Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
I don't get this SJW business. As far as I can tell it is extended to mean movie subplots I don't like? Only white men are allowed to be actors doing cool stuff, black actors and actresses should be there to prop up the cool white men actors? SJW appears to be even more of a joke word than I took it for originally. I can't that acronym seriously before, and after, I still don't
The article and legal filing paints a very different picture of the NRA than they put forth. I was not aware they tired to offer legal insurance to cover “the lawful discharge of a fire arm”. It looks like they might have spent way to much in 2016 and gotten them selves in some real trouble.
On August 04 2018 05:35 Nebuchad wrote: Have you determined that Trump is not a fascist and if you have, what led you to that conclusion?
i suppose it depends on what you think is at stake in the yea or nay
The part of the created quote that matters is the "we need to return to an agreed framework where certain things are assumed", the rest isn't really inconsistent with Chomsky. Yet we've switched from idiot to fascist between your thought and the quote and I was wondering if there was a significance.
Well, I don't think any of the three quoted sentences are entirely true in context. Trump may very well be "a deranged idiot," and there may well be deranged imbeciles that support him, but that seems clearly untrue of everyone that he represents.
On August 04 2018 04:19 Plansix wrote: I think we all got it, but politely disagreed with his assessment. But its nice you found someone that agrees with you on this subject.
I don't think he did though.
P6 chronically doesn't understand IgnE but feels compelled to respond, and xDaunt consistently thinks IgnE is agreeing with him when he's actually making fun of him (and the people poking xDaunt).
(I don't think this spoils it for IgnE since this isn't the first time it's been pointed out and yet it keeps happening.)
That you think that I believe that Igne is agreeing with me substantively on this topic or anything else tells me that you don’t understand Igne’s posts at all.
You have. It's a forum so people can see it's happened before. You're right though that more often you're aware he's disagreeing with you (but engaging your argument) and it's people like P6 that think you and Igne are in agreement which prompts them to post non sequiturs and other things that betray a complete lack of understanding of the post with which they are engaging.
So probably not fair for me to say you consistently do it, but you do seem to miss (or just never remark on) how IgnE slams you harder than they ever do.
First of all, it's fairly seldom that IgnE actually "slams" me on anything. In fact, he very rarely engages me or my opinions directly, generally preferring to serve as the "xDaunt interpreter" for all of the hopelessly lost people in this thread that have difficulty fathoming how someone like me exists, much less understanding half of what I say or why I might have a point. I wish he did engage my points more, because I'd much rather have a conversation with him than most anyone else around here.
Second, and to the extent that Igne does directly engage me or my opinions, you are correct in that he is far more effective at arguing with me than most anyone else around here. And there's no mystery as to why that is. He digests my arguments before responding, whereas most people simply respond with some horrifically misplaced dismissive attitude.
Sooo I'm back to thinking you're missing the parts of Igne's posts that basically laughingly dismiss your position, but by way of substantive argument and obscure (for here at least) references.
I don't disagree with you that the thread liberals are typically terrible at reading and responding to your (or pretty much any post that disagrees with them) posts.
i dont laughingly dismiss his position. i take it very seriously.
i am not opposed to all criticism of trump's rhetoric. i am on record at multiple points saying trump is a dangerous idiot. i just think that the standard line of:
"trump is a dangerous fascist out of touch with reality. every day he says something even more alarming than before. 'alternative facts' are just crazy deranged talk. we need to return to an agreed framework where certain things are assumed"
is just a totally obtuse, unreflective response that refuses to really reckon with the real break in dominant discourse. its not that simple. anyone, for example, who takes chomsky's ideas in Manufacturing Consent seriously cannot in good faith make such an unqualified argument.
i do think that demands for civility can be oppressive in certain situations. but i also think that civility and charity are necessary in order to have a conversation. i think there is an ethical demand to be open to conversation on some level in a democracy. conversation demands thoughtfulness. i am optimistic about rhetoric, broadly conceived, and really believe in the possibility of change, which in its most basic form is changing your mind. how to go about that is an open question, but some things seem clearly counterproductive.
Also got the feeling I was to your left (or more radical I guess) regarding civility and the influence of race on policy, so I think this confirms that. I think we've both tried to get at the issue you highlight from a lot of angles, doesn't seem any of it is making much headway. Though I think I've made some progress despite the protestations and the proof is in the pudding. Of course it could be merely correlation without any causational relationship to be found.
I'm unsure a conversation is still possible though. Looks to me to be more of a situation of people marshaling their forces and preparing to do battle. With one faction (the people) woefully unprepared for their opponents.
Do you think a quote like this:
As against our gauzy national hopes, I will teach my boys to have profound doubts that friendship with white people is possible. ~ Ekow N. Yankah (New York Times, 2017)
is productive rhetoric? Do you think Coleman Hughes, who has been doing the podcast circuit of late, hasanypointat all?
The article and legal filing paints a very different picture of the NRA than they put forth. I was not aware they tired to offer legal insurance to cover “the lawful discharge of a fire arm”. It looks like they might have spent way to much in 2016 and gotten them selves in some real trouble.
On August 04 2018 08:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I don't get this SJW business. As far as I can tell it is extended to mean movie subplots I don't like? Only white men are allowed to be actors doing cool stuff, black actors and actresses should be there to prop up the cool white men actors? SJW appears to be even more of a joke word than I took it for originally. I can't that acronym seriously before, and after, I still don't
It looks like one of the kinds of attribution biases. not sure which exact one. I should do a refresher on the various cognitive biases so I can refer to them better. Basically, it's blaming the flaws that exist in an object on the target of your hate, rather than trying to reasonably look for the actual source of the flaws. So they blame SJW for it rather than just bad writing. To clarify a bit: if you could look at it objectively (assuming such a thing exists), sometimes the flaw would be just bad writing, sometimes it really would be due to SJW stuff, and sometimes due to the opposite of SJW stuff. While bad writing should be the predominant explanations, all 3 should occur. As a result you have to judge which of them apply in an instance. Some people's existing biases cause them to see certain explanations as more common than they actually are.
On August 04 2018 05:35 Nebuchad wrote: Have you determined that Trump is not a fascist and if you have, what led you to that conclusion?
i suppose it depends on what you think is at stake in the yea or nay
The part of the created quote that matters is the "we need to return to an agreed framework where certain things are assumed", the rest isn't really inconsistent with Chomsky. Yet we've switched from idiot to fascist between your thought and the quote and I was wondering if there was a significance.
Well, I don't think any of the three quoted sentences are entirely true in context. Trump may very well be "a deranged idiot," and there may well be deranged imbeciles that support him, but that seems clearly untrue of everyone that he represents.
On August 04 2018 04:19 Plansix wrote: I think we all got it, but politely disagreed with his assessment. But its nice you found someone that agrees with you on this subject.
I don't think he did though.
P6 chronically doesn't understand IgnE but feels compelled to respond, and xDaunt consistently thinks IgnE is agreeing with him when he's actually making fun of him (and the people poking xDaunt).
(I don't think this spoils it for IgnE since this isn't the first time it's been pointed out and yet it keeps happening.)
That you think that I believe that Igne is agreeing with me substantively on this topic or anything else tells me that you don’t understand Igne’s posts at all.
