swampman posted:You b holes couldnt let the lurkers post for 1 time
this implies that threads are "about things", meaning that they can't just spin off in any direction, which is, ironically, total noob thinking.
Ironicwarcriminal posted:I skimmed through the lf archives late last year and there’s still plenty of lols but the amount of white noise is more than I remembered.
‘ffffffffffffffffffffffffffff’ and that sort of stuff.
Lots of white noise outrage. Lots and lots.
There was a process to it too, you started with reasonable outrage directed at really obviously heinous things, like baldfaced racism, and eventually everything, one by one, slid back behind the outraged curtain and would warrant massive anger. Eventually you have super esoteric terms and regulations warranting outrage, every little misunderstanding is anxiety inducing outrage because how could you not already be aware of these intangibly defined rules which I have silently imparted across the entire world. Reasonable points of contention would appear between posters and instead of a discussion, or levity or jokes, each person would work themselves up into a simmering lather of righteous frustration. You're either on the right side of things or you're a degenerate who fails to realize that this topic is already off the table and you deserve nothing less than my practiced vitriol. Something like that. 
so I can.. greaagh..
*face melts off revealing rotting muscles and bones* TO DEVELOP MY PERSONAL BRANDAAAUURRGH
Expert posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:I skimmed through the lf archives late last year and there’s still plenty of lols but the amount of white noise is more than I remembered.
‘ffffffffffffffffffffffffffff’ and that sort of stuff.Lots of white noise outrage. Lots and lots.
There was a process to it too, you started with reasonable outrage directed at really obviously heinous things, like baldfaced racism, and eventually everything, one by one, slid back behind the outraged curtain and would warrant massive anger. Eventually you have super esoteric terms and regulations warranting outrage, every little misunderstanding is anxiety inducing outrage because how could you not already be aware of these intangibly defined rules which I have silently imparted across the entire world. Reasonable points of contention would appear between posters and instead of a discussion, or levity or jokes, each person would work themselves up into a simmering lather of righteous frustration. You're either on the right side of things or you're a degenerate who fails to realize that this topic is already off the table and you deserve nothing less than my practiced vitriol. Something like that.
how little things have changed
As I look over this beautiful thread,
I can't help but realize that I am alone.
Why am I able to waste my energy?
To notice twitter being so beautiful?
What of the posters who don't have what I ain't got?
Are they victims of my ownage?
To fail is to be a victim,
To be a victim of my AIDS.
Maybe lurking will help.
thirdplace posted:man i just don't get twitter
krinkle posted a link earlier saying "man shit is going down on twitter" and i looked at it and it may as well have been klingon.
i've essentially been raised by the internet and have no attention span and i cannot for the life of me parse any meaning from it.
People say that continental philosophy is incomprehensible but twitter takes it to the next level.
like just to affirm what jools said before
jools posted:did you forget that huge thing i wrote a few months back or something? you know, about how terrible "writing" is, especially at the moment?
he wrote the most substantial piece of writing i have seen yet on the rhizzone by far, not to dismiss the quality of the thoughts of anyone else obviously, i'm implicating myself in this too, but none of us have spent that much effort on this place (and the problems i have with this forum sometimes can be pretty neatly summed up in that the discourse here was significantly less active than what resulted in him linking to it on twitter)... but whatever, any way, the stance jools took in that piece and since that piece has been a really clear intellectual opposition to not "writing" as is being accused of him but Writing, against the political weight this idea of the radical intellectual carries in literary circles, the literary expression of the labour aristocracy in general and specifically the new york and london centric academic schools. these things carry a set of signifiers and structures that the political trappings of the petit-bourgeois intelligentsia are reproduced by... the issue jools has is not that dispo is expressing her personal voice but that she is falling into this web of signification, and like maybe what he is saying on the forums has an unfortunate bite to it but i think that the idea that it exclusively exists as a personal attack on discipline that he would not extend to anyone else motivated by resentment or misogyny or whatever isnt convincing at all instead of that being attributable to the fact that he is posting on an informal forum with discipline and he doesn't post on an informal forum with contributors to the new inquiry... like of course he would extend that beyond discipline because the entire sentiment he has been expressing has been the modus operandi of his thought for a really long time, even before all this internet drama
like the issue i have, and i suppose jools shares this, isnt this strawman of venom towards discipline daring to express her personal voice but that, like, we kinda aren't seeing her express herself personally, like look at the jodi dean thread, jools has written extensively about the issues he has with her writing and despite being a vocal supporter of dean's work the moment jools questions the most basic assumptions about writing discipline has defended she won't write anything from her own stance, instead resorting to this little appeal to authority by emailing dean herself about it or whatever
like discipline i like your writing, when its not readings of tv shows or whatever at least because im not particularly interested in that, and i would love to keep seeing you write and your voice and ideas develop through doing that... but that development doesnt happen if you dont interrogate the assumptions you or the people you admire are working with & use the rigor you are really obviously capable of. idk.
