Nietzsche. The fault is that he borrows western perception of eastern karmic religions to argue for the transvaluation of all values and "saying yes to everything". This means he takes the most conservative element of eastern religion: doing nothing. Then he sez each and every one of us is super awesome because you can create and will things in to being through your power. So he is simultaneously saying: do nothing because everything will change of its own accord AND do everything! be the most epicurean of epicureans be the avant-garde ex nihilio creative force of a future group of ubermenschen intellectuals(who he is always addressing his intros to). Which is why there are two ways of reading Nietzsche which I like to caricature as either 1.HItler or 2.Fanon. 1.Nietzsche can be read as an objectivist justification of the power the powerful have. Because trying to destroy someone and then having them survive means you made them much stronger! 2.It can also be read as a mind and will strengthener of oppressed peoples. Because the quotidian shitshow that is life in poverty or without self-determination makes you stronger if you can get through that day.
  5. Chaos: I believe high school kids (to a certain degree) are lucid, which is why I used the qualifier "barely". But this "barely" evidences a transitional period of half child and half adult(to be really oversimplistic). Meaning yes they can make decisions for themselves, but should be protected from certain forms of exploitation. If this is patriarchal or fascist or whatever its the lesser evil when compared to complicity with pedos. I would also like to point out that any defusing of Cruz's guilt through moral relativism(because he hadn't progressed to say full on rape) ignores the fact that his trajectory meant the exploitation was only going to become worse and more frequent. Which is why this guy is wrong, because segregating a pedo like that from the rest of society is a good thing: Also because you are not aware of the recidivism rate of pedos.
  6. Very broad strokes but I'd say(in high school) that west coast is in to po-mo(colloquially "high theory") and east coast is in to identity politics. Midwest and south are both very policy imo.
  7. Spanos sez the US fights vietnam over and over again. So as a result of the trauma of losing that clusterfuck of anti-communist paranoia we're constantly trying to like overcome it with all this asymmetrical warfare. Dude was in a german POW camp and saw the fire-bombing of dresden in ww2. So he really doesn't like war, especially modern "total war". He is honestly really good at applying Heidegger to politics/IR. But thats just like the kernel of his philosophy. Hes mostly deployed in debate nowadays by people reading critical affs and accusing the neg of "ethical conditionality" or condo ethics or whatever your region calls it. He is a very rewarding read, but very dense. Sometimes it can take a nice chunk of time just to research up enough context to understand a single paragraph of Spanos. But its very rich stuff. I think if you want to get introduced to his thought that is used in debate I"d suggest reading the two ethical condo cards by him and his identity politics link to Heidegger. They might take a bit to understand, but if you can explain it to a judge I think they're decent args. Virilio is arguably the easiest K ever here it is in four words(or two words and two numbers): "2 fast 2 furious" Heres the tl;dr" Since the dawn of time! Man(hes says "man" provocatively, so as not to not conceal the fact that patriarchal culture was dominant for a large portion of time and hes going to use that as part of his analysis) has ridden vehicles! Firstly man used woman as a vehicle. The womb being the original vehicle(pregnancy) and the metaphor of "riding" with sex is also implied (lol i'm serious he says this). Then man rode horses, etc. The whole point of this acceleration and "need for speed" if you will, was that Man is a predator and the way in which a predator survives is to overtake their prey. Thusly speed(acceleration) becomes the engine of "man's" ontological development(or evolution if that makes it easier to understand). But Man also preys on humans through "war". Speed and acceleration make war more destructive over time. He uses the metaphor of defense and offense to illustrate this. Prior to WW2 defense was a viable tactic for winning a war. Virilio argues that the early arms race of Greece (and neighbors) that led to the hoplyte's long ass spear was an illustration of this need to visit violence across longer and longer distances. And even though this acceleration continued from Hoplytes to today's drones, during ww1 defense was still the best option. One can read about a vein of military thought in the 1900s (not in Virilio, but whatever) about the "cult of the offensive" in which military intelligentsia argues that morale, cavalry, and bayonets were the decisive elements of war. But the fact was that by that point the decisive element of war was artillery and machine guns. Which were obviously designed to slow down and absolutely destroy infantry and cavalry pushes. But by the time technology gets speed up to the "blitzkrieg" level defense is no longer viable. WW2 becomes a series of offensives, because defense is untenable. Virilio compares Hitler's pillboxes across france as