Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by lolwut5

  1. irigaray makes the claim that sexual difference is ontological and biological, and in the end, there are just men and women. she makes this claim without a lot of justification. this is wrong because obviously race intersects with sexual difference, but two other theorists clarify her position. braidotti says that sexual difference should be prioritized strategically and politically because sexual difference is a central reference point for power relations in a phallocentric world. because identity is always defined and assigned in relation to the polarized cultural categories of 'masculine' and feminine', we cannot escape the importance of this social and morphological point of departure. colebrook makes the argument that by having a masculine/feminine binary, irigaray's strategy of mimesis undermines phallocentrism. eg. radicalizing the binary at the heart of metaphysics begins a rethinking of oppositional logics. in the words of heather rakes, as she reinstates the gender binary with her insistence on, and one-dimensional focus on, "sexual difference," she also reinstates an ultimately hierarchical cissexist, heterosexist, ableist, and racist formulation. :-/
  2. Luce Irigaray, if you consider her a feminist, considers the problem of sexual difference an analytical first priority and those of race and sexuality second. In her book I Love to You, on page 47 remarks "[sexual difference] is an immediate natural given ... the problem of race is a secondary problem". She also discusses how heterosexuality doesn't exist because hom(m)osociality or the social as inherently male is the basis upon which women and gsd folk are Otherized, in other words it is somewhat like a patriarchal sociality that is the cause of oppression against women and gsd folk, not heterosexual relations.
  3. The permutation solves best - neoliberal institutions and market mechanisms can be used against themselves - the alt’s refusal of state and market engagement makes reductions in structural violence impossible Ferguson, Professor of Anthropology at Stanford, 11 (James, The Uses of Neoliberalism, Antipode, Vol. 41, No. S1, pp 166–184) If we are seeking, as this special issue of Antipode aspires to do, to link our critical analyses to the world of grounded political struggle—not only to interpret the world in various ways, but also to change it—then there is much to be said for focusing, as I have here, on mundane, real- world debates around policy and politics, even if doing so inevitably puts us on the compromised and reformist terrain of the possible, rather than the seductive high ground of revolutionary ideals and utopian desires. But I would also insist that there is more at stake in the examples I have discussed here than simply a slightly better way to ameliorate the miseries of the chronically poor, or a technically superior method for relieving the suffering of famine victims.¶ My point in discussing the South African BIG campaign, for instance, is not really to argue for its implementation. There is much in the campaign that is appealing, to be sure. But one can just as easily identify a series of worries that would bring the whole proposal into doubt. Does not, for instance, the decoupling of the question of assistance from the issue of labor, and the associated valorization of the “informal”, help provide a kind of alibi for the failures of the South African regime to pursue policies that would do more to create jobs? Would not the creation of a basic income benefit tied to national citizenship simply exacerbate the vicious xenophobia that already divides the South African poor,¶ in a context where many of the poorest are not citizens, and would thus not be eligible for the BIG? Perhaps even more fundamentally, is the idea of basic income really capable of commanding the mass support that alone could make it a central pillar of a new approach to distribution? The record to date gives powerful reasons to doubt it. So far, the technocrats’ dreams of relieving poverty through efficient cash transfers have attracted little support from actual poor people, who seem to find that vision a bit pale and washed out, compared with the vivid (if vague) populist promises of jobs and personalistic social inclusion long offered by the ANC patronage machine, and lately personified by Jacob Zuma (Ferguson forthcoming).¶ My real interest in the policy proposals discussed here, in fact, has little to do with the narrow policy questions to which they seek to provide answers. For what is most significant, for my purposes, is not whether or not these are good policies, but the way that they illustrate a process through which specific governmental devices and modes of reasoning that we have become used to associating with a very particular (and conservative) political agenda (“neoliberalism”) may be in the process of being peeled away from that agenda, and put to very different uses. Any progressive who takes seriously the challenge I pointed to at the start of this essay, the challenge of developing new progressive arts of government, ought to find this turn of events of considerable interest.