You have. It's a forum so people can see it's happened before. You're right though that more often you're aware he's disagreeing with you (but engaging your argument) and it's people like P6 that think you and Igne are in agreement which prompts them to post non sequiturs and other things that betray a complete lack of understanding of the post with which they are engaging.
So probably not fair for me to say you consistently do it, but you do seem to miss (or just never remark on) how IgnE slams you harder than they ever do.
First of all, it's fairly seldom that IgnE actually "slams" me on anything. In fact, he very rarely engages me or my opinions directly, generally preferring to serve as the "xDaunt interpreter" for all of the hopelessly lost people in this thread that have difficulty fathoming how someone like me exists, much less understanding half of what I say or why I might have a point. I wish he did engage my points more, because I'd much rather have a conversation with him than most anyone else around here.
Second, and to the extent that Igne does directly engage me or my opinions, you are correct in that he is far more effective at arguing with me than most anyone else around here. And there's no mystery as to why that is. He digests my arguments before responding, whereas most people simply respond with some horrifically misplaced dismissive attitude.
Sooo I'm back to thinking you're missing the parts of Igne's posts that basically laughingly dismiss your position, but by way of substantive argument and obscure (for here at least) references.
I don't disagree with you that the thread liberals are typically terrible at reading and responding to your (or pretty much any post that disagrees with them) posts.
i dont laughingly dismiss his position. i take it very seriously.
i am not opposed to all criticism of trump's rhetoric. i am on record at multiple points saying trump is a dangerous idiot. i just think that the standard line of:
"trump is a dangerous fascist out of touch with reality. every day he says something even more alarming than before. 'alternative facts' are just crazy deranged talk. we need to return to an agreed framework where certain things are assumed"
is just a totally obtuse, unreflective response that refuses to really reckon with the real break in dominant discourse. its not that simple. anyone, for example, who takes chomsky's ideas in Manufacturing Consent seriously cannot in good faith make such an unqualified argument.
i do think that demands for civility can be oppressive in certain situations. but i also think that civility and charity are necessary in order to have a conversation. i think there is an ethical demand to be open to conversation on some level in a democracy. conversation demands thoughtfulness. i am optimistic about rhetoric, broadly conceived, and really believe in the possibility of change, which in its most basic form is changing your mind. how to go about that is an open question, but some things seem clearly counterproductive.
Also got the feeling I was to your left (or more radical I guess) regarding civility and the influence of race on policy, so I think this confirms that. I think we've both tried to get at the issue you highlight from a lot of angles, doesn't seem any of it is making much headway. Though I think I've made some progress despite the protestations and the proof is in the pudding. Of course it could be merely correlation without any causational relationship to be found.
I'm unsure a conversation is still possible though. Looks to me to be more of a situation of people marshaling their forces and preparing to do battle. With one faction (the people) woefully unprepared for their opponents.
Do you think a quote like this:
As against our gauzy national hopes, I will teach my boys to have profound doubts that friendship with white people is possible. ~ Ekow N. Yankah (New York Times, 2017)
is productive rhetoric? Do you think Coleman Hughes, who has been doing the podcast circuit of late, hasanypointat all?
As just an aside, I had dinner with Candace Owens at an event earlier this year. She was remarkably thoughtful and thoroughly engaging.
On August 04 2018 05:35 Nebuchad wrote: Have you determined that Trump is not a fascist and if you have, what led you to that conclusion?
i suppose it depends on what you think is at stake in the yea or nay
The part of the created quote that matters is the "we need to return to an agreed framework where certain things are assumed", the rest isn't really inconsistent with Chomsky. Yet we've switched from idiot to fascist between your thought and the quote and I was wondering if there was a significance.
Well, I don't think any of the three quoted sentences are entirely true in context. Trump may very well be "a deranged idiot," and there may well be deranged imbeciles that support him, but that seems clearly untrue of everyone that he represents.
On August 04 2018 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 04 2018 05:31 IgnE wrote:
On August 04 2018 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 04 2018 05:06 xDaunt wrote:
On August 04 2018 04:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 04 2018 04:42 xDaunt wrote:
On August 04 2018 04:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 04 2018 04:29 Nebuchad wrote: [quote]
I don't think he did though.
P6 chronically doesn't understand IgnE but feels compelled to respond, and xDaunt consistently thinks IgnE is agreeing with him when he's actually making fun of him (and the people poking xDaunt).
(I don't think this spoils it for IgnE since this isn't the first time it's been pointed out and yet it keeps happening.)
That you think that I believe that Igne is agreeing with me substantively on this topic or anything else tells me that you don’t understand Igne’s posts at all.
You have. It's a forum so people can see it's happened before. You're right though that more often you're aware he's disagreeing with you (but engaging your argument) and it's people like P6 that think you and Igne are in agreement which prompts them to post non sequiturs and other things that betray a complete lack of understanding of the post with which they are engaging.
So probably not fair for me to say you consistently do it, but you do seem to miss (or just never remark on) how IgnE slams you harder than they ever do.
First of all, it's fairly seldom that IgnE actually "slams" me on anything. In fact, he very rarely engages me or my opinions directly, generally preferring to serve as the "xDaunt interpreter" for all of the hopelessly lost people in this thread that have difficulty fathoming how someone like me exists, much less understanding half of what I say or why I might have a point. I wish he did engage my points more, because I'd much rather have a conversation with him than most anyone else around here.
Second, and to the extent that Igne does directly engage me or my opinions, you are correct in that he is far more effective at arguing with me than most anyone else around here. And there's no mystery as to why that is. He digests my arguments before responding, whereas most people simply respond with some horrifically misplaced dismissive attitude.
Sooo I'm back to thinking you're missing the parts of Igne's posts that basically laughingly dismiss your position, but by way of substantive argument and obscure (for here at least) references.
I don't disagree with you that the thread liberals are typically terrible at reading and responding to your (or pretty much any post that disagrees with them) posts.
i dont laughingly dismiss his position. i take it very seriously.
i am not opposed to all criticism of trump's rhetoric. i am on record at multiple points saying trump is a dangerous idiot. i just think that the standard line of:
"trump is a dangerous fascist out of touch with reality. every day he says something even more alarming than before. 'alternative facts' are just crazy deranged talk. we need to return to an agreed framework where certain things are assumed"
is just a totally obtuse, unreflective response that refuses to really reckon with the real break in dominant discourse. its not that simple. anyone, for example, who takes chomsky's ideas in Manufacturing Consent seriously cannot in good faith make such an unqualified argument.
i do think that demands for civility can be oppressive in certain situations. but i also think that civility and charity are necessary in order to have a conversation. i think there is an ethical demand to be open to conversation on some level in a democracy. conversation demands thoughtfulness. i am optimistic about rhetoric, broadly conceived, and really believe in the possibility of change, which in its most basic form is changing your mind. how to go about that is an open question, but some things seem clearly counterproductive.
Also got the feeling I was to your left (or more radical I guess) regarding civility and the influence of race on policy, so I think this confirms that. I think we've both tried to get at the issue you highlight from a lot of angles, doesn't seem any of it is making much headway. Though I think I've made some progress despite the protestations and the proof is in the pudding. Of course it could be merely correlation without any causational relationship to be found.
I'm unsure a conversation is still possible though. Looks to me to be more of a situation of people marshaling their forces and preparing to do battle. With one faction (the people) woefully unprepared for their opponents.