tombs (just as he paints modern cities as giant tombs[awaiting the bomb]) because there was no way they could withstand the massive offensive of D-Day: the "cult of the offensive" had proven true, not because of "morale", but because of technological development(the need for speed). This impossible to stop offensive then took the form of nuclear weapons which was where defense just become out of the question and instead to survive we imagined that we were all held hostage by each other's nukes. Since ww2 50% of casualties in wars are civilians(Virilio sez this). War is no longer military vs. military but society vs. society. This means that when the other team sez "heg good". What they're really saying is: "we need to be able to deliver violence against civilians around the globe faster than we currently do". BUT THATS JUST THE SPEED PART! Virilio also argues that humans are essentially(in their essence[being]) mistake making things. So we always do something with a goal and something (over a long enough period of time) will go wrong. This is the "accident". So I could also say against a heg good aff: "you try to reorder the world in this perfect unipolar formation corresponding to your ideology, but the fact is that you really don't know that that will solve the problem of north korea or whatever." In the same vein as Heidegger this managing from "over and above" is always bad. So not only do you have no solvency because you're simply trying to fit the world in to your schema of ideology which won't solve, BUT ALSO such accelerations lead to more violence against civilians. Thats called offense and defense. Econ same thing: accidents happen. So speeding up the financial system only means George Soros can corner the Bhat more effectively. And building up the financial system means that the inevitable "accident" will be all the more devastating to our ontological savoir faire. Both authors really borrow hard from Heidegger. Spanos is way more willing to admit this than Virilio. They both pretty much equate "enframing" with militarism. Which Burke, Campbell, and Der Derian do to some extent as well.
  8. Relationships of unequal power are exploitative. Debate also breeds people that think they're elite and therefore above the law(even though they have literally never earned a paycheck outside the debate milieu lol). I do not "advocate" murder. I desire a future in which violence is visited upon him, but I in no way will try to manipulate conditions to make such an event happen. I am simply a spectator not an advocate. He did more than just make a "free market" purchase between equals. He used his position of power to exploit the less powerful. The less powerful in this case are, barely fucking lucid, children which makes this abuse of power especially egregious. The psychological effects on these kids will reverberate for decades, increasing the probability that they in turn will perceive such exploitation as "normal" and continue the cycle. This itself is enough for me to wish violence upon an individual. But even this extreme violation of morals is further exacerbated by the fact that he dwelled in my community(debate). This makes me especially angry because it means there is a chance he could have hurt kids that I have a rapport with. On top of those two situational conditions the overarching context is that pedos on the internet are all over the fucking place and there really aren't that many fbi/cops taking them down. It is mostly anon out here taking down pedos, so if vigilantism is necessary to stop such monstrous behavior then so be it. Its cyber vigilantism anyway, not your traditional "violence". Maybe the FBI should contract op darknet to make them legit or something? I didn't treat it as part of the punishment. I just hoped it would be. And it is absolutely not fucked up. Hes not in jail for a bag of weed homeboy. Your liberal sympathies wishing for a fucking pedo to be safe from tasting his own medicine is "incredibly fucked up". With kant in your picture you gonna tell me its not a categorical moral fact that abuse of power is evil? Me saying I hope he is hurt is not an advocacy for the squo conditions of incarceration or the institution of incarceration in general. I hope that prison is abolished and I hope that if prison is not abolished it develops better conditions for its prisoners. I simultaneously hope for both of those alongside my hope that this monster gets kicked around. I will always celebrate when a bully has violence visited upon them, because it is what they have given to others. This sycophancy where you always normalize the violence of the powerful and pathologize the violence against the powerful is tired liberal garbage: you're just a police(wo)man. Maybe if I rephrase it I won't trigger your liberal sympathizing with a pedo? How about this: "oh boy I hope violence doesn't get visited upon him, but do you have any idea how prisoners and guards treat pedos in prison?"
  9. My question is why would you argue "conspiracy theory not real" if you're going to do any prep for this aff at all it should be cutting some other obscure "conspiracy theory" that subsumes cthulu. The neg should be conceding all conspiracy theories everywehre are true: is the aff's fault for opening up the floodgates on stupid. ] Then you got yourself A David Icke vs. H.P. Lovecraft debate lol.