aerdil posted:ive completely ignored this drama between jools and discipline or whatever is going on. been too busy drinking lots of alcohol and doing cocaine and then wandering around west oakland at 3am in the morning. i might have a problem. internet forumns. can sum1 fill me in plz
it's your new haircut mang
Ironicwarcriminal posted:jools can u link that thing you wrote that you mentioned
http://www.rhizzone.net/article/2012/09/29/fuck-new-inquiry-and-other-tales/
"The city, therefore, is the factory in which the 21st century human being is made. Stalin had gulags and was the head of a system that killed a lot of people, sure. He was also the head of a system that did indeed win the Great Patriotic War. The city seeks to erase this, make the former vestiges of what was once a point of fact into a lesson on individualism."
or
"Instead of looking at the material conditions of the countryside, where support of Stalin has risen over the last decade, the paper assigns racist and classist attitudes towards rural lifestyles and traditions. The mass automation of farming and industrialized slaughter of livestock has led to the impoverishment of billions worldwide who are left with little choice but to move into urban centers and engage in cheap manufacturing or service-based livelihoods. Their lives were probably better under the Soviets. Yet it is not their collective conditions to be examined, rather, their individual attitudes."
aside from the oddly gung-ho attitude to gulags compared to your tentative "their lives were probably better under the soviets" (this is hardly controversial! it's a matter of "working government" vs "horrible anarchy"), there's also the fact that the soviets really did favour the development of the city massively over the countryside, and they also were really, really into the mechanisation of farming. i mean, that was half the point of the first five year plan... it misses a trick by playing the same game of representation that the CF does, trying to stuff this all into a box of this anti-city narrative that's pre-prepared to fit over these people. i'd also dispute the idea of the city as a factory of individualisation, i think of all the critics of the city over the centuries and how much of their criticism is about the fact that cities are alienating and reduce people to an undifferentiated morass of humanity.
anyway, to me, looking at those figures, what leapt out at me was the contradiction between people describing stalin in positive terms, yet really very few people saying they'd want to live in a country run by him (which is something the CF seemed to ignore in their report). there you have the issue of representation raising its ugly head. perhaps an interesting route to take would have been to look at the creation of a nationalist and historical stalin narrative as opposed to a communist and political one. this i think links to the way in which the KPRF acts perhaps more as a nationalist than a communist party these days, and the general link between leftism or leftist symbolism and nationalism in russia and some other countries (serbia is a good example). you also have people like vladimir zhirinovsky, a fascist, talking about how great stalin was.
i also don't like the way the opinions of city-dwellers are just dismissed as some kind of result of false consciousness, the Horrible Individualist City thing reminds me more of the essentially fascistic narrative of something like fritz lang's metropolis than something a self-professed communist would write. people hold opinions for good reasons, or at least reasons that seem good to themselves, instead of dismissing them try to work from their self-conception, why they might think like this. as i say, in the same way the CF regards the opinions of rural people as some nasty problem to be solved, you're just doing the same to city people. this connects as well to the part about palestinian national identity being rooted in the countryside, as if an urban palestinian nation is somehow less authentic or something? it seemed pretty weird. i'd say the root of all of this for me is ep thompson's injunction to rescue the luddites from the "enormous condescension of posterity" - it angers me when i see that same kind of enormous condescension of not caring about how people and communities perceive themselves applied in contemporary analysis.
i guess the point to me is that you have this plate of obvious propaganda in front of you, and you just put down your own plate of propaganda opposite it, instead of picking the plate up and hurling it against the wall.