Do you think a quote like this:
As against our gauzy national hopes, I will teach my boys to have profound doubts that friendship with white people is possible. ~ Ekow N. Yankah (New York Times, 2017)
is productive rhetoric? Do you think Coleman Hughes, who has been doing the podcast circuit of late, hasanypointat all?
As just an aside, I had dinner with Candace Owens at an event earlier this year. She was remarkably thoughtful and thoroughly engaging.
Ugh no. Let's not defend Candace Owens. She may very well be a remarkably nice person, but she's very clearly out of her depth. I've tried listening to her do her spiel and it just makes me want to bash my head against a wall.
On August 03 2018 22:28 farvacola wrote: It's also an incoherent take; Trump doesn't attack "the media as a whole," he only attacks those segments of the mediascape that are hostile or at least indifferent to him and the ideas he represents. The notion that he's taking on "the media" only makes sense if you regard "the media" as a group that does not include the dominant television news provider and a host of other sources. It's also silly to overlook the extent to which the Crossfire epoch and the Internet fundamentally changed the way news started working around the mid 90s; any sweeping description of "generations of media" that fails to account for this isn't an accurate description at all.
It's not incoherent if you consider "the media" to be a floating signifier filled in with particular content by the person enunciating it. And isn't that why "MSM" has become so popular a term since 2015?
In any case I don't feel particularly uncomfortable with a statement like, "Fox News is the enemy," even though I believe there are probably some decent people that work at Fox News. Is "Fox News is the enemy" so different a statement?
Sure, the sentiment becomes coherent if you drop the pretense of positive, iterative signification in pursuit of objective description, but that's the Saussurean path towards admitting that political speech is inherently detached from the circumstances that ostensibly give rise to colloquy in the first place. That admission totally destabilizes the basis for Trumpist apologism of the sort practiced by folks like xDaunt, however, because it's clear that while they'd be fine admitting that terms like "the media" and "fake news" serve as floating semantic targets, the likes of which needn't be pinned down in the way anti-Trumpers insist they ought to, they would not and do not make the same admission with regards to fundamentally similar floating signifiers a la terms like "racism" and "SJW." Thus, the game of allowing folks to justify Trump in terms of the destabilization of linguistic signifiers is to let them have their cake and eat it while driving the wrong direction on a one way road.
"Fox News is the enemy" is a fine thing to assert, but when someone insists Trump is fighting "the media as a whole" while ignoring the extent to which Trump cozies up to and coddles specific segments of "the media as a whole," explaining away the difference in terms of floating signifiers doesn't do justice to what is actually going on.
it seems possible that anti-trumpers (as demonstrated by the comments in this thread) are routinely underestimating the degree to which the trumpist right is consciously assuming the kind of deconstructionist language games that defined the post-60s liberal discourse, while at the same time 'keeping up appearances'. the question for me is less about how many fundamentalists there are on the right (no doubt a great many) but about how more educated right-wingers (like xdaunt) engage in a cynical maintenance/production of a big Other, through the Zizekian 'subject supposed to believe'.
now i admit that xdaunt rarely goes into it, and that is why ive made comments in the past about the radical 'decisionism' of trumpist right-wingers that mostly subsides below naive appearance. but cant we see now how right fredric jameson was to insist that neoliberals and fellow travelers on the left share much in common: almost everything except the most important stuff. and so i read xdaunt's comments in that light. that is, if xdaunt is the cynical, economically neoliberal trumpist who cares about rule of (property) law, he should be opposed to the more unreflective anti-trumpers who are actually more fundamentalist. they insist that phrases like "freedom of the press" and "the media" are transhistorical signifiers referring to really existing objects. their hysterical response to linguistic attacks is to assert "no, these aren't just language games, we want a real Master to come back and secure the symbolic order that we insist is real"
edit: i probably shouldnt characterize xdaunt as a neoliberal, it is possible that "classically liberal" is the new neoliberal, except it should now be known as a kind of oxymoronic "postmodern classical liberalism"
More often than not xDaunt's posts contain cries for a return to symbolic order. Instead of Trump attacking the freedom of the press, it's SJWs attacking essentialism and tradition. More than attacking, winning.
The main difference in this regard between him and centrists is how achievable a return to their respective orders is perceived, no 'master' was going to rewind that clock so the apparent only choice was to back a wildcard in the (again apparent) now or never fight against the current. This echoes his appreciation for the flight 93 argument.
On August 04 2018 05:35 Nebuchad wrote: Have you determined that Trump is not a fascist and if you have, what led you to that conclusion?
i suppose it depends on what you think is at stake in the yea or nay
The part of the created quote that matters is the "we need to return to an agreed framework where certain things are assumed", the rest isn't really inconsistent with Chomsky. Yet we've switched from idiot to fascist between your thought and the quote and I was wondering if there was a significance.
Well, I don't think any of the three quoted sentences are entirely true in context. Trump may very well be "a deranged idiot," and there may well be deranged imbeciles that support him, but that seems clearly untrue of everyone that he represents.
On August 04 2018 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 04 2018 05:31 IgnE wrote:
On August 04 2018 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 04 2018 05:06 xDaunt wrote:
On August 04 2018 04:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 04 2018 04:42 xDaunt wrote:
On August 04 2018 04:35 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
P6 chronically doesn't understand IgnE but feels compelled to respond, and xDaunt consistently thinks IgnE is agreeing with him when he's actually making fun of him (and the people poking xDaunt).
(I don't think this spoils it for IgnE since this isn't the first time it's been pointed out and yet it keeps happening.)
That you think that I believe that Igne is agreeing with me substantively on this topic or anything else tells me that you don’t understand Igne’s posts at all.
You have. It's a forum so people can see it's happened before. You're right though that more often you're aware he's disagreeing with you (but engaging your argument) and it's people like P6 that think you and Igne are in agreement which prompts them to post non sequiturs and other things that betray a complete lack of understanding of the post with which they are engaging.
So probably not fair for me to say you consistently do it, but you do seem to miss (or just never remark on) how IgnE slams you harder than they ever do.
First of all, it's fairly seldom that IgnE actually "slams" me on anything. In fact, he very rarely engages me or my opinions directly, generally preferring to serve as the "xDaunt interpreter" for all of the hopelessly lost people in this thread that have difficulty fathoming how someone like me exists, much less understanding half of what I say or why I might have a point. I wish he did engage my points more, because I'd much rather have a conversation with him than most anyone else around here.
Second, and to the extent that Igne does directly engage me or my opinions, you are correct in that he is far more effective at arguing with me than most anyone else around here. And there's no mystery as to why that is. He digests my arguments before responding, whereas most people simply respond with some horrifically misplaced dismissive attitude.
Sooo I'm back to thinking you're missing the parts of Igne's posts that basically laughingly dismiss your position, but by way of substantive argument and obscure (for here at least) references.