  10. This argument is bad because 1. There is no mechanism for ensuring said speech gets given, so even if you win everything else you literally don't solve for it. (what AGL125 said) For real though the logistics it takes to get an entire school in to an auditorium. That trades off with instruction time. In what fucking world can a person just say "hey superintendent and/or principal I will give a speech to the entire school, fuck the common core!" Its laughable and betrays a deep misunderstanding of status quo schooling. 2.Speech is a medium for education which is far less effective than debate (what consult vermin said) 3.Who says the people running these critical affs are experts? Maybe they want to learn about it. In fact I'm pretty sure that is the fundamental claim in any response to SSD good. That current squo schools may not go in to: ""interrogating Islamophobia/American exceptionalism/American hegemony/the Middle Passage". This means that debate is important for them to learn these things. (what Miro said) I guess you all made these points, nm. Edgehopper said: "we didn't come here to talk about the best way to fight Islamophobia/antiblackness/whatever. We came here to debate ocean policy, and that's what we're prepared to talk about." Ok, but now you just proved their framework args right. EVEN IF ALL YOUR SHIT IS TRUE: If they have to break the game so be it, if the ress is rigged to not allow us to discuss these key social issues. And thats a fallback arg!!!! We can debate all day about whether or not debate should be one way or another. But you by making this argument have made the debate for the judge a decision between "fight Islamophobia/antiblackness/whatever." or...defend traditional framework for the good of the community! I just don't see a world in which anyone votes for protect the imagined community over solving real world harms. But then again some judges are bad, some judges are racist, and some honestly see themselves as defenders of an illusory golden age of purity in this inherently profane game. Preparation, basically predictability can be mitigated by a number of defensive args and when compared to any probability whatsoever of solving some sort of identity based violence should lose every time. Then smarmy motherfucker in Rostrum sez "Go get on the topic selection committee", but the fix is in if you didn't already fucking know. Only people on the inside keeping others out sez: "accessibility is perfect, just participate!" First of all some of these look like potentially very promising debates and others look like bad affs that are pretty easily beaten. Secondly I think its very important to know that you aren't going to get a feel for what they do/be/are by just reading their advocacy or RoB or whatever. How is that any different from policy affs? You still have to figure out their advantages: internal links and impacts. Their solvency for their advantages. The research level required to prepare is comparable and hopefully they have wikis. If not thats their loss of a defensive arg. You can prep for some of these just off the advocacy. While prepping to beat these teams do you think your debaters will learn MORE or LESS about these critical(in both senses of crucial and kritikal) issues than they would in normal schooling? So in my opinion it is not a trade off between two frameworks of "good" education. Its a question of rewarding laziness(i.e. not prepping) vs. rewarding dissident education(i.e. not towing the line for the dominant paradigm) when it come to args like the one you're making. The genie is out of the bottle, so stop playing dumb and just debate it out.