blinkandwheeze posted:discipline i think you are cool and smart and funny so much of the time and there are a lot of things i agree with you on wholeheartedly and as much as it is possible to do so with the weird approximations of character you can see on a computer screen i have looked up to you in a lot of ways, but despite all that, even tho obviously where he is coming from has an emotional charge i dont share, i think the grievances jools has are legitimate and construing them as personal attacks or insult is dishonest bullshit, the reading that his political stances amount to dismissing something like writing regularly for personal development or whatever is so fucking reductive
like just to affirm what jools said beforejools posted:did you forget that huge thing i wrote a few months back or something? you know, about how terrible "writing" is, especially at the moment?
he wrote the most substantial piece of writing i have seen yet on the rhizzone by far, not to dismiss the quality of the thoughts of anyone else obviously, i'm implicating myself in this too, but none of us have spent that much effort on this place (and the problems i have with this forum sometimes can be pretty neatly summed up in that the discourse here was significantly less active than what resulted in him linking to it on twitter)... but whatever, any way, the stance jools took in that piece and since that piece has been a really clear intellectual opposition to not "writing" as is being accused of him but Writing, against the political weight this idea of the radical intellectual carries in literary circles, the literary expression of the labour aristocracy in general and specifically the new york and london centric academic schools. these things carry a set of signifiers and structures that the political trappings of the petit-bourgeois intelligentsia are reproduced by... the issue jools has is not that dispo is expressing her personal voice but that she is falling into this web of signification, and like maybe what he is saying on the forums has an unfortunate bite to it but i think that the idea that it exclusively exists as a personal attack on discipline that he would not extend to anyone else motivated by resentment or misogyny or whatever isnt convincing at all instead of that being attributable to the fact that he is posting on an informal forum with discipline and he doesn't post on an informal forum with contributors to the new inquiry... like of course he would extend that beyond discipline because the entire sentiment he has been expressing has been the modus operandi of his thought for a really long time, even before all this internet drama
like the issue i have, and i suppose jools shares this, isnt this strawman of venom towards discipline daring to express her personal voice but that, like, we kinda aren't seeing her express herself personally, like look at the jodi dean thread, jools has written extensively about the issues he has with her writing and despite being a vocal supporter of dean's work the moment jools questions the most basic assumptions about writing discipline has defended she won't write anything from her own stance, instead resorting to this little appeal to authority by emailing dean herself about it or whatever
like discipline i like your writing, when its not readings of tv shows or whatever at least because im not particularly interested in that, and i would love to keep seeing you write and your voice and ideas develop through doing that... but that development doesnt happen if you dont interrogate the assumptions you or the people you admire are working with & use the rigor you are really obviously capable of. idk.
here is the response you both deserve:
calling a woman with a PhD you barely skim a "fucking moron" is revealing a chauvinist attitude, regardless whether you conceal it in a bunch of rhetorical ink. Regardless of the content one stuffs into these posts, the way he structures his arguments (and indeed the way you compulsively defend him) openly reveals a chauvinist attitude. The same compulsive manner of "Oh i'm just trying to help, stop being so hysterical" is not just a patriarchal deployment outlined by basic feminist theory, it is fundamentally a chauvinist attitude. You get it? Here? Here's another example of a chauvinist attitude: hounding one of the only women that posts on here at any and every angle, including a very personal one that is absolutely and unambiguously trying to cut as deeply as possible.
And, finally, you t ouching yourself at night reveals a chauvinist attitude.
So here's some advice, from one chauvinist to another: stop trying to intervene in people's lives and try to apply your own advice to your own lives. Learn from the lurkers, and lurk, it's what redfiesta wouldve wanted
jools posted:it angers me when i see that same kind of enormous condescension of not caring about how people and communities perceive themselves applied in contemporary analysis.
hahaha go the fuck to sleep, in jools manor
Crow posted:here is the response you both deserve:
when did i do any of this, crow? if i did i certainly apologize for doing so. but i'm not sure i did. and yeah, okay, emotionally charged language from the male perspective against women almost necessarily fall into chauvinistic structures, that's hugely problematic, jools should be more conscious of how his posts appear to others. but i'm not responsible for what tone jools takes but this is a playground for ideas and i think i am capable of getting past his rhetoric and sympathizing with the content of his ideas. what problems do you have with what i actually said?