I don't disagree with you that the thread liberals are typically terrible at reading and responding to your (or pretty much any post that disagrees with them) posts.
i dont laughingly dismiss his position. i take it very seriously.
i am not opposed to all criticism of trump's rhetoric. i am on record at multiple points saying trump is a dangerous idiot. i just think that the standard line of:
"trump is a dangerous fascist out of touch with reality. every day he says something even more alarming than before. 'alternative facts' are just crazy deranged talk. we need to return to an agreed framework where certain things are assumed"
is just a totally obtuse, unreflective response that refuses to really reckon with the real break in dominant discourse. its not that simple. anyone, for example, who takes chomsky's ideas in Manufacturing Consent seriously cannot in good faith make such an unqualified argument.
i do think that demands for civility can be oppressive in certain situations. but i also think that civility and charity are necessary in order to have a conversation. i think there is an ethical demand to be open to conversation on some level in a democracy. conversation demands thoughtfulness. i am optimistic about rhetoric, broadly conceived, and really believe in the possibility of change, which in its most basic form is changing your mind. how to go about that is an open question, but some things seem clearly counterproductive.
Also got the feeling I was to your left (or more radical I guess) regarding civility and the influence of race on policy, so I think this confirms that. I think we've both tried to get at the issue you highlight from a lot of angles, doesn't seem any of it is making much headway. Though I think I've made some progress despite the protestations and the proof is in the pudding. Of course it could be merely correlation without any causational relationship to be found.
I'm unsure a conversation is still possible though. Looks to me to be more of a situation of people marshaling their forces and preparing to do battle. With one faction (the people) woefully unprepared for their opponents.
Do you think a quote like this:
As against our gauzy national hopes, I will teach my boys to have profound doubts that friendship with white people is possible. ~ Ekow N. Yankah (New York Times, 2017)
is productive rhetoric? Do you think Coleman Hughes, who has been doing the podcast circuit of late, hasanypointat all?
As just an aside, I had dinner with Candace Owens at an event earlier this year. She was remarkably thoughtful and thoroughly engaging.
Ugh no. Let's not defend Candace Owens. She may very well be a remarkably nice person, but she's very clearly out of her depth. I've tried listening to her do her spiel and it just makes me want to bash my head against a wall.
Let’s be honest. Her spiel is simplistic by design, and it very clearly is going to rub the wrong way anyone who adheres to modern race victimology.
On August 03 2018 22:28 farvacola wrote: It's also an incoherent take; Trump doesn't attack "the media as a whole," he only attacks those segments of the mediascape that are hostile or at least indifferent to him and the ideas he represents. The notion that he's taking on "the media" only makes sense if you regard "the media" as a group that does not include the dominant television news provider and a host of other sources. It's also silly to overlook the extent to which the Crossfire epoch and the Internet fundamentally changed the way news started working around the mid 90s; any sweeping description of "generations of media" that fails to account for this isn't an accurate description at all.
It's not incoherent if you consider "the media" to be a floating signifier filled in with particular content by the person enunciating it. And isn't that why "MSM" has become so popular a term since 2015?
In any case I don't feel particularly uncomfortable with a statement like, "Fox News is the enemy," even though I believe there are probably some decent people that work at Fox News. Is "Fox News is the enemy" so different a statement?
Sure, the sentiment becomes coherent if you drop the pretense of positive, iterative signification in pursuit of objective description, but that's the Saussurean path towards admitting that political speech is inherently detached from the circumstances that ostensibly give rise to colloquy in the first place. That admission totally destabilizes the basis for Trumpist apologism of the sort practiced by folks like xDaunt, however, because it's clear that while they'd be fine admitting that terms like "the media" and "fake news" serve as floating semantic targets, the likes of which needn't be pinned down in the way anti-Trumpers insist they ought to, they would not and do not make the same admission with regards to fundamentally similar floating signifiers a la terms like "racism" and "SJW." Thus, the game of allowing folks to justify Trump in terms of the destabilization of linguistic signifiers is to let them have their cake and eat it while driving the wrong direction on a one way road.
"Fox News is the enemy" is a fine thing to assert, but when someone insists Trump is fighting "the media as a whole" while ignoring the extent to which Trump cozies up to and coddles specific segments of "the media as a whole," explaining away the difference in terms of floating signifiers doesn't do justice to what is actually going on.
it seems possible that anti-trumpers (as demonstrated by the comments in this thread) are routinely underestimating the degree to which the trumpist right is consciously assuming the kind of deconstructionist language games that defined the post-60s liberal discourse, while at the same time 'keeping up appearances'. the question for me is less about how many fundamentalists there are on the right (no doubt a great many) but about how more educated right-wingers (like xdaunt) engage in a cynical maintenance/production of a big Other, through the Zizekian 'subject supposed to believe'.
now i admit that xdaunt rarely goes into it, and that is why ive made comments in the past about the radical 'decisionism' of trumpist right-wingers that mostly subsides below naive appearance. but cant we see now how right fredric jameson was to insist that neoliberals and fellow travelers on the left share much in common: almost everything except the most important stuff. and so i read xdaunt's comments in that light. that is, if xdaunt is the cynical, economically neoliberal trumpist who cares about rule of (property) law, he should be opposed to the more unreflective anti-trumpers who are actually more fundamentalist. they insist that phrases like "freedom of the press" and "the media" are transhistorical signifiers referring to really existing objects. their hysterical response to linguistic attacks is to assert "no, these aren't just language games, we want a real Master to come back and secure the symbolic order that we insist is real"
edit: i probably shouldnt characterize xdaunt as a neoliberal, it is possible that "classically liberal" is the new neoliberal, except it should now be known as a kind of oxymoronic "postmodern classical liberalism"
More often than not xDaunt's posts contain cries for a return to symbolic order. Instead of Trump attacking the freedom of the press, it's SJWs attacking essentialism and tradition. More than attacking, winning.
The main difference in this regard between him and centrists is how achievable a return to their respective orders is perceived, no 'master' was going to rewind that clock so the apparent only choice was to back a wildcard in the (again apparent) now or never fight against the current. This echoes his appreciation for the flight 93 argument.
The method is one of disorder, but not the goal.
Right but the difference is that one is grounded in a decisionism that acknowledges the contingent nature of hegemony and the other thinks they are simply referring to the only "facts" that exist in a necessary (that is non-contingent), liberal-biased reality. They don't even understand what the fight is about.
On August 04 2018 05:35 Nebuchad wrote: Have you determined that Trump is not a fascist and if you have, what led you to that conclusion?
i suppose it depends on what you think is at stake in the yea or nay
The part of the created quote that matters is the "we need to return to an agreed framework where certain things are assumed", the rest isn't really inconsistent with Chomsky. Yet we've switched from idiot to fascist between your thought and the quote and I was wondering if there was a significance.
Well, I don't think any of the three quoted sentences are entirely true in context. Trump may very well be "a deranged idiot," and there may well be deranged imbeciles that support him, but that seems clearly untrue of everyone that he represents.
On August 04 2018 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 04 2018 05:31 IgnE wrote:
On August 04 2018 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 04 2018 05:06 xDaunt wrote:
On August 04 2018 04:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 04 2018 04:42 xDaunt wrote: [quote] That you think that I believe that Igne is agreeing with me substantively on this topic or anything else tells me that you don’t understand Igne’s posts at all.
You have. It's a forum so people can see it's happened before. You're right though that more often you're aware he's disagreeing with you (but engaging your argument) and it's people like P6 that think you and Igne are in agreement which prompts them to post non sequiturs and other things that betray a complete lack of understanding of the post with which they are engaging.
So probably not fair for me to say you consistently do it, but you do seem to miss (or just never remark on) how IgnE slams you harder than they ever do.
