babyfinland posted:
the third world does not need to respond to LGBT concerns if theyre voiced through imperialists
ah this wasn't there when i wrote that response. again, you're setting up a schema where these concerns are assumed to be in conflict. this is exactly what i mean when i talk about throwing fuel on the fire.
Lessons posted:babyfinland posted:
the third world does not need to respond to LGBT concerns if theyre voiced through imperialistsah this wasn't there when i wrote that response. again, you're setting up a schema where these concerns are assumed to be in conflict. this is exactly what i mean when i talk about throwing fuel on the fire.
that's not true. like gyrofry said, it's a conditional, not an assumption. I'm saying that LGBT politics MUST be anti-imperialist. This obviously is a claim that they CAN be anti-imperiailst. That LGBT politics are generally NOT anti-imperialist does not mean that they can not be. It's regretable and you do the situation no good by attempting to marshal anti-imperialist sentiment in favor of a pet bourgeois politics. Most, or at least many, anti-imperialists will not have the divided loyalties that you have, and it is not because they are "bigots". Maybe there are some bigots or fundamentally anti-LGBT people in the anti-imperialist camp. The point is to unite against imperialism, and any so-called anti-imperialist who privileges LGBT issues over anti-imperialism, whether in favor or against, is not an anti-imperialist at all.
Go back to wddp
Lessons posted:
you're setting up a schema where lgbt rights are somehow in conflict with economic justice for people of color, and it's really transparent
of course they're in conflict, people have limited time, limited energy and limited money. how much time, energy and money, how many rallies, how many internet posts, how much column ink and tv air are spent trying to make sure that ten thousand mostly white upper middle class people in north america can get tax breaks for cohabitation, compared to say anything of actual relevance to the vast majority of the suffering on this planet
babyfinland posted:
American LGBT politics is primarily bourgeois. There are legitimate anti-imperialist LGBT voices but they are not elevated by the likes of Clinton. Your argument is basically "You haven't said anything objectionable but I still feel offended."
that's not true at all, i've pointed to these objectionable statements repeatedly, and both of you have ignored them and talked about what you wanted to talk about instead.
It's because you privilege LGBT issues over anti-imperialism as a rule, and yet identify as a Revolutionary Communist. You project the uncomfortable cognitive dissonance you feel as a result onto people who illuminate this contradiction, and must then attack them along the lines of your true commitments (to liberal bourgeois politics) as "bigots" or whatever. This is why I say it's stupid to identify ideologically with some sort of political movement unless you are in actuality committed to it in action, not just in theory, in your own imagination.
i've done no such thing. what i have done is highlight some problematic narratives that the two of are repeating. this does not, in any way, privilege lgbt issues over anti-imperialism. quite the opposite, claims that concern over these narratives has to be pushed aside in the name of anti-imperialist unity privileges anti-imperialism over lgbt issues, and is exactly the sort of narrow-minded, moralistic politics that i hate.
i've also yet to call either of you a bigot once, so who's projecting here?
discipline posted:
yes it is polishing the silver to cry crocodile tears over third world LGBT conditions while you are bombing actual LGBT people and their loved ones to hell, encouraging reactionary governments like those in saudi, or else impoverishing LGBT and their loved ones en masse through neoliberal SAPs. also it is polishing the silver wring hands over this obviously contradictory policy stance towards human rights abroad while 90% of african american children are on food stamps in USA. what is so confounding and confusing about this.
those sound more like hypocrisies than 'polishing the silver', and the use of that phrase leads me to believe you're more amenable of a 'gay rights aren't important compared to the real problems' position a la goatstein than you're willing to admit.
babyfinland posted:
cool thanks go back to wddp
forums rivalry., awesome
Lessons posted:discipline posted:
yes it is polishing the silver to cry crocodile tears over third world LGBT conditions while you are bombing actual LGBT people and their loved ones to hell, encouraging reactionary governments like those in saudi, or else impoverishing LGBT and their loved ones en masse through neoliberal SAPs. also it is polishing the silver wring hands over this obviously contradictory policy stance towards human rights abroad while 90% of african american children are on food stamps in USA. what is so confounding and confusing about this.those sound more like hypocrisies than 'polishing the silver', and the use of that phrase leads me to believe you're more amenable of a 'gay rights aren't important compared to the real problems' position a la goatstein than you're willing to admit.
can you explain why they are important? i would think that the tiny percentage of the population they affect, that population's lack of poverty or suffering in absolute terms, and the fact that both the percentage of the population affected and the egregiousness of the offenses are continually going down would seem to indicate that no in fact they are not important in comparison to problems that affect much larger numbers of the population, increasingly and far more egregiously
Lessons posted:babyfinland posted:
American LGBT politics is primarily bourgeois. There are legitimate anti-imperialist LGBT voices but they are not elevated by the likes of Clinton. Your argument is basically "You haven't said anything objectionable but I still feel offended."that's not true at all, i've pointed to these objectionable statements repeatedly, and both of you have ignored them and talked about what you wanted to talk about instead.
