discipline posted:
wow if u are a white woman you drop a whole ten what the fuck kind of math is that kenny boy, how much do I get to drop as an adult convert to islam
as i said the exact values to be added or dropped should provoke some lively contention 
aerdil posted:
brown people's religions are for BROWN PEOPLE ONLY.
gender identities are up for grabs though, check your privilege
discipline posted:
anyone who ever said "Adult Convert to Islam" to me as an insult is literally an ageist lmao
discipline posted:
anyone who ever said "White Convert to Islam" to me as an insult is literally a racist lmao
of course
deadken posted:
i think everyone should have a number based on Privilege Points. like if you live in the first world you get 50 privilege points, if youre white you get another 50, if you're a woman you drop 10, the actual point value system will probably require months of furious (....and dare i say.... hysterical) debate before its fully ironed out but once its done your Privilege Points score could be displayed under your avatar and it would make subaltern oneupmanship much easier
that would probably be the most productive thing to occur within the realm of first world ideological discussion in the past 30 years since first world leftism has just been pompous posturing about whose ideology is the most morally superior, without any actual praxis except when the ideological movements have been coopted by capital.
in that respect it wouldn't be different but at least it would finally settle the arguments about which type of fixie or shower temperature is required before a person can be considered an Authentic Progressive. then subsequently the effort and focus could be shifted onto actually relevant economic and social issues.
discipline posted:
wow if u are a white woman you drop a whole ten what the fuck kind of math is that kenny boy, how much do I get to drop as an adult convert to islam
im an adult convert to paraphilic infantilism. my score is 69 + 420 for being a sith weedlord, ftw 
discipline posted:
I know this borders on "EDUCATE ME BECAUSE I'M PRIVILEGED SO I CAN DEMAND THAT" but if someone can point out the political or economic usefulness in discussing individual privilege I feel like there's a blind spot and I'd like to know what it is
its u lol
but yeah ppl arguing over individual instances of privilege and not talkin about societal structures that cause privilege (hes marxplainin! get him!) is basically why i pay as little attention to mainstream identity politics as possible
which is really easy bc i enjoy + embody all privileges, sigh
gyrofry posted:
could it not be argued that a sustained and consistent "he's marxsplainin, get him" reaction-pattern within a discussion community is itself an (embryonic), if perhaps unconscious, attempt to build a societal structure whose taboo-establishing effect ultimately in fact can function to diminish privilege in practice within the community
not in itself i dont think. its just a way to discipline the discourse at the individual level, it doesnt levy any critique against organizational modes at all. liberal capitalist democracies attempt to discipline discourse in precisely the same way (both operatively (i.e. at the individual level) and in terms of content) and that certainly doesnt speak of any liberatory germ. if anything this sort of discipline works to sustain an idolatry that places social organizational modes (e.g. "patriarchy") outside of the concrete and into an abstract, transcendental plane such that they are perpetually reproduced, proportionate to the energy expended in disciplining "against" their purported individual manifestations
gyrofry posted:
could it not be argued that a sustained and consistent "he's marxsplainin, get him" reaction-pattern within a discussion community is itself an (embryonic), if perhaps unconscious, attempt to build a societal structure whose taboo-establishing effect ultimately in fact can function to diminish privilege in practice within the community
no bc ideas themselves end up forming the basis of a new system of privilege
cleanhands posted:gyrofry posted:
could it not be argued that a sustained and consistent "he's marxsplainin, get him" reaction-pattern within a discussion community is itself an (embryonic), if perhaps unconscious, attempt to build a societal structure whose taboo-establishing effect ultimately in fact can function to diminish privilege in practice within the communityno bc ideas themselves end up forming the basis of a new system of privilege
yeah also this, which i didnt mention before. the accusatory reaction thing works to obliviate the accuser of any privilege (according to his own terms), but then establishes a new system of privilege wherein the accuser maintains discursive privilege against any accused. its a big moral inquisition which we all knwo from reading our scripture leads only to corruption in the hands of fallible men
discipline posted:
anyone who ever said "White Convert to Islam" to me as an insult is literally a racist lmao
I said adult convert
babyfinland posted:
not in itself i dont think. its just a way to discipline the discourse at the individual level, it doesnt levy any critique against organizational modes at all.
I think i agree with you, but the thought occurred to me because it seems that in principle (if applied consistently and on the basis of some principle rather than arbitrarily out of e.g. idiosyncratic personal animus or malfunctioning endocrine system) there must be some inflection point where disciplining the discourse at the individual level transmutes into disciplining the discourse at the group level. the latter case would seem to result in the establishment or restructuring of an organizational mode, unless i'm misunderstanding the way in which you're using that term.
liberal capitalist democracies attempt to discipline discourse in precisely the same way (both operatively (i.e. at the individual level) and in terms of content) and that certainly doesnt speak of any liberatory germ.