¶ As Steven Collier (2005) has recently pointed out, it is important to question the assumption that there is, or must be, a neat or automatic fit between a hegemonic “neoliberal” political-economic project (however that might be characterized), on the one hand, and specific “neoliberal” techniques, on the other. Close attention to particular techniques (such as the use of quantitative calculation, free choice, and price driven by supply and demand) in particular settings (in Collier’s case, fiscal and budgetary reform in post-Soviet Russia) shows that the relationship between the technical and the political-economic “is much more polymorphous and unstable than is assumed in much critical geographical work”, and that neoliberal technical mechanisms are in fact “deployed in relation to diverse political projects and social norms” (2005:2).¶ As I suggested in referencing the role of statistics and techniques for pooling risk in the creation of social democratic welfare states, social technologies need not have any essential or eternal loyalty to the political formations within which they were first developed. Insurance rationality at the end of the nineteenth century had no essential vocation to provide security and solidarity to the working class; it was turned to that purpose (in some substantial measure) because it was available, in the right place at the right time, to be appropriated for that use. Specific ways of solving or posing governmental problems, specific institutional and intellectual mechanisms, can be combined in an almost infinite variety of ways, to accomplish different social ends. With social, as with any other sort of technology, it is not the machines or the mechanisms that decide what they will be used to do.¶ Foucault (2008:94) concluded his discussion of socialist government- ality by insisting that the answers to the Left’s governmental problems require not yet another search through our sacred texts, but a process of conceptual and institutional innovation. “f there is a really socialist governmentality, then it is not hidden within socialism and its texts. It cannot be deduced from them. It must be invented”. But invention in the domain of governmental technique is rarely something worked up out of whole cloth. More often, it involves a kind of bricolage (Le ́vi- Strauss 1966), a piecing together of something new out of scavenged parts originally intended for some other purpose. As we pursue such a process of improvisatory invention, we might begin by making an inventory of the parts available for such tinkering, keeping all the while an open mind about how different mechanisms might be put to work, and what kinds of purposes they might serve. If we can go beyond seeing in “neoliberalism” an evil essence or an automatic unity, and instead learn to see a field of specific governmental techniques, we may be surprised to find that some of them can be repurposed, and put to work in the service of political projects very different from those usually associated with that word. If so, we may find that the cabinet of governmental arts available to us is a bit less bare than first appeared, and that some rather useful little mechanisms may be nearer to hand than we thought.
  4. OOO is definitely talking about anticapitalist materialism.... Hell that's the whole point... :-/ /sigh/
  5. Burke 7 (Anthony, Ph.D in Political Science and International Relations from the Australian National University, Associate Professor of Politics and International Relations at the University of New South Wales, founding editor and publisher of the journal borderlands, "Ontologies of War: Violence, Existence and Reason", Published in Theory & Event, Volume 10, Issue 2, 2007, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/v010/10.2burke.html) My argument here, whilst normatively sympathetic to Kant's moral demand for the eventual abolition of war, militates against excessive optimism.86 Even as I am arguing that war is not an enduring historical or anthropological feature, or a neutral and rational instrument of policy -- that it is rather the product of hegemonic forms of knowledge about political action and community -- my analysis does suggest some sobering conclusions about its power as an idea and formation. Neither the progressive flow of history nor the pacific tendencies of an international society of republican states will save us. The violent ontologies I have described here in fact dominate the conceptual and policy frameworks of modern republican states and have come, against everything Kant hoped for, to stand in for progress, modernity and reason. Indeed what Heidegger argues, I think with some credibility, is that the enframing world view has come to stand in for being itself. Enframing, argues Heidegger, 'does not simply endanger man in his relationship to himself and to everything that is...it drives out every other possibility of revealing...the rule of Enframing threatens man with the possibility that it could be denied to him to enter into a more original revealing and hence to experience the call