Comments

  • The Shoutbox
    I seriously wonder at this point if American liberals are going to mourn Trump if he dies in 10 years.Saphsin

    Of course they will. These people will always take care of their own when the chips are down - those in positions of power.

    Americans in general have always venerated their institutionally sanctioned mass murderers and civil rights abusers. What would change with Trump?
  • The Shoutbox
    Just the other day a hundred year old Nazi guard had a trial date set in Germany.

    Considering Bush and Cheney, still alive, are responsible for deaths on an few orders of magnitude greater, one can dream they too might find a similar day.
  • The Shoutbox
    I celebrate the small pleasures.
  • The Shoutbox
    A dead war criminal!

    The kind of thing I could get addicted to, to be fair.
  • The Shoutbox
    I'm joyful :blush:
  • The Shoutbox
    Apparently Powell was the same disgusting rag of a human being who was put in charge of investigating the My Lai massacre, only to find that it was all hunky dory. No wonder he lied so straight-faced to the world when he sanctioned the deaths of 400,000 Iraqis. He made war criminality a career. The quality of Earth's air just improved somewhat.
  • The Shoutbox
    To celebrate death is also to be a warmonger.unenlightened

    Yep.

    :party:
  • The Shoutbox
    Another war criminal dead today.

    May the families of the hundred and thousands who he ushered to death on a lie - American soldiers included - sleep much better tonight.
  • Currently Reading
    I've heard great things about this! Let me know how you find it. When Verso has their next sale I'm planning to pick up his Against The Market. Did you finish Davidson's How Revolutionary? btw?
  • Scotty from Marketing
    does your constituency tend to consume Murdoch media?fdrake

    We have two major media conglomerates that have an effective duopoly on the press in Australia. Murdoch is one of them, and by far the largest one. In our regional areas, Murdoch owns all the newspapers. His online presence is enormous too, owning the most visited Australian new site (news.com.au). Not to mention skynews.com.au, which the Youtube algorithm agressively pushes. When our PM visited the US earlier this year, one of his stops was to Murdoch to kiss the ring.

    The other half of the duopoly, Nine, is run by a former treasurer of the existing government, the same one that basically follows Murdoch's lead like a hurt puppy. Just this year, our government pushed through legislation to force social media companies (read: Facebook) to pay 'local' media for their users even *linking* to their content. Indie media miss out on any of it.

    The two (relatively popular) public broadcasters, the ABC and SBS, and consistently under attack for being too left leaning, despite the fact that they are both ensconsed solidly in the middle, and have had their funds constantly cut by the current government. Our media landscape is a disaster.
  • Scotty from Marketing
    Some more than others.
  • Scotty from Marketing
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10086479/American-anti-vaxxers-faith-groups-manipulating-vulnerable-Aussies-not-jabbed.html

    I know it's the DM but to think that we threw our hat in with this awful country. Australians like to fear monger about the threat of China - frankly it's Americans who are fatal to our well being. To think there was a whole cadre of them vying to 'save us' while standing atop of the dead bodies of 700,000 of their own citizens.
  • The Problem of Resemblences
    Hm, the comparison of sight to the other senses is not homologous. You say that what you see resembles what is seen (how could it not?). OK, a little odd, but fine. But then you say that the smell of grass does not resemble grass. But what does that even mean? It seems to mean: the smell of grass does not resemble the sight of grass. But why the privileging of sight? After all, it doesn't seem like the reverse operation is admissable - why not say, 'the sight of grass does not resemble the smell of grass?'.

    In other words, what you call 'resemblance' already takes sight as its privileged sense. But why? Why is 'the wall which produces the sensation' understood on the modality of sight - a conflation of a sensory modality with the sheer existence of the wall as such.

    The very language of resemblance is odd too: the idea is that you have two terms, X and Y, where one can or cannot resemble the other. But in the case of sight, the issue of resemblance apparently does not apply, insofar as there is simply one term: 'that which is seen'. But for some reason - and the confusion here seems linguistic rather than substantial - two terms are admitted (arbitrarily?) for the other senses, except, having conflated sight with existence, every other sensory modality is judged to fail to 'live up to' the 'resemblance' understood as 'what it looks like'. But what kind of problem is this? Seems to me like asking why a fish can't climb a tree, despite the fact that for some inexplicable reason the fish seems to do very well in water. But the problem here is not with the fish, but the question itself. But perhaps I'm missing something. If so, what?

