Makeshift_Swahili posted:i just finished Fanshen and i think everyone should read it.,
read shenfan too you bum
http://www.infowars.com/twitter-feminists-campaign-to-killallmen/
there's a war on... for ur mind!!
MadMedico posted:In Alice, when the heroine first lands in Riyadh, she is ushered to the women’s quarters of Abu Hamza’s royal compound, where she is warmly welcomed by a host of female characters – wives, daughters, friends, and servants. Some smoke hookah while they watch Desperate Housewives and Sex and the City; others read the Quran on their iPads. One of Radha’s daughters wears Lululemon, has dyed blonde hair, and aspires to go to college before marrying her true love; the other is voluntarily engaged at 14 to a man whose only appeal is political clout, and doesn’t wear makeup because she doesn’t want to be seen as “a whore.”
The show relies on a particular cliche in descriptions of Muslim women: that they are normal despite being Muslim because they too wear underwear and read magazines.
yeah fuck this show for showing a muslim girl who wants to go to college, could this show like get any more problematic
Ironicwarcriminal posted:MadMedico posted:In Alice, when the heroine first lands in Riyadh, she is ushered to the women’s quarters of Abu Hamza’s royal compound, where she is warmly welcomed by a host of female characters – wives, daughters, friends, and servants. Some smoke hookah while they watch Desperate Housewives and Sex and the City; others read the Quran on their iPads. One of Radha’s daughters wears Lululemon, has dyed blonde hair, and aspires to go to college before marrying her true love; the other is voluntarily engaged at 14 to a man whose only appeal is political clout, and doesn’t wear makeup because she doesn’t want to be seen as “a whore.”
The show relies on a particular cliche in descriptions of Muslim women: that they are normal despite being Muslim because they too wear underwear and read magazines.yeah fuck this show for showing a muslim girl who wants to go to college, could this show like get any more problematic
ehhhhh 3/10
A patient says, for example, "I can't come to my Tuesday appointment because
I have to take my child to the doctor."...Perhaps she says that the child was very sick and she had to take the first opening. This could be true, but it could also be true that it was the first possible opening that was convenient for her....There are no inherently "reasonable" excuses
this bit was funny as hell but i know and care about more than a few people in therapy and can only hope to god noone does this to them
A friend of mine was in analysis with a Lacanian and, for more than a week
at one point in his analysis, his analyst sent him on his way after sessions
lasting no more than a few seconds. At the time, my friend and I were shocked,
and considered the treatment altogether unfair, inappropriate, and brutal. I
am not aware of the analyst's precise reasons for the harsh treatment, but it
seems quite likely to me in hindsight that this friend—an obsessive accustomed to overintellectualizing, with a somewhat grandiose sense of his own
self-worth—was no doubt proffering well-constructed discourses on highfalutin subjects during his analytic sessions, and the analyst had decided it was
high time he realized that there is no room for that in analysis and learned to
get to the point without beating around the academic bush.
In most schools of psychology and psychoanalysis, such behavior on the
analyst's part would be considered a serious breach of professional ethics—
abusive, unconscionable, and downright nasty. After all, people would argue,
the analysand did not seek out an analyst to be treated in that way! But
analysis is not a contract, and the analysand may well be hoping for something
that he or she nevertheless unconsciously strives to stave off. The eminent
writer I mentioned above was still hoping to achieve something in his analysis,
despite his unconscious and at times not so unconscious self-defeating strategy. The very fact that he continued to go to analysis every day for such a long
period of time meant that he was, at some level, looking for something else,
hoping against hope, perhaps, that the analyst would wean him from his
long-standing self-sabotaging tendencies.
This friend who received several extremely short sessions in a row was,
in a sense, asking for it. Not openly, necessarily; not even verbally, perhaps.
But he may very well have known, at some level, what he was doing; he
simply could not help it. He went to that particular analyst (one of the most
experienced Lacanians) asking to be trained as a psychoanalyst, and then
conducted himself as if he were in a classroom with a professor, discoursing
upon theoretical matters of the utmost interest to him. Since my friend was
by no means ignorant of Freud's work, he knew very well that that is not
the stuff of analysis; nevertheless, he could not break himself of his intellectualizing habits, and tried (somewhat successfully at first, it seems) to
engage the analyst at the level of psychoanalytic theory. His challenge to
the analyst was, in some sense: "Make me stop! Prove to me that you won't
get caught up in my game!" In this sense my friend was asking for it.
MindMaster posted:i dont know, i think i would do exactly that if i was sent to an analyst, i would try to talk about theory with them because i wouldnt know how else to talk to a person like that (and the one time i did go to a psychiatrist, though not an analyst, i did exactly that and the trip was useless), short sessions are just meant to leave some sort of salient point to the analysand, since talking for 2 hours about theory would leave no meaningful impression on such a person
should a put a sign on his door saying "no dogs, blacks or literary theorists"
littlegreenpills posted:MindMaster posted:i dont know, i think i would do exactly that if i was sent to an analyst, i would try to talk about theory with them because i wouldnt know how else to talk to a person like that (and the one time i did go to a psychiatrist, though not an analyst, i did exactly that and the trip was useless), short sessions are just meant to leave some sort of salient point to the analysand, since talking for 2 hours about theory would leave no meaningful impression on such a person
should a put a sign on his door saying "no dogs, blacks or literary theorists"
well the point is of course that a psychoanalyst is less a psychiatrist than a critic of fictions (in the case of actual practice, of the fictions we tell ourselves about ourselves), but the analysand can never be trusted to critique his own fiction from within. this is also why works of art which intellectualize their own concepts too much are considered kitsch, it's essentially the same flaw since that job has to be done by somebody other than the person who made it. it's really a very logical theory
MindMaster posted:but the analysand can never be trusted to critique his own fiction from within. this is also why works of art which intellectualize their own concepts too much are considered kitsch, it's essentially the same flaw since that job has to be done by somebody other than the person who made it.