of a more primal truth.'87¶ ¶ What I take from Heidegger's argument -- one that I have sought to extend by analysing the militaristic power of modern ontologies of political existence and security -- is a view that the challenge is posed not merely by a few varieties of weapon, government, technology or policy, but by an overarching system of thinking and understanding that lays claim to our entire space of truth and existence. Many of the most destructive features of contemporary modernity -- militarism, repression, coercive diplomacy, covert intervention, geopolitics, economic exploitation and ecological destruction -- derive not merely from particular choices by policymakers based on their particular interests, but from calculative, 'empirical' discourses of scientific and political truth rooted in powerful enlightenment images of being. Confined within such an epistemological and cultural universe, policymakers' choices become necessities, their actions become inevitabilities, and humans suffer and die. Viewed in this light, 'rationality' is the name we give the chain of reasoning which builds one structure of truth on another until a course of action, however violent or dangerous, becomes preordained through that reasoning's very operation and existence. It creates both discursive constraints -- available choices may simply not be seen as credible or legitimate -- and material constraints that derive from the mutually reinforcing cascade of discourses and events which then preordain militarism and violence as necessary policy responses, however ineffective, dysfunctional or chaotic.¶ ¶ The force of my own and Heidegger's analysis does, admittedly, tend towards a deterministic fatalism. On my part this is quite deliberate; it is important to allow this possible conclusion to weigh on us. Large sections of modern societies -- especially parts of the media, political leaderships and national security institutions -- are utterly trapped within the Clausewitzian paradigm, within the instrumental utilitarianism of 'enframing' and the stark ontology of the friend and enemy. They are certainly tremendously aggressive and energetic in continually stating and reinstating its force.¶ ¶ But is there a way out? Is there no possibility of agency and choice? Is this not the key normative problem I raised at the outset, of how the modern ontologies of war efface agency, causality and responsibility from decision making; the responsibility that comes with having choices and making decisions, with exercising power? (In this I am much closer to Connolly than Foucault, in Connolly's insistence that, even in the face of the anonymous power of discourse to produce and limit subjects, selves remain capable of agency and thus incur responsibilities.88) There seems no point in following Heidegger in seeking a more 'primal truth' of being -- that is to reinstate ontology and obscure its worldly manifestations and consequences from critique. However we can, while refusing Heidegger's unworldly89 nostalgia, appreciate that he was searching for a way out of the modern system of calculation; that he was searching for a 'questioning', 'free relationship' to technology that would not be immediately recaptured by the strategic, calculating vision of enframing. Yet his path out is somewhat chimerical -- his faith in 'art' and the older Greek attitudes of 'responsibility and indebtedness' offer us valuable clues to the kind of sensibility needed, but little more.¶ ¶ When we consider the problem of policy, the force of this analysis suggests that choice and agency can be all too often limited; they can remain confined (sometimes quite wilfully) within the overarching strategic and security paradigms. Or, more hopefully, policy choices could aim to bring into being a more enduringly inclusive, cosmopolitan and peaceful logic of the political. But this cannot be done without seizing alternatives from outside the space of enframing and utilitarian strategic thought, by being aware of its presence and weight and activating a very different concept of existence, security and action.90¶ ¶ This would seem to hinge upon 'questioning' as such -- on the questions we put to the real and our efforts to create and act into it. Do security and strategic policies seek to exploit and direct humans as material, as energy, or do they seek to protect and enlarge human dignity and autonomy? Do they seek to impose by force an unjust status quo (as in Palestine), or to remove one injustice only to replace it with others (the U.S. in Iraq or Afghanistan), or do so at an unacceptable human, economic, and environmental price? Do we see our actions within an instrumental, amoral framework (of 'interests') and a linear chain of causes and effects (the idea of force), or do we see them as folding into a complex interplay of languages, norms, events and consequences which are less predictable and controllable?91 And most fundamentally: Are we seeking to coerce or persuade? Are less violent and more sustainable choices available? Will our actions perpetuate or help to end the global rule of insecurity and violence? Will our thought?