  11. I think two great options are Cap and Wilderson. In my opinion anthro is casual shit whose impact turn (or internal link turn) analysis becomes less and less convincing the more detailed it gets as the round goes forward. I enjoy a K with the opposite effect: one of becoming ever more precise and convincing as the round goes forward. Against Identity politics I think other identity politics which contradict with the aff's identity politics works (i.e. Wilderson). I also think that Ks that say current identity politics bad, [x] type of identity politics good (i.e. orthodox marxism). So in the specific example of Centennial's model minority aff I might put a general "junior partners of white supremacy" card in the 1nc. To throw them the ball like: "Are you able to explicitly explain why this isn't you?". If they can't then you can go for this shit/generic link. If they can then you need to go farther in on how they cause the problem they are addressing. Or try a new link if you think you can get one from their 2ac. Or start working on articulating exactly what harms play out in aff vs. alt world. Its pretty hard to give generic guidance on how to answer in final rebuttals, will be the same guidance as any other arg: give comparative explanations(as in why your alt is just barely better than their aff) of your internal link turn stories and impact stories. The issue with this K against this aff is that the aff is very strategic and pretty much already is the perm. Thats why you have to get them to explain their alt in 1ac cx so that you can draw a distinction between the two alts in your text of the 1nc alt. As Nathan said cap is also a great option. But you won't win just reading some generic "identity politics bad" link. You have to win a direct trade off. "a trade off with what?" you say. Well, with the alt. Your alt has to be centered on worker consciousness. When workers understand that capitalism is not in their interest is the only time in which capitalism can be overthrown. What prevents workers from realizing capitalism is not in their interest is identifying with myriad culturally contingent groups rather than TYING THEIR IDENTITY TO THE MATERIAL CONDITIONS THAT MADE SUCH AN IDENTITY POSSIBLE. It is not an ignorance of race, it is understanding race by tying it to class. If workers do not understand they have a common political agenda by virtue of their class position (because in capitalism labor/capital is an irreconcilable antagonism) then overcoming capitalism becomes impossible. So "model minority" affs, rather than being a link of omission, actively work to make an anti-capitalist revolution less likely. Various different "identity' groups (mostly composed of workers) fight each other for an ever shrinking wage packet rather than unifying under a common cause to liberate everyone from need. And this is where you can explain how liberation from necessity solves the root cause of their harms. In this context the idea of "whiteness" was created in the US by the ruling class after Bacon's rebellion to split the Black, Native, and White workers in to antagonistic fiefdoms even though they have common political goals. This has been so effective in the US that hundreds of years later we still have law enforcement (consciously or unconsciously) enforcing white supremacy. Looking back from our point in time it becomes hard to see the problem as anything but racism. The truth is that this racism is contingent on a certain historical trajectory: one which needs to split workers to extend its rule. Liberating all people from necessity would mean that individuals in Ferguson who owe money on a speeding ticket for 5 years would have the money to pay the ticket because they wouldn't be spending every last penny just surviving. This means that all the people in Ferguson who were targeted by the police to extract their wealth with tickets and criminal charges could afford lawyers because they are not scraping the bottom of the barrel just to make ends meet. This means that solving the root cause of capitalism solves the harms of racism. No doubt there will still be those few outright racist cops for a generation or two, but democracy only guarantees rights to those with the privilege to employ someone else to use them. And seriously who in their right mind after looking at the facts in Ferguson is not convinced that cap is the root cause? They were fucking ordered to go drum up money! They literally by force redistributed wealth from the working class to the middle and upper class. This is liberal democracy, a collaboration between middle and upper classes to the detriment of the worker. Seriously dwell on that: written police policy was to extract wealth from the working class(predominately Black) people of Ferguson. This is Stalin in reverse! Instead of robbing (allegedly) wealthy peasants and giving it to the state. Our police rob the poor and give it to the state! It is very much obvious to me from recent events that United States racism (prison slavery and a law enforcement dedicated to robbing them) is a symptom of capitalism. It is a cover story for the extraction of wealth(on both the right and left). It is a distraction from the root cause(when not tied to material conditions). Also you can run framework. In response to ethical condo I think its somewhat justifiable to attack from statist and anti-statist positions even if it comes to that. But, you can also justify it by saying they were too vague in 1ac cx so you thought they were going to pivot. And if you're running historical materialism/dialectical materialism then it jives with framework's love for the state. Because the state is currently bad because its just a weapon in the hands of the bourgeois. But in the socialist stage it can be used for the betterment of the proletariat. Before it withers away in the communist stage. I really don't think you should ever run Nietzsche against just about any critical aff.