First of all, it's fairly seldom that IgnE actually "slams" me on anything. In fact, he very rarely engages me or my opinions directly, generally preferring to serve as the "xDaunt interpreter" for all of the hopelessly lost people in this thread that have difficulty fathoming how someone like me exists, much less understanding half of what I say or why I might have a point. I wish he did engage my points more, because I'd much rather have a conversation with him than most anyone else around here.
Second, and to the extent that Igne does directly engage me or my opinions, you are correct in that he is far more effective at arguing with me than most anyone else around here. And there's no mystery as to why that is. He digests my arguments before responding, whereas most people simply respond with some horrifically misplaced dismissive attitude.
Sooo I'm back to thinking you're missing the parts of Igne's posts that basically laughingly dismiss your position, but by way of substantive argument and obscure (for here at least) references.
I don't disagree with you that the thread liberals are typically terrible at reading and responding to your (or pretty much any post that disagrees with them) posts.
i dont laughingly dismiss his position. i take it very seriously.
i am not opposed to all criticism of trump's rhetoric. i am on record at multiple points saying trump is a dangerous idiot. i just think that the standard line of:
"trump is a dangerous fascist out of touch with reality. every day he says something even more alarming than before. 'alternative facts' are just crazy deranged talk. we need to return to an agreed framework where certain things are assumed"
is just a totally obtuse, unreflective response that refuses to really reckon with the real break in dominant discourse. its not that simple. anyone, for example, who takes chomsky's ideas in Manufacturing Consent seriously cannot in good faith make such an unqualified argument.
i do think that demands for civility can be oppressive in certain situations. but i also think that civility and charity are necessary in order to have a conversation. i think there is an ethical demand to be open to conversation on some level in a democracy. conversation demands thoughtfulness. i am optimistic about rhetoric, broadly conceived, and really believe in the possibility of change, which in its most basic form is changing your mind. how to go about that is an open question, but some things seem clearly counterproductive.
Also got the feeling I was to your left (or more radical I guess) regarding civility and the influence of race on policy, so I think this confirms that. I think we've both tried to get at the issue you highlight from a lot of angles, doesn't seem any of it is making much headway. Though I think I've made some progress despite the protestations and the proof is in the pudding. Of course it could be merely correlation without any causational relationship to be found.
I'm unsure a conversation is still possible though. Looks to me to be more of a situation of people marshaling their forces and preparing to do battle. With one faction (the people) woefully unprepared for their opponents.
Do you think a quote like this:
As against our gauzy national hopes, I will teach my boys to have profound doubts that friendship with white people is possible. ~ Ekow N. Yankah (New York Times, 2017)
is productive rhetoric? Do you think Coleman Hughes, who has been doing the podcast circuit of late, hasanypointat all?
As just an aside, I had dinner with Candace Owens at an event earlier this year. She was remarkably thoughtful and thoroughly engaging.
Ugh no. Let's not defend Candace Owens. She may very well be a remarkably nice person, but she's very clearly out of her depth. I've tried listening to her do her spiel and it just makes me want to bash my head against a wall.
Let’s be honest. Her spiel is simplistic by design, and it very clearly is going to rub the wrong way anyone who adheres to modern race victimology.
Oversimplified ideas are inaccurate and will rub the wrong way anyone who understands the subtleties of a problem. You can have simple, good ideas, but Owens doesn't, she has simple ideas that miss the point completely.
On August 04 2018 05:35 Nebuchad wrote: Have you determined that Trump is not a fascist and if you have, what led you to that conclusion?
i suppose it depends on what you think is at stake in the yea or nay
The part of the created quote that matters is the "we need to return to an agreed framework where certain things are assumed", the rest isn't really inconsistent with Chomsky. Yet we've switched from idiot to fascist between your thought and the quote and I was wondering if there was a significance.
Well, I don't think any of the three quoted sentences are entirely true in context. Trump may very well be "a deranged idiot," and there may well be deranged imbeciles that support him, but that seems clearly untrue of everyone that he represents.
On August 04 2018 04:19 Plansix wrote: I think we all got it, but politely disagreed with his assessment. But its nice you found someone that agrees with you on this subject.
I don't think he did though.
P6 chronically doesn't understand IgnE but feels compelled to respond, and xDaunt consistently thinks IgnE is agreeing with him when he's actually making fun of him (and the people poking xDaunt).
(I don't think this spoils it for IgnE since this isn't the first time it's been pointed out and yet it keeps happening.)
That you think that I believe that Igne is agreeing with me substantively on this topic or anything else tells me that you don’t understand Igne’s posts at all.
You have. It's a forum so people can see it's happened before. You're right though that more often you're aware he's disagreeing with you (but engaging your argument) and it's people like P6 that think you and Igne are in agreement which prompts them to post non sequiturs and other things that betray a complete lack of understanding of the post with which they are engaging.
So probably not fair for me to say you consistently do it, but you do seem to miss (or just never remark on) how IgnE slams you harder than they ever do.
First of all, it's fairly seldom that IgnE actually "slams" me on anything. In fact, he very rarely engages me or my opinions directly, generally preferring to serve as the "xDaunt interpreter" for all of the hopelessly lost people in this thread that have difficulty fathoming how someone like me exists, much less understanding half of what I say or why I might have a point. I wish he did engage my points more, because I'd much rather have a conversation with him than most anyone else around here.
Second, and to the extent that Igne does directly engage me or my opinions, you are correct in that he is far more effective at arguing with me than most anyone else around here. And there's no mystery as to why that is. He digests my arguments before responding, whereas most people simply respond with some horrifically misplaced dismissive attitude.
Sooo I'm back to thinking you're missing the parts of Igne's posts that basically laughingly dismiss your position, but by way of substantive argument and obscure (for here at least) references.
I don't disagree with you that the thread liberals are typically terrible at reading and responding to your (or pretty much any post that disagrees with them) posts.
i dont laughingly dismiss his position. i take it very seriously.
i am not opposed to all criticism of trump's rhetoric. i am on record at multiple points saying trump is a dangerous idiot. i just think that the standard line of:
"trump is a dangerous fascist out of touch with reality. every day he says something even more alarming than before. 'alternative facts' are just crazy deranged talk. we need to return to an agreed framework where certain things are assumed"
is just a totally obtuse, unreflective response that refuses to really reckon with the real break in dominant discourse. its not that simple. anyone, for example, who takes chomsky's ideas in Manufacturing Consent seriously cannot in good faith make such an unqualified argument.
i do think that demands for civility can be oppressive in certain situations. but i also think that civility and charity are necessary in order to have a conversation. i think there is an ethical demand to be open to conversation on some level in a democracy. conversation demands thoughtfulness. i am optimistic about rhetoric, broadly conceived, and really believe in the possibility of change, which in its most basic form is changing your mind. how to go about that is an open question, but some things seem clearly counterproductive.
Also got the feeling I was to your left (or more radical I guess) regarding civility and the influence of race on policy, so I think this confirms that. I think we've both tried to get at the issue you highlight from a lot of angles, doesn't seem any of it is making much headway. Though I think I've made some progress despite the protestations and the proof is in the pudding. Of course it could be merely correlation without any causational relationship to be found.
I'm unsure a conversation is still possible though. Looks to me to be more of a situation of people marshaling their forces and preparing to do battle. With one faction (the people) woefully unprepared for their opponents.