  6. PressTV? The Iranian state sponsored news source? Totally legit.
  7. School gunman Karl Pierson liked debate, running, but acted "weird" at times Martinez and Wilson '13 (Michael and Stan, CNN reporters, URL: http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/14/us/colorado-school-gunman-karl-pierson/) Centennial, Colorado (CNN) -- To many of his neighbors, Colorado school gunman Karl Pierson was the wholesome boy next door who liked achievement and ran on the cross country team. He even worked on an Eagle Scout project two years ago. To schoolmates, Pierson was known for his outspoken intelligence that served him well on the debate team. But at times, he acted "weird" and alienated peers with rants about communism and his aggressiveness to win every argument, they said. One neighbor described him as bright but a social misfit whose peers ridiculed him. His mother had transferred him from another high school because of the mockery and altercations, the neighbor said. Pierson, 18, opened fire Friday inside Arapahoe High School, where he was a senior. Claire Davis, 17, was wounded in a point-blank shooting, and Pierson, who apparently didn't know Davis, then killed himself in the library, Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson told reporters Friday. "He was a really smart kid. He was intelligent. He knew how to speak; he really did. I don't think I ever won an argument with that kid," junior Daylon Stutz said in the school parking lot on Saturday, when students were allowed to retrieve their cars. Stutz, an offensive tackle on the football team, had known Pierson since the two shared a human behavior class when Stutz was a freshman and Pierson a sophomore. They worked on a class experiment together in which they went into the community and tried breaking unwritten rules, Stutz said. "I did think he was a little weird, but I didn't think he was, like, bad weird," Stutz added. "He always kind of talked about how America was a communist country, how the government was, like, trying to take us over and stuff. I don't know, just some weird stuff that I didn't really pay close attention to, but nothing that alarmed me. "He was definitely kind to me. I never saw him mean to anybody. He wasn't condescending to anyone," he said. In Friday's shooting, Pierson was armed with a shotgun, a bandolier stocked with ammunition, a machete and three Molotov cocktails, Robinson said. Pierson fired five shots within 1 minute and 20 seconds, he said. Pierson entered his school looking for the debate team's coach,CNN affiliate KUSA reported, citing Robinson. Pierson was apparently seeking revenge against a faculty member because of a "confrontation or disagreement," the sheriff said. High school senior Frank Woronoff said he had known Pierson since they were freshmen. "He was the last person I would expect to shoot up a high school," Woronoff said. "He was pretty geeky and nerdy but in a charming way, one of the nicest, most humble people I know," he added. Senior Chris Davis, 18, was among many students Saturday trying to make sense of Pierson's shooting rampage. "He was a weird kid," Davis said. "He's a self-proclaimed communist, just wears Soviet shirts all the time." Pierson became easily aggravated, "always liked to be right" and didn't like losing, Davis said. "It seems realistic, now, that he did it," Davis added. The home where authorities believe Pierson armed himself is five miles from his school and appeared vacant Saturday. Its front door was sealed and boarded a day after federal agents raided the property and executed search warrants. A man who declined to be identified in an CNN interview lives a few doors away and said he has known Pierson since he was a boy. In the last few days, the neighbor noticed Pierson driving at excessive speeds throughout their normally quiet, modest middle-class suburb. The neighbor said Pierson's mother, Barbara, transferred her son to Arapahoe High School from nearby Highland Ranch High School because her son had been subjected to constant ridicule and physical altercations. "He was socially awkward and just didn't seem to fit into the larger teenage groups, and I think that weighed on him," the neighbor told CNN. The neighbor said Pierson's parents had been separated for years, and Karl was living with his mother and younger sister. "While Karl was socially a misfit around kids his age, he was intellectually bright and loved to debate in school," the neighbor said. "If he was disciplined in a debate class, that must have meant everything to him. It may have been trigger point." Pierson was active in his community, KUSA reported. He took pride in how he routinely won contests on his speech and debate team, the station reported. He showed off his first place and second place trophies online. One neighbor described him as a "nice young man," the affiliate said. In fact, the TV outlet interviewed him seven years ago about the design of a quarter commemorating Colorado. Pierson submitted questions to the station in 2008 for a show about the Colorado Supreme Court and asked a question at a U.S. Senate debate in 2010, the news outlet said. Death cult author responds Giroux '13 ("Radical Democracy Against Cultures of Violence" Published in Truthout, December 17, 2013. URL: http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/20669-radical-democracy-against-cultures-of-violence) Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world. - Nelson Mandela Guy Debord once argued that the spectacle suggests society's desire for sleep.