What is Deleuze?

[nomadthethird]

Find me one. Me or someone else who can plausibly be called a "Badiouvian" saying that a full-blown revolutionary transition to state communism is the solution to all our political problems, and the problem with any other form of political orientation or action is that it somehow falls short of that.



Nadine Strossen is a fucking shill.



Because she told lies about other feminists in order to further her own career as a noted public defender of the commercial freedoms of pornographers.



It's pretty clear to me whose rights Strossen is most interested in. She is certainly more than happy to smear and caricature women whose view of what their legal emancipation might entail includes access to legal redress against misogynist hate speech.



I dunno, you think of one. I regard the Stonewall riots as an initiatory moment in a genuine and continuing emancipatory political sequence. On the other hand, I regard most soi-disant queer politics nowadays as the occultation of that sequence through reactionary conformity dressed up as taboo-busting transgressiveness. Fings ain't wot they used to be.

I can't, even, stop laughing.

 

[nomadthethird]

Yeah, you know, it's so different when black people rise up against being lynched than it is when gay people do. So, so different.

 

[four_five_one]

Eh? Who can understand it is beside the point. Either there are forms of discourse or types of utterances that are privileged metaphysically over others, so that they have more direct access to Truths or Reality, or there aren't. Badiou himself says that there aren't any. Poetix seems to agree, at several points in this thread, although I'm not really buying it from him.

Oh, I see. My initial question was actually asking if you thought that some thinking, or a certain way of thinking, might be more worthwhile than another way of thinking, and whether philosophy in general might be a precursor to this superior way of thinking? Regardless of whether it's privileged metaphysically. (I thought you meant privileged = elitist).

 

[nomadthethird]

And denied jobs, and denied apartments by bigot landlords, and protested against in their very existence, and so forth. So different.

 

[nomadthethird]

Oh, I see. My initial question was actually asking if you thought that some thinking, or a certain way of thinking, might be more worthwhile than another way of thinking, and whether philosophy in general might be a precursor to this superior way of thinking? Regardless of whether it's privileged metaphysically. (I thought you meant privileged = elitist).

No, I meant privileged as in "inherently superior and treated as such over and against others."

I think scientific thinking is the best thing we have going.

 

[poetix]

Yeah, you know, it's so different when black people rise up against being lynched than it is when gay people do. So, so different.

Is it? Did I just say it was?

 

[nomadthethird]

Because she told lies about other feminists

Oh yes? Which lies were those?

Could it be anything like the lies Dworkin told, namely, that anyone who disagreed with her was either a "rapist or a whore"?

 

[nomadthethird]

Poetix, why don't you just admit it? You're a conservative Christian who doesn't like icky sexuality and doesn't want to be bothered with other such "impure" realities and would rather stick to your precious abstractions where you can be safe from these hideous trifles?

I'll leave out the part about how this makes you feel superior to others who are differently inclined.

 

[nomadthethird]

Just admit it--you want to believe that women couldn't possibly not think of themselves as perpetual virgins who can't enjoy sex if it isn't with someone they Luuuurrrve and who are victimized at all turns by Big Bad Strong Mens.

If you could at least admit this, instead of dressing it up in "militancy", I'd respect you.

I can admit that I think conservative Christians are morons and I hope if there IS a hell it's full of them.

 

[nomadthethird]

You and your sex negativity are the most persistently misogynistic things I've ever run into on the internet, and that's saying something. Which would be fine, except you've truly convinced yourself that you care about the well-being of women.

You and Dworkin hate women.* You think women should hate sex, and give it up until women finally morph into the male power double. Until this transformation occurs, intercourse will remain simply a method by which women are victimized, not one of the more hardwired impulses in the natural world and one of the more rewarding ones. Women can only exist as ciphers of all that is good and holy according to you--the higher faculties, the ones of mind and heart, but not "loins". Women are supposed to be spiritual beings who don't get horny or have physical needs of their own, or who would never prefer to dance for money rather than flip burgers for it. Women who would deign to act sexually in public, or fight for the rights of women to express themselves sexually how they see fit, are traitors to the Holy Dworkin Crusade and shills for Big Sex.

*unless they are virgins or mothers

 

[poetix]

There is, I've noticed, a kind of rhythm to this stuff. Later on you'll calm down and be almost sane to talk to again. At the moment, though, it's really like trying to have a conversation with someone on PCP.

 

[nomadthethird]

Is it? Did I just say it was?

Yes, you did. You said "fings ain't wot they used to be". I don't care what "things" used to be. When there is a problem of inequality, it deserves responding to, period.

Fuck your stupid piety and your paper-thin superiority complex.

 

[nomadthethird]

There is, I've noticed, a kind of rhythm to this stuff. Later on you'll calm down and be almost sane to talk to again. At the moment, though, it's really like trying to have a conversation with someone on PCP.

Nice evasion there. I give it a 6 out of 10.

 

[josef k.]

I regard the Stonewall riots as an initiatory moment in a genuine and continuing emancipatory political sequence. On the other hand, I regard most soi-disant queer politics nowadays as the occultation of that sequence through reactionary conformity dressed up as taboo-busting transgressiveness.

Fascinating, really, how you regard things. But it does ask the question whether the point of all this for you isn't really just to find some legitimation, from somewhere, for your pious opinions. Which of course are not just any opinions. They are naturally far superior. Because backed by Badiou's philosophy. Do you see what I mean?

 

[josef k.]

...your paper-thin superiority complex.

I don't agree that this is paper-thin.

 

[nomadthethird]

Thank god someone has finally woken me up to the fact that gay people are entirely equal in the U.S. these days.

How many years ago was it when people were still being fired for being HIV + and gay? And brutally beaten to death at an alarming rate for seeming faggy or tranny?

Oh, that's still happening? You're kidding.

Every battle for equality now is just another ideologically driven step away from state communism.

 

[nomadthethird]

I don't agree that this is paper-thin.

But aren't all superiority complexes prima facie about insecurity and/or self-hatred? I think that's what my shrink said about mine.

 

[josef k.]

Fings ain't wot they used to be.

The ultimate statement of this wonderful new philosophy of emancipation.

 

[nomadthethird]

What are you going to do once we're emancipated, Josef?

I'm going to worship the calluses on my hands as I pick cotton (in NY, since the climate will probably have changed to roughly that of southern Georgia by that point) for the beautiful garments of our new Bureacratic Overlords.

 

[josef k.]

I will say this for you Dominic, you've been a good sport. Credit where credit is due.