absorb and neutralise

[version]

How can you tell when this has happened to something? What's the mechanism? Does Hollywood making a film about Fred Hampton automatically neutralise Fred Hampton? Is there a deliberate process something has to go through once fed into these institutions in order to be neutralised? Is it possible for something to survive this process and retain its potency?

 

[WashYourHands]

 

[linebaugh]

What qualifies something as non neutralized? what would it have to do?

 

[version]

What qualifies something as non neutralized? what would it have to do?

This is partly what I'm asking.

 

[linebaugh]

Im not necessarily sure I beleive it but lets say its impossible. If so then the only phenomena non neutralized are those that are deliberate appeals to institutions that fail miserabley. Like Hillary Clinton doing the dab and making memes on twitter

 

[WashYourHands]

Hillary Clinton doing the dab

shatter?

 

[linebaugh]

anything that has both no effect on the intended audience and increases cultural alienation

 

[WashYourHands]

Doing the peace sign

 

[version]

One hurdle's that in order to argue something's been neutralised, you'd have to assume it had power in the first place. That something could have been done.

I was going to mention "Epstein didn't kill himself" as an example of humour acting as a neutralising agent, but what were the public really able to do about that situation anyway? Also turning things into jokes, even horrific things, seems like a natural response that's impossible to avoid.

 

[linebaugh]

I'm not sure were receptive to anything additive. negation is the lense. non neutral acts are those that create a feeling of repulsion we havent previously felt

 

[WashYourHands]

Ageing

 

[WashYourHands]

Any form of counterculture

 

[WashYourHands]

Whatever counterculture means

 

[linebaugh]

One hurdle's that in order to argue something's been neutralised, you'd have to assume it had power in the first place. That something could have been done.

I was going to mention "Epstein didn't kill himself" as an example of humour acting as a neutralising agent, but what were the public really able to do about that situation anyway? Also turning things into jokes, even horrific things, seems like a natural response that's impossible to avoid.

ya. we have to be very slick with these conversations or it ends almost immediately with 'well, theyd just kill us'

 

[version]

There's the problem of overexposure too. You can take as shocking a piece of information as you like and it'll still lose its power through familiarity.

 

[WashYourHands]

Kennedy’s head coming apart

 

[WashYourHands]

Dead bodies from a previous era

 

[linebaugh]

that could be the instance where this question became impossible. The overwhelming majority of americans didnt beleive the official JFK story at the time and nothing came of it. What could they do?

 

[linebaugh]

I think the gus and beiser angle for this question is that weve entered an irreversible state of nature with regards to the global system of flows and trying to think we can get past it is as practical as a religious approach. and its tempting view. Whats non neutralized from this approach?

 

[WashYourHands]

Art/emblem/motif



“What the fuck you posting this for it’s Friday, I know Death to America but wtf“