Crow posted:
time to settle down and start a family (of journo-hack assassins).
lol
aerdil posted:
ive always liked dolan a lot more than ames. ames has this tepid progressive leftism-but-not-too-left-thatd-be-crazy! ideology that he overcompensates for by just being aggressively anti-liberal. not that being aggressively anti-liberal is a bad thing, but it makes for a lot of wishy-washy and frankly idiotic articles when it isn't grounded in a firm leftism.
idk, he's often correct in his criticisms of the left, particularly since we're dealing with post-may-68 leftism. that doesnt mean he doesnt write a lot of really bad articles though but it's not because he's not a solid leftist that theyre bad
Impper posted:stegosaurus posted:
it's a far cry from throwing a semen pie in someone's face and doing deep digging on actual conflicts of interest. 'glenn greenwald of the libertarian cato institute' is kind of a reach, even though greenwald is pretty lame in a lot of ways. so in conclusion op I think they should go after big targets or go home, and whatever they do they should make their articles more self-contained, I'm sick of seeing like ten links in the first paragraph of an exiled article to a long stupid twitter war or whatever. who the fuck caresthats actually not a reach, they posted an article about it
the article was a reach, I read it and quoted the title in the post I made, which was referring to the article.
loyellthecat22 posted:
wow, looks like i know to whom not to show my rss feeds of exiled + vice's fashion dos and donts now
yeah... me.
futurewidow posted:
i wish everyone who writes for exiled would die in excruciating pain along with their readership who are like one step above vice magazine readers at best
Thats mean dude.
littlegreenpills posted:
it was the distilled concentrate of the opinions of every respectable internet socialist in the year 2004. slam it means slam yourself
Self criticism
"OK so we like got to the place we're staying and it's CRAZY there's like all these little kids running around and asking for money, we can't get a cup of coffee ANYWHERE and the locals are looking at us like they want to kill us"
Dolan is the best writer the exile had/has by a long shot with lots of great articles and some truly terrific ones. I read this one the other day about Reagan's earlier days and the kind of California environment that bred him and thought it was fantastic:
http://exiledonline.com/reagan’s-cheshire-snarl/
Ames is a bit boring tbqh
it's like gun control for the democrats.
Crow posted:
I don't think Masculinity essentially comes at the expense of women's liberation???? DuhOi?? Does power and strength essentially come at the expense of the proletariat?
i dunno it's still up in the air imo. I think there's still a privileging of male opinions, activities and male occupations on the left and that's related to the idealization of masculinity
in the example of stalin, he was profoundly influenced by the georgian ideal of knight (karachogheli) as a valiant defender. i dont see anything wrong with that, in of itself, but i am biased and believe fidelity to the truth (in this case justice and liberation) is the most brave life, and one must defend the truthful event of liberation (love, revolution, epiphany). so there i can see how one can resurrect a 'masculinity', because essentially it is rather ambiguous and open to the freedom of action.
Crow posted:
if we're talking about a particular radical feminist critique of masculinity, (which i have no small amount of sympathy for myself), it's not so much that privileging is an exclusively masculine endeavor, it's that domination is gendered male. that might seem like a strange proposition, but when you strip it down it's actually a very revealing way to understand gender's social role, (here we can talk about gender performativity, or its social sciences counterpart, Doing Gender). and the idea is that as these patterns of social domination are deconstructed there we be a concomitant deconstruction of gender as well and the eventual adoption of a more androgynous gender identity. it's a very materialist view of history, Catherine MacKinnon actually wrapped it up into a theory of the state, which Judith Butler absolutely hated lmao.
so to a certain extent what you're talking about isn't necessarily contradictory with this, both because at an immediate and practical level we can't expect everyone to simply jettison their gender identity, and also because if these are just a bunch of myths and ideals they aren't considered particularly important, though they could function as propaganda and have to be attacked on that basis. in some hypothetical post-patriarchal post-white supremacist communist society maybe it would be fine to have a masculinity of sorts, i tend to think of that as sort of romantic reaction myself, but in either case it's neither here not there.