  12. Vote me down? You should feel bad for NOT wanting violence visited upon this monster.
  13. Most popular story on NY daily news: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/teacher-kid-porn-arrest-stuns-colleagues-article-1.2141418 Now the debate community must pay for some of the sins of one monster. "anyone who might have information on the case to call the feds at 212-384-2166"
  14. i hope he gets shanked in prison
  15. necromancing I wanted to re-visit this as I have recently done some research on this context. First of all we can frame Holodomor in its place in time. Holodomor was massive starvation in the Soviet Union taking place mostly in Ukraine. The direct culprit for this starvation is the forced requisitioning of grain under Stalin. A policy that was a reversal from Lenin's "New Economic Program" or NEP. A policy that took in to account the Soviet Union's "backwardness"(productivity[progress in to capitalism]) and realized that there has to be a few things: 1. Model farms. Some large land holdings would not be expropriated by the state to provide models of organization/production for other farms. (i.e. would still be capitalist) 2.Private ownership was left to some extent in place. Much of the product produced would be owned by the owners of the tools of production(i.e. would still be capitalist). These steps were necessary for the Soviet Union to develop enough so that socialism was possible. Because their technological level at that point was not robust enough to liberate everyone from necessity. The NEP also signaled a departure from the previous policy of "war communism" which was forced expropriation of all private lands. This policy failed for a number of reasons. The most important being that 1.Many farms did not increase or even maintain levels of production, because they knew they would not be entitled to the product of this labor during "war communism". 2.State ownership of the land was not the mandate received from the country. The peasants wanted redistribution of land. They wanted practical economic implementation of the political "liberation of the peasants" that happened awhile before. They wanted their own plot of land where they didn't have to give a big chunk of their labor to some landlord who didn't do shit but be born in to the right family. In fact many peasant militias before, during, and after the revolution seized land and distributed it. The Bolshevik government instead went against these movements and nationalized all the land. A policy that wouldn't be reversed until NEP. Lenin dies, the individuals in the party who supported NEP (Bukharin and Rykov) are persecuted as "kulaks". And Stalin makes Kulaks in to a thing even though by this point there are probably no Kulaks left. And Stalin returns to "war communism". One can explain this move as the external result of Stalin's internal plays for power(in order to crush the "right" he had to implement non "right" policies). It can also be explained through Stalin's pettiness and cruelty that he was sent to expropriate people's grain and kill people who held back during "war communism". So he was not having his revenge on people who had not bent to his will. It can also be explained as one of Stalin's misunderstanding's of Marxism (this theory is unlikely because it assumes Stalin thought he was a good guy) that he felt socialism was possible in such an underdeveloped country. It can also be explained by Stalin's focus on industrialization. So the why is a confluence of conditions: Stalin's need for industrialization at all costs, coupled with the need to pragmatically destroy political allies, and the existence of a group of people who had wealth he could use to industrialize who had "wronged" him (peasants). Stalin stole their grain to the point they did not have seeding grain. He sold the grain to foreign countries and used the money for his industrial pet projects. At the same time he locked down travel throughout the USSR and he already had an iron grip on the media. So the story of Holodomor got less press than it deserved. I do not necessarily think race or ethnicity played too large a part. I would argue that this was in fact a result of an upper class attempting to extract the wealth of a subordinate class. It is not technically "capitalism" because there is not profit per se.....but....pretty much a highly intensified capitalism hidden in socialist euphemisms. So the root cause claim still applies. I would like to add a little context to this as well. Lenin was first of all part Jewish. And secondly the Tzars were anti-semitic as FUCK! They became more and more anti-semitic as they lost their grip on power. To be straight up honest even if I was some wealthy industrialist in Russia just before and during the civil war: If I was a Jew I would most certainly side with the reds over the whites. The white army composed of monarchist and militarist elements was all about killing Jews. This also meant that revolutionaries were disproportionately Jewish, because the alternative was death or exile, leading to the right in every country(including the US) continually referring to the revolution with anti-semitic epithets. But you seem to be under the impression that the revolution as perceived by Jews at the time was threatening. I disagree, I think the exact opposite is true: Russian Jews were either choosing which country to go in to exile in or which revolutionary party to join as the czar's pogroms accelerated. Stalin on the other hand was absolutely an anti-semitic genocidal maniac. He utilized anti-semitism to oust Kamenev and Zinoviev. And it became a more and more dominant piece of his platform as time went on. Stalin represents both thermidor and bonapartist stages of the revolution. Much like Napoleon he become the embodiment of what the revolution fought against, but had to couch his domination in the discourse of the revolution. So instead of saying "I'm going to rob all the peasants worse than the czar and landlord ever did. Then use that money to bestow gifts on the upper echelon of bureaucrats, just like feudalism!" He said "Kulaks are the class enemy and we must confiscate their wealth for socialism." So I still think the root cause claim can apply. Its a question of how you establish what they were doing: 1. Take their word for it? 2. Analyze how it practically played out and label it yourself
×
×
  • Create New...