Jump to content

blueblue42

Member
  • Content Count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

23 Good

About blueblue42

  • Rank
    Varsity
  1. That's a broad, sweeping generalization of what punishment means in our society. If you really think that that's the actual, sole reason for prisons being used as a form of punishment, the rest of this debate is worthless. It's like you're trying to approach the topic from the least critical point-of-view possible. I find the irony between point 5 and points 2, 3, 4, and 6 to be distressing and humerous. On one hand, it's not everyone's fault for being arrested/in prison, we're all just normal people who mess up sometimes! But on the other hand, there are BAD PEOPLE who know they're doing BAD THINGS and they deserve what's coming to them. You've in one move you attempted to remove the conceptual difference between criminals and regular people while at the same time normalizing the standard marginalizing rhetoric of punishment. Somehow you've managed to be both the white-washed democratic liberal and the cranky old conservative. I get that prisons are never going to be the best places ever, but you seem to extend that logic to claim that we basically shouldn't do shit for queer people. Being complicit with violence imposed on queered bodies just because "this is the kind of thing that only someone who has never been to prison could complain about" it absolute bullshit. I don't think the answer is making no sex distinctions for prisons, but to let queer people suffer much MUCH more horribly than the average inmate because "meh, prison always sucks" is a pretty disgusting thing to say. I don't know, but it seems like you think queer violence isn't a problem, or at least not a big one in prisons, which doesn't seem to be the case to me. I don't know why you try to be the most the most deliberately obtuse person possible when it comes to anything outside of traditional policy analysis. You're clearly intelligent enough to get this stuff if you would just let go of your biases and stop getting mad when people try to question the things that you take as the absolute foundations for knowledge.
  2. As if the way biopower is discussed in debate rounds has anything to do with Foucault's conception of biopower. Every K I've seen that uses biopower as an impact or whatever is Agamben or the like based. Your analysis is spot on here
  3. This is very true, hauntology is very effective against wounded attachments. But I would only recommend that to people that are familiar with Derrida.
  4. Don't feel like going into detail but you're missing A LOT of the intricacies of Brown's argument. Anyone who has actually read the lit would easily beat those answers because the argument is not as simple as you make it out to be. Plus it's not even terminal D it's explicit offense against those certain types of struggles.
  5. They sections you cut seem to read more duns-scotus in Deleuze than there might be. Some of the intricacies of what Deleuze has to say is lost by this particular reading.
  6. Didn't have time to finish it but it seemed like the commentators were knowledgeable and gave fairly accurate readings of the text.
  7. Yes, but just because opposition arises to biopower because of individual autonomy does not mean that individual autonomy is the only way to oppose biopower, or is an any way a preferable means to oppose biopower. This is assuming biopower is something we can and want to get rid of. Also, how individual autonomy opposes biopower shapes the way biopower is employed and most likely in a way that both propagates governmentality and extends biopolitical power. Really, and "individualist" reading of Foucault is going to be very flawed from the outset, seeing as Foucault is not an individualist in any way.
  8. Your analysis presupposes the existence of something we can identify as "Science". What you describe is a specific method used to make scientific claims. You then extend this to say that all "Science" is based on reaching falsehoods. But is this really what "Science" in more general terms? Not quite, or maybe more appropriately, probably not. The conception of Science that you offer seems to assume a teleological component structures it. That is, although you say that Science doesn't look for Truth but simply denies falsehoods, is this not itself pre-determining the essence of Science? If you're so big on the phil of science, you're surely aware of Kuhnian and Foucauldian critiques of this type of thinking. These critiques propose a version of Science that is both always caught up in the larger whole society and is without inherent aim. Under this framing of Science, your analysis seems sadly incomplete. Sure, your Bayesian example makes sense; I'm not going to bet against gravity. But is it fair to say that the extent of Science is as obvious as these examples? What about quantum physics? Medicine? Mental illness? Clearly, you would not be able to set up simple betting examples for these parts of Science as you did with gravity. So to bring the point back to the claim EndlessFacepalm made, I would say it is inaccurate to say that all science is based on the exclusion of others. But it seems impossible to ignore the instances in which scientific concepts and scientific thinking have excluded others. For example, look at the emergence of psychiatric theory and practice. Here we see the exclusion of individuals which this scientific system of thought has deemed as mentally ill. From the outset they are excluded due to this scientific methods' complicity with societal (relating to capitalist Western societies) values and morals based on the supremacy of reason, efficiency, and productiveness. Clearly, unless we pigeonhole the definition of Science to the limited conception you offer, Science is capable of creating exclusion.
  9. As if neolib wasn't just the cap k disguising itself so people don't read their generic ass cap bad answers.
  10. Make sure you look at some of his Collège de France lectures, since he develops the concept of biopower here more than anywhere else, specifically related to surveillance. Specifically, "The Birth of Biopolitics" and "Security, Territory, and Population" will be very useful. Reading Discipline and Punish is a necessary read for this topic as well if you want to know the arguments well.
  11. Okay you can believe that if you want to...or realize I was simply using language that some might be used to. I'm not saying I'm better than anyone else. I understand that the language I used is not easily understood by those with little critical theory background, but that's okay. I wasn't writing for those people. I don't see why I should have to cater to a different level of understanding, especially since the terms I used will give a more precise answer. I'm not really sure why this argument is happening, it's just you criticizing my explanation. Which wasn't directed towards you anyways. You can think I'm arrogant if you want, but it seems more arrogant to go around criticizing others to demand that they speak in a way that you understand even if the conversation doesn't involve you.
  12. You understand "floating PIK" is used almost exclusively as a way to call out K teams that give ambiguous explanations of how the plan could operate in the world of the alternative, yes? Strategically it might be useful, but for the good of the community, if you're going to read a PIK, clearly outline that you are doing so. Also gives you more legitimacy on the F/W or theory level.
  13. Or I said something of value that you don't fully understand. That would be like telling someone in a specialized scientific field that what they are saying to you has no value because you can't understand it. I just didn't feeling like explaining terms like discourse in the way Foucault uses them so it just isn't going to make much sense if you don't understand the more fundamental parts of the philosophy. Your level of understanding does not determine the value of my statement.
  14. So to be "included" in discourse does not mean that you are talked about; otherwise, everything would be "included". What I mean by this is not that certain people aren't part of discourse, rather that they are not included within its production or terms of acceptability. Probably most easily explained with gender; transgender identity can be discursively traced, but that does not mean that trans people are included in the knowledge production of that discourse. I'm not really making a positive claim about anyone being excluded from discourse, more responding to your point about there being lgbtq literature. Just because people talk about lgbtq does not mean that lgbtq identity is included in determining what identities are iterable, what can be said to be "truth", etc. Not going to make much sense if you have never read Foucault or Butler beyond textbook-level so sorry.
  15. People talking about certain people =/= those people being included in status quo methods of knowledge production. Also, freewayrickyross is right. This is all Foucault stuff. Just read some Foucault. Then you'll have framework cards probably.
×
×
  • Create New...