Crow posted:
i dont think reserving privilege for your opinion, activity, or occupation has to do with masculinity, or perhaps an essential quality that should relate to it. like, humility can register in masculinity, and that directly conflicts with any sort of privileging of self or group. i mean i think in the end it relates back to building the proper masculinity, and you can see these things in religious texts (obviously not consistently) and ancient works..
in the example of stalin, he was profoundly influenced by the georgian ideal of knight (karachogheli) as a valiant defender. i dont see anything wrong with that, in of itself, but i am biased and believe fidelity to the truth (in this case justice and liberation) is the most brave life, and one must defend the truthful event of liberation (love, revolution, epiphany). so there i can see how one can resurrect a 'masculinity', because essentially it is rather ambiguous and open to the freedom of action.
yeah i see what you mean i was on a completely different tangent. I see how humility can be attributed to masculinity but I believe submission is in direct contradiction to it, at least non-religious submission. as long as masculinity is about dominance like thug lessens says, it cannot coexist with women's liberation. especially since the masculinity worshipped at exiled is a strain that is virulently dominant
can i still call women sheilas?
deadken posted:
that gas middle america article is dumb as shit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black
As generally understood, the person accusing is understood to share some quality with the target of their accusation. An alternative interpretation, recognised by some, but not all, sources is that the pot is sooty (being placed on a fire), while the kettle is clean and shiny (being placed on coals only), and hence when the pot accuses the kettle of being black, it is the pot’s own sooty reflection that it sees: the pot accuses the kettle of a fault that only the pot has, rather than one that they share. See also projection.
By the way, note how deadken just said the article was dum without quoting what he didn't like or explaining what he meant. Classic deadken.
Ames does a good job of taking those guys to task. I gave him more money cause I enjoy reading Yasha Levine and Dolan, and he does a good job of aggregating news stories on the exile sidebar thing. '
It seems like a thing someone should be doing, and he's good at it, so why not. It seems to be something to do until he can work on bigger and better things
Crow posted:
i dont think reserving privilege for your opinion, activity, or occupation has to do with masculinity, or perhaps an essential quality that should relate to it. like, humility can register in masculinity, and that directly conflicts with any sort of privileging of self or group. i mean i think in the end it relates back to building the proper masculinity, and you can see these things in religious texts (obviously not consistently) and ancient works..
in the example of stalin, he was profoundly influenced by the georgian ideal of knight (karachogheli) as a valiant defender. i dont see anything wrong with that, in of itself, but i am biased and believe fidelity to the truth (in this case justice and liberation) is the most brave life, and one must defend the truthful event of liberation (love, revolution, epiphany). so there i can see how one can resurrect a 'masculinity', because essentially it is rather ambiguous and open to the freedom of action.
I agree with you. I think in the race to be seen as not a bad guy, men can go too far from the essential good qualities of man, being honorable and brave and fair, standing in the face of adversity and stuff like that. A real masculinity is something good for all people, it shouldn't be confused for the fake action movie masculinity of the fatherless that's just anger and random violence and intimidation
Ironicwarcriminal posted:
Hey futurewidow i'm getting a plane to your country (iirc) in 20 hours what customs do i need to follow to not be a boorish Australian
don't call them abbos
Myfanwy posted:Crow posted:
i dont think reserving privilege for your opinion, activity, or occupation has to do with masculinity, or perhaps an essential quality that should relate to it. like, humility can register in masculinity, and that directly conflicts with any sort of privileging of self or group. i mean i think in the end it relates back to building the proper masculinity, and you can see these things in religious texts (obviously not consistently) and ancient works..
in the example of stalin, he was profoundly influenced by the georgian ideal of knight (karachogheli) as a valiant defender. i dont see anything wrong with that, in of itself, but i am biased and believe fidelity to the truth (in this case justice and liberation) is the most brave life, and one must defend the truthful event of liberation (love, revolution, epiphany). so there i can see how one can resurrect a 'masculinity', because essentially it is rather ambiguous and open to the freedom of action.I agree with you. I think in the race to be seen as not a bad guy, men can go too far from the essential good qualities of man, being honorable and brave and fair, standing in the face of adversity and stuff like that. A real masculinity is something good for all people, it shouldn't be confused for the fake action movie masculinity of the fatherless that's just anger and random violence and intimidation
we have to question why those attributes are masculine in the first place - honesty, loyalty, bravery, etc are not traditionally associated with femininity for a reason. a wife may be loyal because she is submissive but otherwise a woman's treachery knows no bounds