[1] He was enormously prescient, and his words and work are more important today than when they were first written. The spectacle has been energized and reworked under the forces of neoliberalism and now promotes a mix of infantilism, brutality, disposability and lawlessness. As the visibility of extreme violence is endlessly reproduced in various cultural apparatuses and screen cultures, it functions increasingly, alongside a range of other economic and political forces, to legitimate a culture of cruelty and disposability in everyday life. Pleasure is now colonized in the service of violence, reinforcing Rustom Bharacuha's claim that "there is an echo of the pornographic in maximizing the pleasure of violence."[2] Casino capitalism feeds on the spectacle, whitewashing history while ensuring the triumph of form over substance. Violence is not simply glorified, it is also spectacularized in more graphic, stirring and dazzling digitally induced dramatic depictions. Violence is the new state-supported and institutionalized obscenity, parading as both entertainment and an honorific social ideal to celebrate those who inhabit its repressive state apparatuses - from its war machine to its local police regimes. Violence and politics are no longer separate but permeate each other in contemporary American society, contributing "to the suppression of the very conditions necessary to build a [democratic social order and] polity."[3] Such violence promotes a state of moral, emotional and intellectual anesthesia in which real violence seems technically imperfect compared to its Hollywood, television and screen culture versions, not to mention its celebration of an idiotic celebrity culture, which constitutes an assault on the very spirit of agency and the radical imagination. One consequence is that society now resembles a war machine as the welfare state is transformed into the punishing state and death zones proliferate. In the face of the latest school shooting in Centennial, Colorado, a young teenage boy allegedly seeking revenge for being thrown off the debating team decides to goes on a murderous rampage. The roots of such violence are not merely personal, lying in the realm of some unfathomable emotional disturbance. They are also part and parcel of those varied educational and cultural conditions that give meaning to such behavior, suggesting that such violence is a normal and acceptable way to relieve anxiety, tension, and resolve problems. A social pathology and collective amnesia both hides the deeper structural and symbolic dimensions for such violence and produces a weak moral and political response. What are we to make of a mainstream media, along with the American public that appears more concerned about Kim Kardashian flaunting her post-baby body[4] than about the Obama administration ordering a drone strike in Yemen that killed 17 innocent civilians who were part of a wedding party? I thought this raised some interesting questions about debate and US culture. Do y'all agree or disagree with Giroux? Why or why not? A longer article that adds some clarification and extra details/interviews to Pierson's background: http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-colorado-school-shooter-identified-20131213-story.html elements of story: carl schmidt (like another schmitt?), fellow senior, discussed Pierson when interviewed by LA times gun rights advocate bullied, divorced parents cared passionately about debate motivation?: disagreement with debate coach--kicked off team & suspended after becoming angry after wanting 'changes to the debate team'--went after coach with guns and molotov cocktails
  8. http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2014/05/09/terrorists-teaching-public-universities This is a RUSH transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," May 8, 2014. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated. Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET! INGRAHAM: In the "FACTOR Investigation" segment tonight, terrorists teaching at public universities. Now, you may remember that Bill Ayers, the unrepentant domestic terrorist and one-time friend of President Obama, used to teach at the University of Illinois at Chicago. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) Well, now, THE FACTOR has learned that James Kilgore, a convicted terrorist who spent 27 years on the run, is working at the University of Illinois' Urbana-Champaign Campus. Kilgore was a member of the Symbionese Liberation Army, the radical group in the 1970s responsible for bank robberies, killings, and the kidnapping Patty Hearst. He was finally captured in South Africa in 2002 and extradited to the United States where he was convicted for the 1975 murder of a California housewife. He served six years. Now, Chris Kennedy, the Chairman of the University of Illinois Board of Trustees, is pushing for the university to ban Kilgore from working there. (END VIDEO CLIP) But some professors are actively supporting him, citing, and I kid you not, academic freedom. Joining us now from Springfield, Illinois, Republican State Senator Chapin Rose, who has been investigating Kilgore's employment at the university. Senator, first of all, if people hear this, and I think they'll, "You've got to be kidding me." CHAPIN ROSE, SENATOR, ILLINOIS STATE ®: