Jump to content

SteveandSol

Member
  • Content Count

    83
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

SteveandSol last won the day on February 28 2014

SteveandSol had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

19 Good

About SteveandSol

  • Rank
    Varsity

Profile Information

  • Name
    Mclovin
  • School
    Caddo
  1. Alcoff concludes Aff - Speaking for the other is key to activism Alcoff 91, Hunter College and CUNY philosophy professor, 1991 (Linda Martin, “The Problem of Speaking for Others” originally published in Cultural Critique, No. 20, Winter, 1991-1992 , cut from www.alcoff.com/content/speaothers.html) *gender modified The major problem with such a retreat is that it significantly undercuts the possibility of political effectivity. There are numerous examples of the practice of speaking for others which have been politically efficacious in advancing the needs of those spoken for, from Rigoberta Menchu to Edward Said and Steven Biko. Menchu's efforts to speak for the 33 Indian communities facing genocide in Guatemala have helped to raise money for the revolution and bring pressure against the Guatemalan and U.S. governments who have committed the massacres in collusion. The point is not that for some speakers the danger of speaking for others does not arise, but that in some cases certain political effects can be garnered in no other way. Joyce Trebilcot's version of the retreat response, which I mentioned at the outset of this essay, raises other issues. She agrees that an absolute prohibition of speaking for would undermine political effectiveness, and therefore says that she will avoid speaking for others only within her lesbian feminist community. So it might be argued that the retreat from speaking for others can be maintained without sacrificing political effectivity if it is restricted to particular discursive spaces. Why might one advocate such a partial retreat? Given that interpretations and meanings are discursive constructions made by embodied speakers, Trebilcot worries that attempting to persuade or speak for another will cut off that person's ability or willingness to engage in the constructive act of developing meaning. Since no embodied speaker can produce more than a partial account, and since the process of producing meaning is necessarily collective, everyone's account within a specified community needs to be encouraged. I agree with a great deal of Trebilcot's argument. I certainly agree that in some instances speaking for others constitutes a violence and should be stopped. But Trebilcot's position, as well as a more general retreat position, presumes an ontological configuration of the discursive context that simply does not obtain. In particular, it assumes that one can retreat into one's discrete location and make claims entirely and singularly within that location that do not range over others, and therefore that one can disentangle oneself from the implicating networks between one's discursive practices and others' locations, situations, and practices. In other words, the claim that I can speak only for myself assumes the autonomous conception of the self in Classical Liberal theory--that I am unconnected to others in my authentic self or that I can achieve an autonomy from others given certain conditions. But there is no neutral place to stand free and clear in which one's words do not prescriptively affect or mediate the experience of others, nor is there a way to demarcate decisively a boundary between one's location and all others. Even a complete retreat from speech is of course not neutral since it allows the continued dominance of current discourses and acts by omission to reenforce their dominance.
  2. it sort of is. Usually the links are anthro/Heidegger-ish with a standing reserve impact and the alt is pretty much OOO It different from anthro because it doesn't claim that antho is specifically bad, but that making value judgements about the world based on their utility/usefulness to us is bad
  3. alright heres the 2nc Orders Framework (i flowed that seperatly), Nietzsche, and Introna 2nc v ace vdebate.docx
  4. CX: Plan Flaw 1) any RVIs Econ 1) You say new resources and tech ensure growth is stable what happens when we run out of resources? 2) You say our warrents to Mackenzie aren't empirical, but isnt the fact that every other civilization has collapsed as Mackenzie states empirically based? Poverty 1) is an acute cause not a major cause? China 1) how do we stereotype the European? Solvency 1) If you dont fear death whats the reason for the aff? 2) How did the 1ac represent confronting death 3) why is confronting death good? 4) Why is extinction bad? Nietzsche 1) If you get to weigh the plan vs the alt does that solve your framework? 2) How do we externally determine value to life? 3) who defines what extreme suffering is? 4) How does the perm function? 5) If we provide a role of the ballot does the alt fails arg go away? 6) how does the aff affirm life by running from suffering? Introna 1) what does C/A mean? 2) How does the alt recreate atrocity? 3) Derrida is in the context of reexamining law. how does that apply? 4) How can the alt not weigh consequences? 5) If we win we solve extinction does the Jonas arg go away? 6) How does Owens apply?
  5. . Sorry im on my phone so the formatting is probably off but oh well. To answer we really dont care about those other pieces of legislation because they have alreads happed, while the aff is happening now, plus the aff is just a statment, seeing as it will have no consequesnces outside this round
  6. heres the 1nc orders 3 off then case on solvency, growth, poverty, and then china. open for CX https://www.mediafire.com/?md7fgvoveovtwnu
×
×
  • Create New...