Do you think a quote like this:
As against our gauzy national hopes, I will teach my boys to have profound doubts that friendship with white people is possible. ~ Ekow N. Yankah (New York Times, 2017)
is productive rhetoric? Do you think Coleman Hughes, who has been doing the podcast circuit of late, hasanypointat all?
Obscure (though not really) and meta af but not verbose.
Yes, Yankah's honesty is important. He explains why in better detail and rhetorical flourish than I could hope to match here.
But perhaps you're alluding to his conclusion:
We can still all pretend we are friends. If meaningful civic friendship is impossible, we can make do with mere civility — sharing drinks and watching the game. Indeed, even in Donald Trump’s America, I have not given up on being friends with all white people. My bi-ethnic wife, my most trusted friend, understands she is seen as a white woman, even though her brother and father are not. Among my dearest friends, the wedding party and children’s godparents variety, many are white. But these are the friends who have marched in protest, rushed to airports to protest the president’s travel ban, people who have shared the risks required by strength and decency.
There is hope, though. Implicitly, without meaning to, Mr. Trump asks us if this is the best we can do. It falls to us to do better. We cannot agree on our politics, but we can declare that we stand beside one another against cheap attack and devaluation; that we live together and not simply beside one another. In the coming years, when my boys ask again their questions about who can be their best friend, I pray for a more hopeful answer.
but I'm feeling the:
Let me assure you that my heartbreak dwarfs my anger...
What’s surprising is that I am heartbroken at all. It is only for African-Americans who grew up in such a place (less openly racist parts of the country) that watching Mr. Trump is so disorienting. For many weary minorities, the ridiculous thing was thinking friendship was possible in the first place. It hurts only if you believed friendship could bridge the racial gorge.
Of course, the rise of this president has broken bonds on all sides. But for people of color the stakes are different. Imagining we can now be friends across this political line is asking us to ignore our safety and that of our children, to abandon personal regard and self-worth. Only white people can cordon off Mr. Trump’s political meaning, ignore the “unpleasantness” from a position of safety. His election and the year that has followed have fixed the awful thought in my mind too familiar to black Americans: “You can’t trust these people.”
As to Coleman Hughes, he's got a point about the progressive (and more egregiously the neoliberal), vision/explanation having shortcomings. But I haven't been able to listen/read enough of his stuff to know if he ever gets to how the intersection of class and race helps explain what's missing.
On August 04 2018 05:35 Nebuchad wrote: Have you determined that Trump is not a fascist and if you have, what led you to that conclusion?
i suppose it depends on what you think is at stake in the yea or nay
The part of the created quote that matters is the "we need to return to an agreed framework where certain things are assumed", the rest isn't really inconsistent with Chomsky. Yet we've switched from idiot to fascist between your thought and the quote and I was wondering if there was a significance.
Well, I don't think any of the three quoted sentences are entirely true in context. Trump may very well be "a deranged idiot," and there may well be deranged imbeciles that support him, but that seems clearly untrue of everyone that he represents.
On August 04 2018 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 04 2018 05:31 IgnE wrote:
On August 04 2018 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 04 2018 05:06 xDaunt wrote:
On August 04 2018 04:47 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
You have. It's a forum so people can see it's happened before. You're right though that more often you're aware he's disagreeing with you (but engaging your argument) and it's people like P6 that think you and Igne are in agreement which prompts them to post non sequiturs and other things that betray a complete lack of understanding of the post with which they are engaging.
So probably not fair for me to say you consistently do it, but you do seem to miss (or just never remark on) how IgnE slams you harder than they ever do.
First of all, it's fairly seldom that IgnE actually "slams" me on anything. In fact, he very rarely engages me or my opinions directly, generally preferring to serve as the "xDaunt interpreter" for all of the hopelessly lost people in this thread that have difficulty fathoming how someone like me exists, much less understanding half of what I say or why I might have a point. I wish he did engage my points more, because I'd much rather have a conversation with him than most anyone else around here.
Second, and to the extent that Igne does directly engage me or my opinions, you are correct in that he is far more effective at arguing with me than most anyone else around here. And there's no mystery as to why that is. He digests my arguments before responding, whereas most people simply respond with some horrifically misplaced dismissive attitude.
Sooo I'm back to thinking you're missing the parts of Igne's posts that basically laughingly dismiss your position, but by way of substantive argument and obscure (for here at least) references.
I don't disagree with you that the thread liberals are typically terrible at reading and responding to your (or pretty much any post that disagrees with them) posts.
i dont laughingly dismiss his position. i take it very seriously.
i am not opposed to all criticism of trump's rhetoric. i am on record at multiple points saying trump is a dangerous idiot. i just think that the standard line of:
"trump is a dangerous fascist out of touch with reality. every day he says something even more alarming than before. 'alternative facts' are just crazy deranged talk. we need to return to an agreed framework where certain things are assumed"
is just a totally obtuse, unreflective response that refuses to really reckon with the real break in dominant discourse. its not that simple. anyone, for example, who takes chomsky's ideas in Manufacturing Consent seriously cannot in good faith make such an unqualified argument.
i do think that demands for civility can be oppressive in certain situations. but i also think that civility and charity are necessary in order to have a conversation. i think there is an ethical demand to be open to conversation on some level in a democracy. conversation demands thoughtfulness. i am optimistic about rhetoric, broadly conceived, and really believe in the possibility of change, which in its most basic form is changing your mind. how to go about that is an open question, but some things seem clearly counterproductive.
Also got the feeling I was to your left (or more radical I guess) regarding civility and the influence of race on policy, so I think this confirms that. I think we've both tried to get at the issue you highlight from a lot of angles, doesn't seem any of it is making much headway. Though I think I've made some progress despite the protestations and the proof is in the pudding. Of course it could be merely correlation without any causational relationship to be found.
I'm unsure a conversation is still possible though. Looks to me to be more of a situation of people marshaling their forces and preparing to do battle. With one faction (the people) woefully unprepared for their opponents.
Do you think a quote like this:
As against our gauzy national hopes, I will teach my boys to have profound doubts that friendship with white people is possible. ~ Ekow N. Yankah (New York Times, 2017)
is productive rhetoric? Do you think Coleman Hughes, who has been doing the podcast circuit of late, hasanypointat all?
As just an aside, I had dinner with Candace Owens at an event earlier this year. She was remarkably thoughtful and thoroughly engaging.
Ugh no. Let's not defend Candace Owens. She may very well be a remarkably nice person, but she's very clearly out of her depth. I've tried listening to her do her spiel and it just makes me want to bash my head against a wall.
Let’s be honest. Her spiel is simplistic by design, and it very clearly is going to rub the wrong way anyone who adheres to modern race victimology.
Oversimplified ideas are inaccurate and will rub the wrong way anyone who understands the subtleties of a problem. You can have simple, good ideas, but Owens doesn't, she has simple ideas that miss the point completely.
I think people just don't see that the point is to make money and generate outrage, not to make a coherent or functional argument.
On August 04 2018 05:35 Nebuchad wrote: Have you determined that Trump is not a fascist and if you have, what led you to that conclusion?
i suppose it depends on what you think is at stake in the yea or nay
The part of the created quote that matters is the "we need to return to an agreed framework where certain things are assumed", the rest isn't really inconsistent with Chomsky. Yet we've switched from idiot to fascist between your thought and the quote and I was wondering if there was a significance.