Yes. INGRAHAM: Let's say this guy -- let's say this guy, it turns out, was caught praying at an abortion clinic, or had given to some propay (ph) campaign in California, the professors would probably be like, "Get him out of here," you know, "he's far too extremist for us." But, I guess, Symbionese Liberation Army and second-degree murder, that's academic freedom? ROSE: Laura, it's just crazy. And, frankly, my constituents -- living in a university town, there's always something interesting and there's a lot of rolling of the eyes goes on. But, you know, my constituents are beyond angry. And the fact is, the state always got all kinds of budget problems. And it turns out that there's, apparently, money for this. And I just -- you know, you learn these things, you read about them and you go, "There they go again." Absolutely amazing. INGRAHAM: Well, what's the recourse here for the citizens in your district. I bet, if you took a poll on this, right, there'd probably be -- (LAUGHTER) ROSE: Right. INGRAHAM: -- overwhelming support for what you're trying to do. But the university has its own charter, although taxpayer money obviously goes to the university. But they have their own -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- charter and their own rules for hiring and firing, do they not. ROSE: Yes, sure they do. But, you know what, this is a public institution, it's a lingering institution. The state of Illinois spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- in taxpayer dollars on this institution. And the tuition payers, quite frankly, have fair value issues here. You know, the guy has a Ph.D. in African Studies which was issued in, frankly, an assumed name, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- you know. And the last thing he was doing was teaching art. I mean, if you're a student at the University of Illinois, -- INGRAHAM: But can't they find anyone else. I mean, what is he teaching now -- ROSE: No, I mean -- this is -- right. It's art, art. INGRAHAM: What is he teaching now at the university. Art. (END VIDEO CLIP) ROSE: Actually, right now, it's -- yes, he's just finishing up an art class at the U of I. INGRAHAM: Oh. ROSE: And he has a Ph.D. in African Studies. I mean, this kind of stuff is crazy. You know, look, the guy is entitled to live his life. He's served his sentence. But it doesn't mean we have to put him on the payroll. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) I mean, this is just -- INGRAHAM: Well, I guess, -- I mean, it kills me to play devil's advocate in this situation -- (END VIDEO CLIP)
  9. lolwut5

    Big affs

    Re:Bataille actually in Land's book on Bataille, and in the death drive version of the bataille k (7wk) the entire chapter on bataille and freud's death drive is contrasting Kant's dislike (god why do all trendy philosophers hate Kant) for noumena with the destructive power of the ocean and the cyclone that hit the Philippines. I think a death drive arg is definitely feasible. And yes Bataille is forever gone to me and so is Nick land. (Doesn't mean I won't read their crazy sh) From land (p.77): An utter intoxication such as this is quite different from its Kantian anticipation, although Kant too contests the right of dogmatic theology to guide his journey: Nothing but the sobriety of a critique, at once strict and just, can free us from this dogmatic delusion, which through the lure of an imagined felicity keeps so many in bondage to theories and systems. Such a critique confines all our speculative claims rigidly to the field of possible experience; and it does this not by shallow scoffing at ever-repeated failures or pious sighs over the limits of our reason, but by an effective determining of these limits in accordance with established principles, inscribing nihil ulterius on those Pillars of Hercules which nature herself has erected in order that the voyage of our reason may be extended no further than the continuous coastline of experience itself reaches—a coast we cannot leave without venturing upon a shoreless ocean which, after alluring us with ever-deceptive prospects, compels us in the end to abandon as hopeless all this vexatious and tedious endeavour [K IV 392– 3]. For Kant it is not enough to have reached the ocean, the shoreless expanse, the nihil ulterius as positive zero. He recognizes the ocean as a space of absolute voyage, and thus of hopelessness and waste. Only another shore would redeem it for him, and that is nowhere to be found. Better to remain on dry land than to lose oneself in the desolation of zero. It is for this reason that he says the ‘concept of a noumenon is…a merely limiting concept’ [K IV 282]. In this way the Occidental obsession with the object consummates itself in the blind passivity of its nihilism. Beyond experience, it is suggested, there must be thought ‘an unknown something’ [K III 283], although ‘we are unable to comprehend how such noumena can be possible’ [K III 281]. More precisely: [The noumenon]…is not indeed in any way positive, and is not a determinate knowledge of anything, but signifies only the thought of something in general, in which I abstract from everything that belongs to the form of sensible intuition [KIII 281]. That no transcendent object is found is an event which retains the sense of a lost or absent object, rather than that of a contact with or through objectlessness. The ocean has no sense except as a failure of the land.
