[eDebate] oops omar -- unfinished post
Sat Jul 1 20:59:40 CDT 2006
oops that was unfinished. my bad.
i left in mid sentence with "i think that policy debate students in general
have some idea..."
i will now finish and then repost with everything patched together: i think
that policy debate students in general have some idea that giving a speech
somehow is a form of disobedience because it challenges assumptions.
speeches @ tournaments are NOT disobedient in any way. speeches in the
president's office during a sit in are disobedient and not well liked by the
authorities who freak out. debate students have no qualms about the
regulation of their behavior by university authorities and their inability
to challenge the terms and conditions of their speeches. unfortunately,
the main obstacle to debate sit ins is not a proper intellectual
justification for the sit ins but the overcoming of FEAR of career
repurcussions of disobedient behavior effectively inculcated since the
vietnam war. fear motivates defensive responses largely intellectually
dictated. gandhi, MLK and foucault have many critiques of intellectual
cowardice in the face of injustice and oppression unheeded by debate
students in the ivory tower of academic security and safety. ultimately,
they keep circling around to popular consent of state actions and
micro-complicity. debaters prefer to demonize the state because it is
easy and it gets them out of their micro-responsibility. you know that
mass murder is happening and you know from history what works but you do not
know how to overcome your fears of police/authority backlash!!! that's
what we are talking about.
there are many problems with the idea that the lack of a draft derails the
vietnam resistance model.
1) greater military industrial complex grafting onto universities. chomsky
and the MIT students were protesting complicity with the MIC. given the
greater level of invasion of student life and greater production of military
knowledge by universities, this argument should be more compelling this time
around. this is a huge part of the complicity argument. i don't think you
need me to document all of the lockheed martin/university contracts.
debate knowledge in particular is problematic because it is a testing ground
for propaganda campaigns that informs think tanks of the most effective
strategies ferretted out by participants and judges. university knowledges
directly contribute to mass murder. university students actually opposed to
mass murder should sabotage the normal functioning of that institution until
their tuition no longer pay for murder.
2) the draft link to anti-war sit ins is weak. UT debaters and other
students occupied the main tower in 1996 over the hopwood decision to
rollback affirmative action. no military draft was necessary. harvard
students and faculty occupied buildings for fair pay for all university
workers in 2000, i believe. no draft was necessary. the main factor in
both of these cases is the overcoming of fear to take a stand. students
and others took over the seattle downtown in 1999 and shut down the city
over WTO meetings. for less than mass murder connected to tuition much
less a draft, students have conducted sit ins all over the place. why they
have not over the war, i am baffled. the draft argument is based on
self-interest which is not the basis of most community activism. actually,
i think your argument is a projection of the normalized fear that pervades
your community. the unfortunate framing of foucault critiques in the form
of "power bad" misses the boat. foucault was well aware of the necessity of
social movements taking power into their own hands and WIELDING and FORCING
authorities to behave themselves appropriately. y'all debate @ tournaments
because you are afraid of wielding power and forcing your authorities to
stop the killings. your power scares you into submissive discussions. i
say make your arguments on an unfamiliar stage in the president's office and
don't stop debating this administration until the killings have stopped.
you may learn something you will never learn in the classroom about social
movements. you have no reflexive understanding of social movements on the
sidelines and they are purely a subject matter of inquiry.
3) historically sit ins worked against the vietnam war for the same reason
that civil disobedience has worked for centuries because sit ins up the ante
for the powers that be and require them to murder under less conducive terms
and eventually stop them from indiscriminately murdering. you have no
alternative. competitive debate has been critiqued as a form of obedience
that poses no threat to the war mongers. you have no new model or
historical ground of resistance. complacency is not helping to the stop the
killings. what are you going to do if you don't sit in and how could it
possibly do more to sabotage the system that is doing the killings and do
more to force a real public debate about the war where the anti-war team
could actually win the debate?
4) the mass murder of innocent civilians fighting unwinnable guerilla
warfare is a better link and it's the same now as it was during vietnam,
hence the model. unlike y'all in the hypothetical game mode on the flow of
debate rounds, the anti-vietnam war students could not stomach the bombings
of cambodia and the little kids getting blasted with machine guns and so
they decided to that disobedience was necessary to stop the killings.
y'all are the product of video game culture, desensitization and numbing.
intellectually removed from the subject matter on an abstract plane of
discussion, y'all would rather say "and a vote for us will save lives" and
vote for the team that "saves the most lives" than actually DO SOMETHING TO
SAVE LIVES. at this point, a hypothetical policy recommendation to save
lives and its discussion is irrelevant when mass murder is going on in the
ADJACENT CLASSROOM NAMED IRAQ. debate has become the lifeboat ethics of
the old malthus DA.
i don't think it's going to even be a close debate here, omar. sit ins
were a key factor in the cessation of the southeast asian murder campaigns.
the iraq war resistance is weak and the war is going strong with a
possible iran/syria add on. you have to find a way to wield power and
force the authorities to do what you want. that is AGENCY. tournament
debate depoliticizes only when it strips students and faculty of their
agency and misleads them about the nature of power. that's the
korcok/shamaham kritik of activist agency as a religious calling to the only
true way and i am afraid it represents the contest round norm. that kritik
is sham because it reduces debate into an obedience game where disobedience
is ruled out supposedly not because students are AFRAID but because their
"intellectual disobedience" is superior. foucault was all over it and i
have documented this legacy in the archives. don't sit in against mass
murder in iraq because if you do you are a follower of a religion who is
forcing his/her views onto the conductors of mass murder. instead give a
riotous speech at a college debate tournament against mass murder which is
OK because you are not forcing your view like a religioso and you allow the
proponents of mass murder to have their fair say while actually their policy
wins and mass murder continues. y'all is a ridiculous fucking joke...y'all
"anarchists" who fight traffic tickets like they da plague and
shit,...scared little chickens...cops might hit you with a stick if you sit
in...shit that might hurt...you might not get an A in debate this semester
and damage your GPA...you might get stigmatized in your department...that's
what all the intellectual searching for a reason against sit ins is really
all about. take a risk. get real. fuck this war. you can stop it.
More information about the Mailman