i don't know about "never", though, but it's fair to say that human beings as they stand by and large at the moment in this gay year of the Lord 2014 and by extention the arts they produce, are really really bad at this act of constant self-critique, if only because such objects and people are very ill-suited to redirecting surplus production or whatever
stegosaurus posted:http://www.theamericanconservative.com/hobbylobby/?mc_cid=2e8944f21a&mc_eid=c5d67533b3lmao these guys own
Cahokia says:
March 27, 2014 at 5:17 pm
This reminds me of old-school Trotskyite “third-campism”, where the ultraleft purists declare a pox on both their houses, the Soviet Union and the U.S., and the bourgeoisie and state socialism. Trad-conservatives seem to be following the Trotskites footsteps into political irrelevancy.
thirdplace posted:stegosaurus posted:http://www.theamericanconservative.com/hobbylobby/?mc_cid=2e8944f21a&mc_eid=c5d67533b3lmao these guys own
Cahokia says:
March 27, 2014 at 5:17 pm
This reminds me of old-school Trotskyite “third-campism”, where the ultraleft purists declare a pox on both their houses, the Soviet Union and the U.S., and the bourgeoisie and state socialism. Trad-conservatives seem to be following the Trotskites footsteps into political irrelevancy.
it is so weird how much these people know about marx. they get like 1cm away from an orthodox marxist argument and then veer off into catholicism. which maybe means something.
We've all seen them, sitting around with their inexplicably fancy coffees or obscure craft beers, dressed up like complete tossers and casting a weirdly condescending look at everything that moves. We all loathe them, of course; they represent a kind of aesthetication of existence which can only be described as vulgar, they approach serious issues with a cavalier lack of sober reflection and the fuckers are smug while doing it.
However, we do not know quite who they are. What is a hipster? There is no obvious overriding hipster ethos, except for a sort of overbearing apathy. There is no philosophical basis; they live, untethered, on the flows of fashion and trends; the hipster's raison d'etre is to maintain a tendency towards sophistication through embracing hyperconsumerism. The hipster claims to do this ironically. Irony is a poor shield, however, and this claim is manifestly false. The hipster's extreme late-capitalist attire is a big clue to the phenomenon; the modern hipster is a late-capitalist existentialist. They preach individualism through a strangely uniform practice. The ideology, if it can be called such, of hipsterism is a highly contradictory one, and these contradictions is what makes it appealing. It allows an individual an "out"; in this world of increasing tension, where the optimism of the nineties is giving way to complete, jaded cynicism in the Western cultural spirit, where even the basic of critique are facing criticism, you can express yourself only through your consumer choice. The hipster realises this; protest is futile. The only act of defiance available is, paradoxally, submission.
Where existentialism searches for the genuine, for the authenticity at the core of all phenomena, the hipster has realised that there is no such thing. While existentialism takes solace in the absurdity of the human condition for its implications on human freedom, the hipster sees this absurdity as simply more oppressive. Thinking starts to hurt, reality is too raw to be approached sincerely. Jabbering, bantering, buying becomes the jargon of a new generation of would-be intellectuals.
Hipsterism is, at its core, a symptom of sickness in our post-modern world. Where the individual can only express itself through products, the individual becomes defined by these products. Where political activity cannot be primary (because, after all, engaging in politics doesn't generally lead anywhere), it becomes a hobby. The hipster lives in the end times, and sees the writing on the wall - our society is heading for a reckoning of apocalyptic proportions, and we can do nothing to stop it. The hipster is the rebel who has given up before beginning; their revolt is, in part, against the expectancy of youth to rebel.
What drives the hipster? Is it simply the angst of living in a society without meaning? I, for my part, am unsure. Most hipsters I meet do seem to have an element of it. Moreover, why exactly do "we" have such contempt for them? I have never been able to pinpoint this. Hipsters, as represented here by Urban Dictionary, seem to think that it's because people are jealous. This is clearly not it. But what is it? What roles do the hipsters have to play in our society? And why on earth do they insist on wearing those ridiculous hats?
V. Illych L.
MindMaster posted:well the point is of course that a psychoanalyst is less a psychiatrist than a critic of fictions (in the case of actual practice, of the fictions we tell ourselves about ourselves), but the analysand can never be trusted to critique his own fiction from within. this is also why works of art which intellectualize their own concepts too much are considered kitsch, it's essentially the same flaw since that job has to be done by somebody other than the person who made it. it's really a very logical theory
are crossword puzzles kitsch?
stegosaurus posted:theamericanconservative
i have a friend whose a japanophile and radical/tradition conservative who reads Julius Evola and writes books about ancient Japanese religion, lives in Japan and studied at a Buddhist monastery and I have to say these trokskyist conservatives are way more interesting than the other political groups. at least its an ethos. it would be cool if the radical right and left who share outlooks on how shit society is, even if their prescriptions for fixing it are totally different, could come together even just to talk. or to birth the future in a revolutionary agrarian spirit based on communal economics.
NoFreeWill posted:i have a friend whose a japanophile and radical/tradition conservative who reads Julius Evola and writes books about ancient Japanese religion, lives in Japan and studied at a Buddhist monastery and I have to say
catchphrase