  10. lolwut5

    TOC watching

    say, like the one just posted above by lbchuck1? lol
  11. lolwut5

    Oceans Ks

    we should all act like hippies
  12. lolwut5


    Freud? the person who said women envy penises? the person who based all his theories on qualitative sessions with people as crazy as he was? as mentioned above, completely non-falsifiable? the person who first thought that people couldn't remember childhood abuse that had occurred and shaped them, then 'changed' his mind and thought memories of childhood abuse were made up because people projected being uncomfortable with their childhood sexuality onto adults? the person who based all your qualities as an adult on how you 'progressed' (or regressed) sexually as a child? the person who thought homosexuality was equatable with pedophilia and hysteria? the person who thought cocaine was a magical drug that could cure medical and physical problems? (and used it quite often) the person who "treated" numerous patients, often lying about them to the public and ruining their lives? the person who could analyze your dreams for you and connect them to the Oedipal desire? ... and using it as a "perm aganist lgbt narratives"? what does that even mean? you stand up and psychoanalyze your sexual desires to "do the plan and analyze sexuality?" no. freud was an antiquated quack. you cannot perm the narrative because it's not your experience. are you discriminated against on the basis of your sexuality? if you are, feel free to talk about your experiences in response, but don't "perm" someone's narrative. if you aren't, try and be respectful to the person who is sharing something probably very personal and emotional, and show why your idea of debate and plan focus, etc. is net beneficial to the alt or lack of alt to what they talk about is a bad thing. there's a host of evidence about how debate commodifies lived experience and narratives which is available to you. i would personally advise 1. framework 2. narratives commodified and if there is a focus on tying identity to politics, 3. identity politics bad, 4. using narratives as methodology flawed 5. often a focus on one facet of identity trades off with a larger focus on inclusion (and there are feminist and race critiques of focusing on lgbt issues) 6. debate is good (if it's responsive) 7. attack the premises of the arguments made in the narrative (debate probably isn't exclusive to a team that's winning rounds on a personal narrative, and if it is, why should we address it in such an antagonistic fashion, eg. you can't stand up in the 2AC and talk about how exclusion is good, you are put in a bind) 8. suffering reps ks 9. if the argument/narrative is based in identity negativity, there is usually an optimistic perspective on that identity (eg. "Wilderson is overly negative compared to say black optimism) 10. wrong forum, and that should give you a decent amount to respond to it. if you need help with prepping any of the above PM me and I will be more than glad to help given I am told a more specific account of the argument that is being made. good luck. and btw, language like "nuisance", even if it is actually a nuisance, is kind of callous. maybe you could express your frustration in a way that doesn't put other people down.
  13. I disagree with the author and think the analysis is flawed on many levels, but I think it speaks to some of the thought coming out of America today, whether it is disguised in pretentious jargon or posted on some lunatic's blog. I'm sure AIPAC and PNAC (and numerous other prominent security 'analysts') would agree with some of the sentiments expressed, barring the anti-Obama claims. Fox News is the largest mouthpiece of similar claims, but of course they are never called out on it because they are immune to criticism. Of course, I bet few people actually believe in the harms they talk about in debate, but you'd be surprised how authors from the bandwagon of sites like Fox and WND and Heritage etc. are used to express such offensive arguments. /rant.
  14. Islamic terrorism is real, poses a giant threat, and current efforts aren't working---we need sane policy prescriptions Kutnicki 4/10/14 (Adina, “JIHADI(s) PLOT IN PLAIN VIEW & FEDS STAND DOWN:WASHINGTON’s OPEN SESAME TO TERROR-RELATED “REFUGEESâ€.AMERICA’s CAPTURED MEDIA SHIELDS “RELIGION OF PEACEâ€.WHAT’s THE END GAME? Commentary†Published April 10, 2014. Adina Kutnicki, investigative journalist and independent op-ed contributor to various media outlets such as at American Thinker, Israel National News, Israel Insider, The Jewish Press, MidEast Outpost, The Freeman Center For Strategic Studies, and more. URL: http://adinakutnicki.com/2014/04/10/jihadis-plot-in-plain-view-feds-stand-downwashingtons-open-sesame-to-terror-related-refugees-americas-captured-media-shields-religion-of-peace-whats-the-end-game-commentary-by/) WHENEVER a terror plot is uncovered, rest