[eDebate] ur dumb...

jesus christ omritarded
Fri Apr 4 09:08:09 CDT 2008


i wasn't certain(tho i had a pretty good guess)  after the first post but i
am pretty certain now of your actual identity which makes this game
exceedingly less fun for me. for the record don't lie you are not a womyn.
this particular account was not set up by me but was set up by a friend and
given to me and several others for us to randomly post with. the original
may or may not have been posted by the person who created the subsequent
postings so as a rule it probably unwise to fuck with us as you never know
who or where we are.

probably not such a good idea to call people who aren't guys guys as it
makes them angry or at the very least sad. not very communitarian of you.

look the shit you said before made no sense i link turned your k anyway but
this time ill answer it. calling one specific person a zionist fuck(whether
i meant it or not) is not re-inscribing any sort of binary i made no calls
to exclude him just  a hyperbolic wish that he might be less of a fuckwad
about  his identity in its relation to his politics. fuck the rash K's and
that peice of Odysyous evidence i believe that there are specific
intolerances that we can afford to be intolerant of (i.e. drawing parallels
between  zionism and  nazism, if all of the sudden a nazi debate coach
started coaching his kids to be nazis we would no doubt be pissed right?)
i think the clan should probably  be ashamed of their ideas too. enshallah
you know this and are sympathetic to it.

Don't accuse people you don't know of shit you don't understand and cant
make coherent internal link analysis for. its just bad scholarship.

on the parody flow(and heres what ill bank this round on) i will strait up
concede the args you make at the bottom of the flow about no one winning and
if that were my goal(to create a situation through parody in which winning
is impossible) then it means that i win don't I.

(paraphrased from Nietszche and Delueze)
the relation of master and slave is not, in itself,  dialectical. Who is the
dialectician, who dialectises the relationship? it is the slave, the slave's
perspective, the way of thinking belonging to the slaves perspective...
according to the slave the relationship of power in the dialectic between
the master and slave is not one of the will to power but of the
representation of power, recogniton by "the one" superiority over "the
other" this is the image that the *man of resentiment* has of power. the
parodic gesture escapes that in that, as our banter proves, it becomes
impossible for anyone to win when we just keep trying to fool one another.
you see this as a bad thing because it dosnt help our community but again
that is the *resentiment *talking, you dont want the world you have, the
community you have, you want some other world and so you hate your self for
the lack imposed upon you by this world. my alternative would be something
like whimsy, or play, as it is in those moments when we are not utilized
that we are alive. i dont want my existence to be a means to anyones ends
least of all yours. the slave conceives of power as the object of
recognition, the content of a representation, the stake in a competition,
and therefore makes it depend, at the end of a fight, on the simple
attribution of established values. reaction becomes impossible in the world
of the parodic everything is acting on everything else but nothing can ever
react without falling for the trap and proving the original action true.
this is your arg about it not functioning dialogically to produce some
better world. i say who cares... its turtles all the way down.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080404/0ca8bac8/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list