Jump to content

- - - - -



  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 3804



  • Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Name:bob saggins
  • School:bob the builder university

Posted 14 November 2017 - 09:03 PM

UMKC cut Wilderson's conference linked below and read it as a voyeurism DA/link to the K. After listening to what Wilderson said, I'm confused as to what the argument is. The part UMKC cut starts at 1:04:46.




You can see the card here

https://opencaselist...homas-Aaron Neg


  • 0

#2 jswegthefuture



  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 110 posts
  • Name:jonathan lee
  • School:camas

Posted 15 November 2017 - 05:17 PM

(i think that) it's the argument that the psychic stability of non-blacks is dependent on the suffering of black bodies. red, white, and black has a section that cites marriott's observations about the vampiric consumption of lynching photos

Edited by jswegthefuture, 15 November 2017 - 05:17 PM.

  • 0

#3 ConsultVerminSupreme


    Vermin Supremacist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 426 posts
  • Name:Amogh Dendukuri

Posted 15 November 2017 - 10:57 PM

Here's a quote of the part I think you're referencing -- basically the argument that may have been forwarded by UMKC is that [the Aff] only feeds the white appetite to consume the spectacle of black suffering. Wilderson cites Peterson when describing how the performance of black radicalism factors into an economy of anti-black phillia (found in debate) by which a (white) coach found (sexual) pleasure in the performances of black debaters --


"The first example the Negrophilic example, Peterson writes of white coaches who see in Afro-Pessimism a set of arguments that can win a lot off debates. But a coach might act in such a way to demonstrate that he or she thinks Afro-Pessimism to be ridiculous. During a disagreement between a black debater and his white coach, you can't disagree with me you’re not even Human. The same coach stated that, and I'm quoting, "My dick gets so hard" when he comes across sharp literature from the Black radical traditional that might be useful in debates" he regularly had a sexual way of explaining things and even explained that when he hears one of the students speaking in a militant poetic verse it makes my dick hard. In interviews he mentioned and even expressed a regret about this feature of his coaching, he admitted that at points he would establish a Blackness meter and tell his students how Black they should act. Sometimes he would tell his students they needed to coon it up for a particular judge. His goal was to win at all costs and the students and their radicalism was his tools for doing so other coaches did this in less blatant ways but it was clear that they have an intense enjoyment of black speech as wellIt would encourage more and more radicalism on the part of the student and suggest a particular ways in which they should or could be more radical or militant. Students were also encouraged to deliver their speeches in rap form even against the unevenness they felt. Many students felt their performances were feeding the white appetite to consume the spectacle of black suffering also they felt trapped becaus0e they relied on these individuals for institutional support and could not easily criticize them."

  • 0

“Humanity is OK, but 99% of people are boring idiots.” ― Slavoj Žižek

#4 GracchusBabeuf



  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 71 posts

Posted 16 November 2017 - 03:07 AM

this is pretty much just a cutting wilderson's version of charity cannibalism, however he gives the specific examples of the cannibalism occurring with arguments about blackness in debate. honestly this argument is probably only viable if you are black, because being white and telling two black debaters they are commodifying their suffering is probably not a good idea

  • 2

Our authors don't assume the context of debate and debate doesn't assume the context of reality. Both texts exist in alternate realities with 0 overlap. Those who legitimately claim a risk of extinction truly believe in it. We do not and cannot even begin to fathom belief, because belief is morally anathema to our standpoint epistemology. Our cited authors think these threats are very real. But they're not, and they never were. It never even could have been real. It makes more sense if you think about this in terms of multi-world theory: in every world in which those authors are right, and extinction does occur, no amount of advocating the plan could have ever mattered. And in every world in which they are wrong and things turn out fine, we had wasted our time obsessing over the plan. If the text of the 1AC is correct, then we have to confront it from multiple worlds (i.e. "percentage risk") and every single instance of extinction is a pointless world to consider. Thus, we should debate about the plan without those worlds because it's better for education, for advocacy skills, and it reduces the risk of trafficking in bad policies on the back of existential threat. The final trick of the fiat double bind, and why it's a double bind, is that you pick one half in the block. Where people go wrong is they just keep the dialectical tension instead of collapsing to the floating pik (which incidentally is what me and rothenbaum did my senior year, and is why we only lost on this argument twice in the whole season). 



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: wilderson

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users