    Yet another consideration: from a phenomenological standpoint, this separation of sensory modalities is artificial from the get-go. The idea that things don't smell like they look, or feel like they sound is simply not true to experience, outside of some very narrow and artificial boundaries. To quote Alphonso Lingis:

    "A thing is not a whole assembled by the central nervous system out of separate sensory data, nor is it a conceptual term posited by the mind and used to interpret the data being recorded on the separate senses. The sense organ focused on a pattern is a segment of the whole interconnected mass of the sensory nervous system. What we pick up with the eyes is already sensed by the whole sensitive substance of our body. When we see the yellow, it already looks homogeneous or pulpy, hard or soft, dense or vaporous, it already registers on our taste and smell; anything that looks like brown sugar will not taste like a lemon. To see it better and to see it as a thing is to position oneself before it and converge one's sensory surfaces upon it. It is the postural schema that comprehends things. To recognize a lemon is not to conceive the idea of a lemon on the occasion of certain sensory impressions; it is to know how to approach such a thing, how to handle it, so that its distinctive way of filling and bulging out space, its distinctive way of concentrating color and density and sourness there becomes clear and distinct" (Lingis, Sensation).

    Or in yet other words: all sensing is synesthetic from the get-go, and the parcelling out of senses into discrete modalities is an artificial, analytic operation undertaken after the fact, on the basis of a rationalist confusion.
  • Currently Reading
    Georges Dumezil - The Destiny of the Warrior
    Jane Jacobs - The Death and Life of Great American Cities

    Federico Finchelstein - A Brief History of Fascist Lies.Number2018

    How is this?
  • Devitt: "Dummett's Anti-Realism"
    What an excellent paper. Frankly Devitt could have stopped the paper at:

    "Realism says nothing about truth nor even about the bearers of truth, sentences and beliefs (except perhaps, in its use of 'objective', the negative point that beliefs do not determine existence). Realism says nothing semantic at all" - and be done with it.

    It has always struck me as odd that realism ever turned upon some human activity like truth-telling at all. It has always been the status of truth (what kind of thing is truth) and not a 'theory of truth' which any 'realism' would need to tackle.

    Devitt's also right to point out that Dummett's appropriation of Witty's 'meaning is use' is somewhat underhanded. To take that phrase seriously would be precisely to rule out Dummett's project. That Dummett has been taken so seriously at all should be puzzling, were it not for the prevalence of 'realist theories of truth' before him.

    The causal talk seems a bit iffy to me, but that's not the point of the paper I guess.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Yeah. "We need a couple of Republicans here and there to stand up" is just the bit I thought was not very strong.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    I read this when it came out and I think it's almost exactly right.
  • Currently Reading
    Georges Dumezil - The Destiny of a King
    Georges Dumezil - Mitra-Varuna: An Essay on Two Indo-European Representations of Sovereignty
    James Baldwin - The Fire Next Time
    Kathryn Yusoff - A Billion Black Anthropocenes or None
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Cool, not following conversations it is. Thanks for your time.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Ah yes, I too remember the post where we said we were discussing actual policy. Fine recollection you have, brother bear.

    And yes we were talking about the fascism of those who want to deprive the voting rights of political opponents supporters of political opponents, that is correct. 100 points to you.

    Look, if you have anything of substance to say beyond making things up and not following conversations, come back to me.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    OK, what inspired this conversation hmm?
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Oh my mistake, I didn't realize that you were incapable of tracking what the discussion is about and making the most basic of inferences. I will probably make this mistake again.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    American culture is, at its heart, plebeian culture.baker

    I'm always one to defend the plebs, who, after all, are all of us anyway, despite what we like to think. But really, I don't like culturalist 'explanations' for anything - culture is explanandum - that which is to be explained - not explanans. Americans - like most other people, to be fair - are victims of liberal politics which is incapable at dealing with any issues at a systemic level. Social and political problems are always displaced into individual ones, which is why the go-to reaction is punishment. American liberals are just the other face of American conservatives. They just happen to like to mete out punishment to different demographics. Where conservatives like punishing women (cf. Texas), liberals like punishing the uneducated. Both delight in punishing the poor. Trump is the result in either case.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    :up: Compulsory voting - not taking away more votes - would be a move in the right direction, although hardly a panacea.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Yes, that part of it is almost that simple. But the election itself is not.tim wood

    American "elections" maybe.