assured, an Islamist is front and center. Not unlike pigs to their shit, they just can’t help themselves. After all, Allah dictates jihad, and who are they to argue with their “deityâ€. Satiating the Islamic beast is a full time profession! A veritable love affair with blood. That being said, and lest some believe that this blogger is merely acting mean spirited, frankly, they don’t know what they are babbling about. No offense intended. Incontestably, the amount of evidence linking Islam to terror, and the resultant fantastical obfuscation regarding said linkage, is off the charts. There are no other conclusions to arrive at, other than to connect the jihadi dots. Deal with it. Jihadi Dot One: Regardless of any spin, Muslim Blood Lust Is Boundless, NO Excuses Needed. Yet, Western Third World Devotees/Appeasers Proffer Them! Feeding the beast…. Jihadi Dot Two: As is always the case, even though one hopes that the crocodile won’t devour them if they do this or that, the fact of the matter is that this is what they do. It’s in their nature. Same thing. As such, Islam & barbarism are never far apart, and the sooner the west’s craven leadership – with the U.S. in the forefront – admit it, the quicker sane policy prescriptions will be implemented. NO time to lose! Jihadi Dot Three: Now, how many more times does Allahu Akbar have to be screamed, in order to understand that Islamic jihadists mean (deadly) business: JIHAD AT FORT HOOD & THE PENTAGON’s CASTRATED FORCES. OBAMA INC’s WANTON FAILURE TO IDENTIFY THE CANCER WITHIN! Jihadi Dot Three: Significantly, if the indoctrinated media can’t bring themselves to do their due diligence, what will it take to wake them up: perhaps a few more Boston Jihad’s with their families in the cross hairs? Looks like it. And another thing… Yalies (some of whom are even friends and associates), let’s place bets: being that some of you are schooled in multi-culti hallucinations, how inclined are you to believe – smarties that you are – that the drone aficionado wasn’t aiming for your touchy feely campus? You know, the campus which has the following as its emblem, its motto, which literally translates: ××•×¨×™× ×•×ª×ž×™× = Urim and Thummim, when translated, is generally taken as meaning “light(s) and perfection(s)†or “revelation and truthâ€â€¦. four passages in the Torah (five books of Moses), associating them with the high priest, esp. his clothing. Ex 28:30, Lev 8:8, Num 27:21, Dt 33:8…refers to some object or set of objects that were to be kept in the clothing of the high priest and used to consult the Lord God for answers to certain questions Yale University LOGO In this regard, isn’t it ironic that one of America’s most venerable universities – which has been steeped in (im)moral relativism for decades – was more than likely targeted by jihadists they shield at all costs? Ungrateful! Seeking political asylum while facing deportation to his native Morocco. He told the undercover agent he went to the library, researched issues in Morocco and learned about abuses allegedly committed by the Moroccan government on individuals involved with the Jamaat Ansar El-Mehdi and the Western Sahara freedom movement. He falsely claimed in Immigration Court that he was the victim of arrests, imprisonment and beatings by Moroccan police. “Everything he wrote in his refugee application coincided with the actual events,†Sharp wrote in her affidavit. In one recording, Fahti says “the more he thinks about the case, he laughs because he cannot believe the judge believed him†in allowing him to seek refuge in the U.S. for political reasons. Mind you, amid ALL the Islamic dots, Obama Inc. has upped the ante, so much so that they might as well shout from the rooftops: any and all terror inclined Islamists, who may or may not have connections to terrorists, who may or may not qualify as “refugeesâ€, have no fear. America’s doors are OPEN SESAME! On the other hand, Mid East Christians who are fleeing the Islamic onslaught, well, too damn bad. Obama and gang doesn’t want you. Suck it up. Now, you tell this American-Israeli: what exactly does Barack HUSSEIN Obama have in store for America, for the west, knowing what you do about his loyalties, his preferences, his proclivities and all that it entails? Obamabots, are you feeling safe and secure in the knowledge that your deity – The One - has your backs, even as his goons are not inclined to declare that El Mehdi Semlali Fahti, an avowed Islamic terrorist, be charged with “federal terrorism at this timeâ€? Can you hear, in your mind’s eye, the hammering of the nail in the American coffin?
  15. I reject your rejections. http://24.media.tumblr.com/487321f5b3c6b3ad88aeb982e1fc2f1f/tumblr_mg5y15KyPb1qa3bzoo1_400.gif Checkmate.
  16. This site loves DnG way too much... lol. I'd love it if you could clarify my previous questions about the world of the alt and what if anything they do. Thx
  • Create New...