Jump to content

foucault0ff

Member
  • Content Count

    160
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

foucault0ff last won the day on July 3 2016

foucault0ff had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

177 Excellent

About foucault0ff

  • Rank
    Champion

Profile Information

  • School
    C. K. McClatchy

Recent Profile Visitors

4093 profile views
  1. You shouldn’t be reading this Evans 15 [Rashad Former debate coach @ Emporia State U, “On White Afro-Pessimism,” http://fivefouraff.com/2015/08/21/on-white-afro-pessimism/, tony] One important move of afro-pessimism is to focus on anti-blackness as opposed to or in addition to white supremacy. The idea is that the world is anti-black and that anti-blackness is: (1) bigger than individual acts, (2) about more than white people and (3) foundational to humanity and civil society. In other words, all white people are implicated no matter how good or nice they are and so are non-white, non-Black people and no good can come of this world. However, that focus on anti-blackness and what makes the Black experience unique has also become an excuse for non-Black debaters to only focus on how “the Black body” is positioned by violence without theorizing about who is doing the positioning. In addition, if the world is always already anti-black then it can be difficult to see how any individual debater, judge or coach might be actually participating in anti-blackness, particularly as they engage with each other on the everyday. And, that humanity and civil society is fundamentally anti-black is merely an opportunity to explain why it has always sucked to be Black and not an opportunity to explain that the only way to affirm Blackness is to upend the entire world and at least includes a violent war against white people. Afropessimism is nothing if not an affirmation of blackness. It includes a negation of the world, but it is principally an affirming argument. For Black people. A white afropessimist makes no sense. White afropessimism is just anti-blackness. If you are a white afro-pessimist you should understand that your existence is complicit in violence against Black people and/or that your non-existence is a necessity to Black liberation. Under no circumstances should you understand your role to be to spread the gospel of pessimism further. Your engagement with the argument will always be theoretical (you have no relevant experience), redundant (you can never be additive to this conversation) and objectifying (reducing black people to objects of study). Afropessimism is an argument about why Black people should be the subjects of the debate. It is about how Black people are always already the subject of all debates but excluded from them as such. It is not about white people. All of this assumes that we are taking the argument seriously and not speaking in metaphorical terms, something Eve Tuck warns against in the context of settler colonialism. Both the Settler Colonialism and Black Nihilism arguments rely significantly on Fanon. And Fanon’s main point is that the native/colonialist and/or black/white cannot coexist. In practical terms, this meant that Black liberation in Africa required a violent war to the end. It’s an either/or life or death choice for both sides. But, understanding that anti-black violence is foundational is to understand that you have to fight back in literal terms. To end the world is to end the world. I am not certain that debaters fully understand the implications of such. If the students in my lab understood this they would have found the Black Nihilism argument as difficult as the Settler Colonialism argument. But they did not, partially because they were introduced to the argument from the perspective of Gramsci and a theory of civil society and not from Fanon and everyday anti-Black violence, but also because I didn’t take the time to explain the argument fully. Under no circumstances should non-Black debaters be taught to advocate for afro-pessimism from a non-Black person. And under no circumstances should two white boys think they have a better shot flipping negative and running afropessimism than reading their own Aff (something I had to explain before a quarters debate at the camp tournament). When that happens something has gone wrong.
  2. I think it is an important distinction to make between "poetry debate" and performative models of debate. I think that performance debate broadly isn't broadcast because a lot of teams don't want other teams (primarily framework, more right leaning teams) to know their argumentation style before-hand (check the college policy debate forums about disclosure, its a thing). I think that it is truly impossible to lump all of these together and say "this is how you debate this style" but I think that a performative art piece may be representative of organic intellectualism in some circles (re: Gramsci, Moten) as well as be representations of affectual performances (i.e. they trigger an emotional and epistemological response). This year, we briefly read an aff about queer maroonage and I read poetry in the beginning of the 1AC, which people often "dropped" or failed to answer. I think this was in part due to our reliance on "evidence" and also due to discounting alternative debate styles, though poetry made arguments. tl;dr -- As long as you have a defense of what you're doing and why you're doing it, go for it.
  3. why do people feel the need to make this impossibly subjective polls? it just seems so silly! just go debate and have fun!
  4. but as usual, this is pretty biased and missing a lot of great teams, including college prep JM, Damien MP, Head Royce, Bellarmine, Leucadia MY, Clovis North, Polytechnic, Nevada Union, etc. I usually try to stay away from this things because they usually only hurt feelings and become an abnormally absurd popularity contest, but a few omissions (as evidenced above) made my comment necessary
  5. Who is Michael Gray and why haven't I debated him
  6. i mean the 1ac is set up to answer hmis good and biopower reversible doesnt really answer the nuance of our argument
  7. So the problem with that is two-fold 1. The information is collected by HUD (a federal agency) from state and local entities 2. The Executive Mandate is why the data is collected. It's both collected and managed because of federal guidelines. Also, not sure if you're looking at my plan text or not but it's changed substantially since wake
  8. So there are a few things about this aff. 1. The Biopower advantage is about the way the data is collected. It reduces bodies to data points and then marks entire populations as killable which is bad 2. also creates a binary of Deserving and Undeserving homeless based on history (ie criminal record) which forces them out of shelters and onto streets 3. their antithetical to liberalism because the constitution is grounded in the notion that owning property makes you a citizen, yet thats inaccessible for some 4. All of these factors coalesce to create a city that's "Disneyfied" or free from dirt and disease. This is both ahistorical and violent, as it attempts to erase homeless populations without viable solutions