Well, I don't think any of the three quoted sentences are entirely true in context. Trump may very well be "a deranged idiot," and there may well be deranged imbeciles that support him, but that seems clearly untrue of everyone that he represents.
On August 04 2018 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 04 2018 05:31 IgnE wrote:
On August 04 2018 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 04 2018 05:06 xDaunt wrote:
On August 04 2018 04:47 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
You have. It's a forum so people can see it's happened before. You're right though that more often you're aware he's disagreeing with you (but engaging your argument) and it's people like P6 that think you and Igne are in agreement which prompts them to post non sequiturs and other things that betray a complete lack of understanding of the post with which they are engaging.
So probably not fair for me to say you consistently do it, but you do seem to miss (or just never remark on) how IgnE slams you harder than they ever do.
First of all, it's fairly seldom that IgnE actually "slams" me on anything. In fact, he very rarely engages me or my opinions directly, generally preferring to serve as the "xDaunt interpreter" for all of the hopelessly lost people in this thread that have difficulty fathoming how someone like me exists, much less understanding half of what I say or why I might have a point. I wish he did engage my points more, because I'd much rather have a conversation with him than most anyone else around here.
Second, and to the extent that Igne does directly engage me or my opinions, you are correct in that he is far more effective at arguing with me than most anyone else around here. And there's no mystery as to why that is. He digests my arguments before responding, whereas most people simply respond with some horrifically misplaced dismissive attitude.
Sooo I'm back to thinking you're missing the parts of Igne's posts that basically laughingly dismiss your position, but by way of substantive argument and obscure (for here at least) references.
I don't disagree with you that the thread liberals are typically terrible at reading and responding to your (or pretty much any post that disagrees with them) posts.
i dont laughingly dismiss his position. i take it very seriously.
i am not opposed to all criticism of trump's rhetoric. i am on record at multiple points saying trump is a dangerous idiot. i just think that the standard line of:
"trump is a dangerous fascist out of touch with reality. every day he says something even more alarming than before. 'alternative facts' are just crazy deranged talk. we need to return to an agreed framework where certain things are assumed"
is just a totally obtuse, unreflective response that refuses to really reckon with the real break in dominant discourse. its not that simple. anyone, for example, who takes chomsky's ideas in Manufacturing Consent seriously cannot in good faith make such an unqualified argument.
i do think that demands for civility can be oppressive in certain situations. but i also think that civility and charity are necessary in order to have a conversation. i think there is an ethical demand to be open to conversation on some level in a democracy. conversation demands thoughtfulness. i am optimistic about rhetoric, broadly conceived, and really believe in the possibility of change, which in its most basic form is changing your mind. how to go about that is an open question, but some things seem clearly counterproductive.
Also got the feeling I was to your left (or more radical I guess) regarding civility and the influence of race on policy, so I think this confirms that. I think we've both tried to get at the issue you highlight from a lot of angles, doesn't seem any of it is making much headway. Though I think I've made some progress despite the protestations and the proof is in the pudding. Of course it could be merely correlation without any causational relationship to be found.
I'm unsure a conversation is still possible though. Looks to me to be more of a situation of people marshaling their forces and preparing to do battle. With one faction (the people) woefully unprepared for their opponents.
Do you think a quote like this:
As against our gauzy national hopes, I will teach my boys to have profound doubts that friendship with white people is possible. ~ Ekow N. Yankah (New York Times, 2017)
is productive rhetoric? Do you think Coleman Hughes, who has been doing the podcast circuit of late, hasanypointat all?
As just an aside, I had dinner with Candace Owens at an event earlier this year. She was remarkably thoughtful and thoroughly engaging.
Ugh no. Let's not defend Candace Owens. She may very well be a remarkably nice person, but she's very clearly out of her depth. I've tried listening to her do her spiel and it just makes me want to bash my head against a wall.
Let’s be honest. Her spiel is simplistic by design, and it very clearly is going to rub the wrong way anyone who adheres to modern race victimology.
Oversimplified ideas are inaccurate and will rub the wrong way anyone who understands the subtleties of a problem. You can have simple, good ideas, but Owens doesn't, she has simple ideas that miss the point completely.
Of course you would think she misses the point, because she isn’t even trying to address the point. It’s not her goal to accurately diagnose existing race relations so much as it is to empower the black minority to succeed in spite of whatever systemic disadvantage it faces. Her message is one of liberation, which is why she is so reviled by the left.
On August 04 2018 05:35 Nebuchad wrote: Have you determined that Trump is not a fascist and if you have, what led you to that conclusion?
i suppose it depends on what you think is at stake in the yea or nay
The part of the created quote that matters is the "we need to return to an agreed framework where certain things are assumed", the rest isn't really inconsistent with Chomsky. Yet we've switched from idiot to fascist between your thought and the quote and I was wondering if there was a significance.
Well, I don't think any of the three quoted sentences are entirely true in context. Trump may very well be "a deranged idiot," and there may well be deranged imbeciles that support him, but that seems clearly untrue of everyone that he represents.
On August 04 2018 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 04 2018 05:31 IgnE wrote:
On August 04 2018 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 04 2018 05:06 xDaunt wrote:
On August 04 2018 04:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 04 2018 04:42 xDaunt wrote: [quote] That you think that I believe that Igne is agreeing with me substantively on this topic or anything else tells me that you don’t understand Igne’s posts at all.
You have. It's a forum so people can see it's happened before. You're right though that more often you're aware he's disagreeing with you (but engaging your argument) and it's people like P6 that think you and Igne are in agreement which prompts them to post non sequiturs and other things that betray a complete lack of understanding of the post with which they are engaging.
So probably not fair for me to say you consistently do it, but you do seem to miss (or just never remark on) how IgnE slams you harder than they ever do.
First of all, it's fairly seldom that IgnE actually "slams" me on anything. In fact, he very rarely engages me or my opinions directly, generally preferring to serve as the "xDaunt interpreter" for all of the hopelessly lost people in this thread that have difficulty fathoming how someone like me exists, much less understanding half of what I say or why I might have a point. I wish he did engage my points more, because I'd much rather have a conversation with him than most anyone else around here.
Second, and to the extent that Igne does directly engage me or my opinions, you are correct in that he is far more effective at arguing with me than most anyone else around here. And there's no mystery as to why that is. He digests my arguments before responding, whereas most people simply respond with some horrifically misplaced dismissive attitude.
Sooo I'm back to thinking you're missing the parts of Igne's posts that basically laughingly dismiss your position, but by way of substantive argument and obscure (for here at least) references.
I don't disagree with you that the thread liberals are typically terrible at reading and responding to your (or pretty much any post that disagrees with them) posts.
i dont laughingly dismiss his position. i take it very seriously.
i am not opposed to all criticism of trump's rhetoric. i am on record at multiple points saying trump is a dangerous idiot. i just think that the standard line of:
"trump is a dangerous fascist out of touch with reality. every day he says something even more alarming than before. 'alternative facts' are just crazy deranged talk. we need to return to an agreed framework where certain things are assumed"
is just a totally obtuse, unreflective response that refuses to really reckon with the real break in dominant discourse. its not that simple. anyone, for example, who takes chomsky's ideas in Manufacturing Consent seriously cannot in good faith make such an unqualified argument.
i do think that demands for civility can be oppressive in certain situations. but i also think that civility and charity are necessary in order to have a conversation. i think there is an ethical demand to be open to conversation on some level in a democracy. conversation demands thoughtfulness. i am optimistic about rhetoric, broadly conceived, and really believe in the possibility of change, which in its most basic form is changing your mind. how to go about that is an open question, but some things seem clearly counterproductive.