    The rest of your waffle are just excuses for more American fascism.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    If you're a citizen and of age, you vote. It's as simple as that. The US regime however neither has real elections nor a working public education system - nor a democracy for that matter - so it would probably be worth fixing those up first before trying to punish people you don't like - all the better ensure more Trump for years to come.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Citizenship should be enough for to have the right to vote.ssu

    Yep.

    Among the worst effects of Trump is that he turns even his so-called opponents into fascists.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    I, too, like to consider social and political punishment for underclasses who express views I do not like.

    There is even the slightest possibility that this is a good idea.

    I am very intelligent.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Seriously though, advocating for so-called voting competency tests is an all round terrible idea. One could hardly think of a better way to entrench economic and social inequality in so direct a manner right at the level of political expression. Like, maybe think about building a robust and accessible education system first before resorting to punitive measures? This is why liberals are always enablers of fascism.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    May you, on the other hand, have always kakaphonous in your ear and be subject to the authority of the ignorant, stupid, crazy, and evil. - Or are you already?tim wood

    Ok fascist.

    "I'm against craziness - I just want to institute fascist measures and accelerate support for Trump across the board, I'm so bog standard".

    How did Trump win, and why will Trump win again? Exhibit A,Tim Wood.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Mixed feelings. I think on the whole it was better that Trump got STFU'd. But I despise that a spineless corporation like Twitter has that kind of power. They will inevitably reinstate his account once Trump gets his second term anyway.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    I think worse things should happen to Trump.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    I love that people like Tim, who is living through a political moment in which an entire population of people voted for Trump because they felt their voice was not being heard, thinks the solution is to deprive people of voices even more.

    One can only conclude that Tim is a Trump supporter.
  • Currently Reading
    Having just finished the book, it's like a retrospective embarrassment to me that I haven't come to it sooner - that it took his death to kick my butt to read. I mean -

    "By recognizing it as a political system, the "Racial Contract" voluntarizes race in the same way that the social contract voluntarizes the creation of society and the state. It distinguishes between whiteness as phenotype/genealogy and Whiteness as a political commitment to white supremacy, thus making conceptual room for "white renegades" and "race traitors." ... Correspondingly, the "Racial Contract" demystifies the uniqueness of white racism (for those who, understandably, see Europeans as intrinsically White) by locating it as the contingent outcome of a particular set of circumstances ... In a sense, the "Racial Contract" decolorizes Whiteness by detaching it from whiteness, thereby demonstrating that in a parallel universe it could have been Yellowness, Redness, Brownness, or Blackness. Or, alternatively phrased, we could have had a yellow, red, brown, or black Whiteness: Whiteness is not really a color at all, but a set of power relations."

    Absolutely killer. The dissent article is a fitting tribute.
  • Currently Reading
    I've seen it. Really fantastic.
  • Currently Reading
    I was just thinking I need to read some Baldwin after this!
  • Currently Reading
    "Within these racial polities, the Racial Contract manifests itself in white resistance to anything more than the formal extension of the terms of the abstract social contract (and often to that also). Whereas before it was denied that non-whites were equal persons, it is now pretended that non-whites are equal abstract persons who can be fully included in the polity merely by extending the scope of the moral operator, without any fundamental change in the arrangements that have resulted from the previous system of explicit de jure racial privilege.

    ...Nonwhites then find that race is, paradoxically, both everywhere and nowhere, structuring their lives but not formally recognized in political/moral theory. But in a racially structured polity, the only people who can find it psychologically possible to deny the centrality of race are those who are racially privileged, or whom race is invisible precisely because the world is structured around them, whiteness as the ground against which the figures of other races those who, unlike us, are raced-appear. The fish does not see the water, and whites do not see the racial nature of a white polity because it is natural to them, the element in which they move. As Toni Morrison points out, there are contexts in which claiming racelessness is itself a racial act".

    Gosh it's like the debates haven't changed changed for two and a half decades.
  • Currently Reading
    Leigh Phillips and Michal Rozworski - People's Republic of Walmart: How the World's Biggest Corporations are Laying the Foundation for Socialism
    Charles W. Mills - The Racial Contract (@180 Proof, he passed away this week :sad: )
    Jon Roffe - Abstract Market Theory