  9. peep my aff http://hspolicy.debatecoaches.org/CK+McClatchy/hackett-norton+Aff
  10. Read the intro and the conclusion, but REALLY read the whole thing. Honestly, Afro-pessimism and race scholarship isn't something you can "pick up" and learn. It's a process, and absolutely do not read the arguments if you don't have a thorough understanding of what they're saying. It's more excusable with the cap k or something, but when you get into identity arguments, they're really not something you can get away with bastardizing.
  11. White supremacy is a global system of oppression that normalizes genocidal modalities of violence and domination – we control internal link uniqueness Rodriguez ‘07 [Dylan, PhD in Ethnic Studies Program of the University of California Berkeley and Associate Proffessor of Ethnic Studies at University of California Riverside, “American Globality And the US Prison regime: State Violence And White Supremacy from Abu Ghraib to Stockton to bagong diwa”, Ateneo de Manila University, 2007, Kritika Kultura 9 (2007): 022-048] For the theoretical purposes of this essay, white supremacy may be understood as a logic of social organization that produces regimented, institutionalized, and militarized conceptions of hierarchized “human” difference, enforced through coercions and violences that are structured by genocidal possibility (including physical extermination and curtailment of people’s collective capacities to socially, culturally, or biologically reproduce). As a historical vernacular and philosophical apparatus of domination, white supremacy is simultaneously premised on and consistently innovating universalized conceptions of the white (european and euroamerican) “human” vis-à-vis the rigorous production, penal discipline, and frequent social, political, and biological neutralization or extermination of the (non-white) sub- or non-human. to consider white supremacy as essential to American social formation (rather than a freakish or extremist deviation from it) facilitates a discussion of the modalities through which this material logic of violence overdetermines the social, political, economic, and cultural structures that compose American globality and constitute the common sense that is organic to its ordering. While the US prison industrial complex constitutes a statecraft of perpetual domestic crisis that emerges from this social logic of white supremacy, the US prison regime is becoming profoundly undomesticated in a twofold sense: the technologies of carceral racial domination have distended into localities beyond the US proper (they are extra-domestic), while the focused and mundane (though no less severe) bodily violence of the prison’s operative functions have constituted a microwarfare apparatus, accessing and penetrating captive bodies with an unprecedented depth and complexity (the regime is in this sense defined by an unhinged, undomesticated violence). In this context, the (racial) formations of punishment and death inscribed on the various surfaces of the US prison regime—from the nearby to the far away—are in fact generally unremarkable. It cannot be overemphasized that this carceral formation produces a normal and trite violence, a naturalized facet of American social intercourse across scales and geographies, forming the underside of a civil society that is historically unimaginable outside its modalities of formal exclusion and civil/ social neutralization. Yet, it is precisely as this prison regime rearranges, remobilizes, and redeploys its normalized structure of white supremacist bodily violence into geographies beyond the American everyday that it momentarily surfaces as a spectacle of public consumption and even a critical public discourse, in such moments as the photographic revelation of the uS military’s torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. While the “national” scope of the US prison industrial complex constitutes a profound social and political crisis of epochal scale, it also composes an institutional symbiosis that has yielded an authentic conjunctural articulation of state violence that is both organic to the domestic US carceral and capable of rearticulation, appropriation, and mobilization across global geographies. Thus, to understand the prison as a regime is to focus conceptually, theoretically, and politically on the prison as a pliable module or mobilized vessel through which the state generates particular practices of legitimated violence and bodily immobilization. “Prison regime” is a conceptual and theoretical (not a discretely “institutional”) phrase that refers to a modality through which the state organizes, rationalizes, and deploys specific technologies of violence, domination, and subjection—technologies that are otherwise reserved for deployment in sites of declared war or martial law: in this usage, “prison regime” differentiates both the scale and object of analysis from the more typical macro- scale institutional categories of “the prison,” “the prison system,” and, for that matter, “the prison industrial complex.” the conceptual scope of this term similarly exceeds the analytical scope of prison management, prison policy, and “the prison (or prisoner’s) experience,” categories that most often take textual form through discrete case studies, institutional reform initiatives, prison ethnographies, and empirical criminological surveys. Rather, the notion of a prison regime invokes a “meso” (middle, or mediating) dimension of processes, structures, and vernaculars that compose the state’s modalities of self-articulation and self-conceptualization, institutional crafting, and “rule” across the macro and micro scales. It is within this meso range of fluctuating articulations of power that the prison is inscribed as both a localization and constitutive logic of the state’s production of juridical, spatial, and militarized dominion. A genealogy of the prison regime foregrounds the essential instability—the unnaturalness—of its object of discussion, suggesting a process of historical analysis and theorization that methodologically extends beyond 1.) the particular and mystified institutionality of the discrete and narrowly bounded entity we know as the Prison; and 2.) the juridical and institutional formalities of the state’s supposed “ownership” of and orderly proctorship over the Prison as it is conventionally conceived.
  12. We hit this argument and we read the 1AC again in the 2AC. We were like, yup, we mirrored a mirror. Gotcha. They conceded in the block because they didn't know what to say.
  13. https://ci.uky.edu/toc/policybidtournies1516 yep
  14. wow thanks!! that aff was really fun to write and cut!! any suggestions for change?
  15. I think the overview largely depends on the k. Last year i went for afropessimism 90% of 2NR's, and my 2NC overview was something like: 1. K o/w (in this context, the difference between objective and subjective vertigo) 2. Solves and Turns Case 3. Value / Epistemology Framing 4. Extinction Inevitable idk, we were pretty successful with this, and a lot of teams straight didnt go to the overview which meant they dropped a bunch
×
×
  • Create New...