I am certainly not arguing for it as a liberatory mode in the global sense. Mainly just trying to examine the way in which the establishment of group taboos does indeed seem to have the practical effect of suppressing ideas/behaviors within certain groups (and perhaps more broadly?), for better or worse, repugnant though it may be to my personal liberal trot sensibilities.
if anything this sort of discipline works to sustain an idolatry that places social organizational modes (e.g. "patriarchy") outside of the concrete and into an abstract, transcendental plane such that they are perpetually reproduced, proportionate to the energy expended in disciplining "against" their purported individual manifestations
If we assume for the sake of argument that there's a shared agreement on the existence and contours of said problematic organizational mode (e.g. patrarchy) and we assume that we agree on the appropriate concrete action needed to mitigate it, what is the mechanism for bringing that concrete action to fruition if not through motivating individuals/groups to act in accord with that particular approach? And if (for the sake of argument) establishment of taboos is perceived to be an efficacious way of motivating behaviors, isn't that sufficiently concrete?
discipline posted:gyrofry posted:
could it not be argued that a sustained and consistent "he's marxsplainin, get him" reaction-pattern within a discussion community is itself an (embryonic), if perhaps unconscious, attempt to build a societal structure whose taboo-establishing effect ultimately in fact can function to diminish privilege in practice within the communitythis is not the range of inquiry I am using. I want to know what qualifies _________ (you have used "marxplainin"), who decided those are acceptable qualifiers, who is generally the first to call it out, who are the figures that can mobilize the greatest response, and why.
i'm going to leave 'marxsplaining' and other specific discourse-suppressants aside, since i was just quoting that guy and i still don't have any idea what it actually means.
in the general case, it seems to me that in practice this is not often done in a principled or coherent way, but rather established somewhat arbitrarily on the basis of some real or perceived personal animus, which may be substantially unrelated to the principles purportedly at issue. e.g. i and my friends believe our identity is threatened by your espoused views, therefore we hate you, something unique about you is that you are muslim, therefore we make fun of you for being a muslim.
then retroactively a principle needs to be established to cover the personal animus (islam is bad) which is gradually enshrined and policed by group dynamics.
now, in principle, it seems (again, not that i support it) that the limits of acceptable discourse within a group could be decided by less arbitrary and more strategic/intentional ways. i'm not sure of this, but that's what occurred to me anyway.
not to mention what are the avenues available to one when they are branded a "marxplainer" - can they defend themselves? who are the judges? who is the jury? what law must they use? what are punishments? etc
well there are none, which seems to be precisely the point. the options seem to be to recant or to be excluded.
gyrofry posted:babyfinland posted:
not in itself i dont think. its just a way to discipline the discourse at the individual level, it doesnt levy any critique against organizational modes at all.I think i agree with you, but the thought occurred to me because it seems that in principle (if applied consistently and on the basis of some principle rather than arbitrarily out of e.g. idiosyncratic personal animus or malfunctioning endocrine system) there must be some inflection point where disciplining the discourse at the individual level transmutes into disciplining the discourse at the group level. the latter case would seem to result in the establishment or restructuring of an organizational mode, unless i'm misunderstanding the way in which you're using that term.
I don't really think that there is any inflection point. If there is, it is probably located somewhere like at the point when you are arguing principles rather than accusing individuals of demonic possession by some evil deity-like abstraction, and in that instance the thing is so fundamentally different that I wouldn't consider that simply an "inflection" of social discipline. Without a liberatory context, accusing people of embodying privilege or oppressive organizational modes or whatever works in line with political reaction, as it lubricates the frictions those problematic modes cause for the overarching system and re-orders individuals, collectives and discourse into a semi-sustainable pattern. This is useful of course for revolutionaries as well. However, you have to already have established the liberatory mode and then mobilize the taboo from within that project. Taboo pushed far enough will not in itself become liberatory.
This is pretty much speculation, but I'm basing this not only on nat geo special on WDDP but also observations of the Muslim community and how something like the taboo against alcohol consumption or pornography is utilized in reactionary ways (i.e. the way I've outlined above), as well as in a liberatory mode, when that context is already established.
liberal capitalist democracies attempt to discipline discourse in precisely the same way (both operatively (i.e. at the individual level) and in terms of content) and that certainly doesnt speak of any liberatory germ.I am certainly not arguing for it as a liberatory mode in the global sense. Mainly just trying to examine the way in which the establishment of group taboos does indeed seem to have the practical effect of suppressing ideas/behaviors within certain groups (and perhaps more broadly?), for better or worse, repugnant though it may be to my personal liberal trot sensibilities.