Also got the feeling I was to your left (or more radical I guess) regarding civility and the influence of race on policy, so I think this confirms that. I think we've both tried to get at the issue you highlight from a lot of angles, doesn't seem any of it is making much headway. Though I think I've made some progress despite the protestations and the proof is in the pudding. Of course it could be merely correlation without any causational relationship to be found.
I'm unsure a conversation is still possible though. Looks to me to be more of a situation of people marshaling their forces and preparing to do battle. With one faction (the people) woefully unprepared for their opponents.
Do you think a quote like this:
As against our gauzy national hopes, I will teach my boys to have profound doubts that friendship with white people is possible. ~ Ekow N. Yankah (New York Times, 2017)
is productive rhetoric? Do you think Coleman Hughes, who has been doing the podcast circuit of late, hasanypointat all?
As just an aside, I had dinner with Candace Owens at an event earlier this year. She was remarkably thoughtful and thoroughly engaging.
Ugh no. Let's not defend Candace Owens. She may very well be a remarkably nice person, but she's very clearly out of her depth. I've tried listening to her do her spiel and it just makes me want to bash my head against a wall.
Let’s be honest. Her spiel is simplistic by design, and it very clearly is going to rub the wrong way anyone who adheres to modern race victimology.
I guess you'd have to subscribe to the victimology of emasculation to understand.
The article and legal filing paints a very different picture of the NRA than they put forth. I was not aware they tired to offer legal insurance to cover “the lawful discharge of a fire arm”. It looks like they might have spent way to much in 2016 and gotten them selves in some real trouble.
Thoughts and prayers.
They're also apparently flying basically naked with no general liability policy. Barring the fact tons of businesses refuse to do business with companies without one, a well-time (or badly-time, depending on your perspective) lawsuit could destroy the NRA.
On August 03 2018 22:28 farvacola wrote: It's also an incoherent take; Trump doesn't attack "the media as a whole," he only attacks those segments of the mediascape that are hostile or at least indifferent to him and the ideas he represents. The notion that he's taking on "the media" only makes sense if you regard "the media" as a group that does not include the dominant television news provider and a host of other sources. It's also silly to overlook the extent to which the Crossfire epoch and the Internet fundamentally changed the way news started working around the mid 90s; any sweeping description of "generations of media" that fails to account for this isn't an accurate description at all.
It's not incoherent if you consider "the media" to be a floating signifier filled in with particular content by the person enunciating it. And isn't that why "MSM" has become so popular a term since 2015?
In any case I don't feel particularly uncomfortable with a statement like, "Fox News is the enemy," even though I believe there are probably some decent people that work at Fox News. Is "Fox News is the enemy" so different a statement?
Sure, the sentiment becomes coherent if you drop the pretense of positive, iterative signification in pursuit of objective description, but that's the Saussurean path towards admitting that political speech is inherently detached from the circumstances that ostensibly give rise to colloquy in the first place. That admission totally destabilizes the basis for Trumpist apologism of the sort practiced by folks like xDaunt, however, because it's clear that while they'd be fine admitting that terms like "the media" and "fake news" serve as floating semantic targets, the likes of which needn't be pinned down in the way anti-Trumpers insist they ought to, they would not and do not make the same admission with regards to fundamentally similar floating signifiers a la terms like "racism" and "SJW." Thus, the game of allowing folks to justify Trump in terms of the destabilization of linguistic signifiers is to let them have their cake and eat it while driving the wrong direction on a one way road.
"Fox News is the enemy" is a fine thing to assert, but when someone insists Trump is fighting "the media as a whole" while ignoring the extent to which Trump cozies up to and coddles specific segments of "the media as a whole," explaining away the difference in terms of floating signifiers doesn't do justice to what is actually going on.
it seems possible that anti-trumpers (as demonstrated by the comments in this thread) are routinely underestimating the degree to which the trumpist right is consciously assuming the kind of deconstructionist language games that defined the post-60s liberal discourse, while at the same time 'keeping up appearances'. the question for me is less about how many fundamentalists there are on the right (no doubt a great many) but about how more educated right-wingers (like xdaunt) engage in a cynical maintenance/production of a big Other, through the Zizekian 'subject supposed to believe'.
now i admit that xdaunt rarely goes into it, and that is why ive made comments in the past about the radical 'decisionism' of trumpist right-wingers that mostly subsides below naive appearance. but cant we see now how right fredric jameson was to insist that neoliberals and fellow travelers on the left share much in common: almost everything except the most important stuff. and so i read xdaunt's comments in that light. that is, if xdaunt is the cynical, economically neoliberal trumpist who cares about rule of (property) law, he should be opposed to the more unreflective anti-trumpers who are actually more fundamentalist. they insist that phrases like "freedom of the press" and "the media" are transhistorical signifiers referring to really existing objects. their hysterical response to linguistic attacks is to assert "no, these aren't just language games, we want a real Master to come back and secure the symbolic order that we insist is real"
edit: i probably shouldnt characterize xdaunt as a neoliberal, it is possible that "classically liberal" is the new neoliberal, except it should now be known as a kind of oxymoronic "postmodern classical liberalism"
More often than not xDaunt's posts contain cries for a return to symbolic order. Instead of Trump attacking the freedom of the press, it's SJWs attacking essentialism and tradition. More than attacking, winning.
The main difference in this regard between him and centrists is how achievable a return to their respective orders is perceived, no 'master' was going to rewind that clock so the apparent only choice was to back a wildcard in the (again apparent) now or never fight against the current. This echoes his appreciation for the flight 93 argument.
The method is one of disorder, but not the goal.
Right but the difference is that one is grounded in a decisionism that acknowledges the contingent nature of hegemony and the other thinks they are simply referring to the only "facts" that exist in a necessary (that is non-contingent), liberal-biased reality. They don't even understand what the fight is about.
Both appeal to the necessity of their order. The arrogance of the 'reality has a liberal bias' approach by Democrats stems from being offered by the other side a constant flow of statements that they can rebuke with 1 minute worth of googling. And of course from their ability to ignore any other possible sides due to the peculiar nature of your electoral system.
Same goes for the liberal media bias discussion that started this, it's difficult for outlets to resist the urge to respond with a longer version of 'nuh-uh' when applicable to a political figure's statements. For the same reason the most surefire way a poster in this thread (or anywhere on the internet really) gets half a dozen replies within minutes is by saying something demonstrably false, regardless of intentions. .
A statement from the President of the United States, THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR DUMB BLACK MEN ON MY TV.
Seriously, though, who the fuck is Mike. Michael Jordan? Because...?
I like turtles. I'm writing extraneous sentences, but really, sometimes, in this current political system, a tweet just needs to speak for itself. If I get banned, it was worth it.
Michael Jordan owns one of the worst run franchises in the NBA. The Charlotte Hornets are just bad, they're not smart enough to purposely tank like Phoenix and Philadelphia have done and they're not good enough to make the playoffs. They're just...there.
So its a little funny that Trump's bringing up Michael Jordan right now when Michael Jordan is the perfect example of a bad team owner.
EPT