What? Where?
Lessons posted:It's because you privilege LGBT issues over anti-imperialism as a rule, and yet identify as a Revolutionary Communist. You project the uncomfortable cognitive dissonance you feel as a result onto people who illuminate this contradiction, and must then attack them along the lines of your true commitments (to liberal bourgeois politics) as "bigots" or whatever. This is why I say it's stupid to identify ideologically with some sort of political movement unless you are in actuality committed to it in action, not just in theory, in your own imagination.i've done no such thing. what i have done is highlight some problematic narratives that the two of are repeating. this does not, in any way, privilege lgbt issues over anti-imperialism. quite the opposite, claims that concern over these narratives has to be pushed aside in the name of anti-imperialist unity privileges anti-imperialism over lgbt issues, and is exactly the sort of narrow-minded, moralistic politics that i hate.
i've also yet to call either of you a bigot once, so who's projecting here?
This doesn't make any sense. Just go away.
deadken posted:
one thing is more important than another thing therefore the other thing is not important at all. only one thing can be important. hi im a monomaniac muslim oedipal wreck
thats not how anti-imperialism and LGBT politics intersect. homonationalists always do this, operating within the schema of either / or while criticizing anti-imperialism and demanding that one either abandons anti-imperialism or supports LGBT politics even its msot bourgeois and reactionary manifestations.
im done with this thread, peace
http://thenewinquiry.com/post/13875223956/be-aware-nick-kristofs-anti-politics Pro Read. Like there's anything better to do in this thread
Crow posted:
This really deserves its own thread, but I think it's just as relevant here, the sort of dimension of 'the victim' the imperial system likes to play up:
http://thenewinquiry.com/post/13875223956/be-aware-nick-kristofs-anti-politics Pro Read. Like there's anything better to do in this thread
cool blog
Crow posted:
This really deserves its own thread, but I think it's just as relevant here, the sort of dimension of 'the victim' the imperial system likes to play up:
http://thenewinquiry.com/post/13875223956/be-aware-nick-kristofs-anti-politics Pro Read. Like there's anything better to do in this thread
murkage.
This knot also provides ample opportunity for articulation: for of course the declaration lies in Symbolic coordinates, and so here I think is where 'be reasonable with your impossible demands' is the watchphrase. OK, you say gay rights, good, now also black rights, now also food rights, now also education rights. No, extraneous demands aren't privileging. Wrong. They are strategic maneuverings and sites of truth. Limp bizkit
Crow posted:
Affirmations of the enemy warmachine should be served as tactical considerations, proclamations of intent. a manufacturing proposition: yes, send these arms to the compradors, who are fully infiltrated; or libidinal economy: yes, affirm the excluded, you are digging your total betrayal, universalism.
isnt this just accelerationism
deadken posted:
well 'rights' in general are a liberal-imperialist formulation
You guys make it too easy
babyfinland posted:Crow posted:
Affirmations of the enemy warmachine should be served as tactical considerations, proclamations of intent. a manufacturing proposition: yes, send these arms to the compradors, who are fully infiltrated; or libidinal economy: yes, affirm the excluded, you are digging your total betrayal, universalism.isnt this just accelerationism
it could be. I tend to think now of accelerationism as interventions of countercyclical class struggle. Imo the collapse of the Soviet Union was a deceleration.
On the subject of tactical affirmation of the warmachine, I mean highly-calculated interventions. For example: selling weapons to a comprador government that will certainly be captured by popular or revolutionary forces. Or: the championing of democracy by elites. The biggest mistake the bourgeoisie ever made was take up the popular rhetoric of the people. Fun thought: did they have any other choice?
Edited by Crow ()
deadken posted:
well 'rights' in general are a liberal-imperialist formulation
riGHt. Lol. But seriously folks, 'rights' is the site of the gridlock, and like every traffic cop & reporter knows, the gridlock is where ya start
do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
NounsareVerbs posted:
a "right" is a temporary and revocable amnesty from the monopoly of violence and death dealing that the state possesses.
do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
this is still formulated in terms of bourgeois libertarianism.
historically speaking, western legal philosophy of rights derives from roman slavery. roman citizenship granted the right to absolute personal authority over property. in relation to possessions and land rights this means other people cant use those things without your permission. in reference to slaves and family, this means you administrate another person's life and labor as you please. philosophy of rights always comes down to bourgeois liberties (another word and concept derived from western imperial tradition).
that said crow might be right. he reads them french books.
in small, localized societies i suppose rights are something other pure extortion, though. you need some kind of molimo for that to work though.
thats why youre left with that "small localized society" adam smith bullshit