Taboos in themselves are fine, imo. I have no problem with stigmatizing behaviors, identities, etc. in a collective manner. Enjoin good and forbid evil.
if anything this sort of discipline works to sustain an idolatry that places social organizational modes (e.g. "patriarchy") outside of the concrete and into an abstract, transcendental plane such that they are perpetually reproduced, proportionate to the energy expended in disciplining "against" their purported individual manifestationsIf we assume for the sake of argument that there's a shared agreement on the existence and contours of said problematic organizational mode (e.g. patrarchy) and we assume that we agree on the appropriate concrete action needed to mitigate it, what is the mechanism for bringing that concrete action to fruition if not through motivating individuals/groups to act in accord with that particular approach? And if (for the sake of argument) establishment of taboos is perceived to be an efficacious way of motivating behaviors, isn't that sufficiently concrete?
With those qualifications, yeah I think that's fine, but it really should be secondary to actual mobilization and action. Policing ideas and discourse for its own sake simply produces a stasis and collective superstitions. (To return to the example of the Muslim community, clinging to outward minutae that have been enshrined or made taboo in order to disperse the critical investigation that something like the invasions of Libya require. I've seen it argued that Muslims in Palestine suffer because people abandon their religion, in the context of the permissibility of celebrating Christmas. Obviously this person does not literally believe one is directly connected to the other, and that she is speaking of a more generalized abandonment, but nontheless in actuality this is the function the taboo performed (lubricating the colonization of Palestine with irrelevant individual social discipline), due to its contextual mode imo. Had the context been established (correctly) that the religion requires anti-colonial struggle and solidarity, I think this error would have been avoided.)
Edited by babyfinland ()
getfiscal posted:
i tried reading this thread but my eyes glazed over because there was almost no discussion of american tax policy.
I'm sorry you find the conversation so taxing.
getfiscal posted:
the reason why people say "white convert to islam" is the same reason why someone would say something like "he swore to me that santa claus was real and i couldn't tell if he was joking" or like "we saw the movie Avatar and he told me he wanted to go the navi homeworld to be with his people"
because white people are fully human while poc / muslims (same thing) are like children
tpaine posted:gyrofry posted:im pretty sure the word levy is up there somewhere
check your privilege
babyfinland posted:
because white people are fully human while poc / muslims (same thing) are like children
if your parents or majority area culture or something believe something then there is a good chance you will too and no one really laughs at that too hard.
but if you like find a book on hinduism in a used bookstore and start telling your friends about how vishnu rules or whatever people will think that maybe you have a screw loose.
getfiscal posted:babyfinland posted:
because white people are fully human while poc / muslims (same thing) are like childrenif your parents or majority area culture or something believe something then there is a good chance you will too and no one really laughs at that too hard.
but if you like find a book on hinduism in a used bookstore and start telling your friends about how vishnu rules or whatever people will think that maybe you have a screw loose.
or about how mao is the greatest humanitarian of the 20th century. lol books. theyre so dumb because they sometimes cause people to exit their parochial traditions
babyfinland posted:
or about how mao is the greatest humanitarian of the 20th century. lol books. theyre so dumb because they sometimes cause people to exit their parochial traditions
there is literally no way to be sane in this world.
like i have deadly excess piles of fat on my body because salty and fatty things cause chemicals in my brain to get me excited.
getfiscal posted:babyfinland posted:
or about how mao is the greatest humanitarian of the 20th century. lol books. theyre so dumb because they sometimes cause people to exit their parochial traditionsthere is literally no way to be sane in this world.
like i have deadly excess piles of fat on my body because salty and fatty things cause chemicals in my brain to get me excited.
im doing pretty good myself.
if your definition of sanity is irretrievable from this world then it is a meaningless one. Welcome to the Platonism of the Real.
tpaine posted:
ok. let's just all sit down and get together and agree that its time for a rhisone rib meat. me, getishcal , gryofry, tom, jkamsneck, all the posters. we meet up, we get some ribs, and some good times. that
i'm not a big fan of ribs. i'd suggest a chicken nugget eating contest but only if khamsek doesn't compete. her nickname is K2 because khamsek takes two nuggets at a time and can eat like 100 before barfing. it's pretty cool.
tpaine posted:
ok. let's just all sit down and get together and agree that its time for a rhisone rib meat. me, getishcal , gryofry, tom, jkamsneck, all the posters. we meet up, we get some ribs, and some good times. that
halal ribs pls