[eDebate] ur dumb...
Your Boys Moschiach & Muhammed
Fri Apr 4 13:23:09 CDT 2008
You're pretty hostile and angsty for someone who advocates whimsy and play
as the solution/ alt. Where was this whimsy in all your 'you're
dumb' comments (I know you stepped outside of parody to say all this so
relax)? And saying I have to know someone to competently answer their
arguments only legitimates status quo arrangements of power.
Sorry i don't have a posse to set up email accounts with me, verify which
tools i have in my pants, gang up on individual women who send in one post
(which, by the way, i did mostly because it was an opportunity to defend an
alternative to Jesus), etc. I'm not against any of the above; I'm just
saying that I'm a big girl and can do all these things myself. Because
I am a woman. Please stop imposing Lotte Schwartz on me. And please set
aside your notions of whichever male you think I am. Whether you're doing
this because you think it's key to your offense or because you hate this
kid, if there's one thing we should be able to agree on as women it's that
inscribing malehood onto woman creates among the most pernicious forms
of false consciousness/ inauthenticity and necessitates the surrendering of
a lot of critical agency (those forms associated with bodily integrity,
other gender expressions and interests, etc).
I concede that parody can be an illuminating, educational methodology in
round. On edebate i think parody probably requires more than one edebate
post, with a sustained message, if you want to come off as anything but the
kid who gets off on 8th birthday party magic tricks. If you win that
nontraditional, boundary-pushing, more guerilla strategies like parody
solve/ are good -- i just conceded this is true in another context and with
a condition attached to this context -- then redeploying sexist language
like 'guy', whether redeployed ironically or otherwise, solves, too, because
its radicalness, too, disrupts the system, opens up space and gives agency
back to women. Here I would read a Bakhtin card: both parody and language
redeployment can be strategies of carnivale.
On calling a specific someone a Zionist & certain tolerances intolerant & a
more self-aware, self-reflexive clan & your impact turn to parody: my
concessions on parody above mean that I couldn't agree more. These are all
absolutely true. (And worth pointing out so thanks for doing so.) I don't
address any of these args in my last post; only their impact. If you go for
the parody impact turn, then I wholeheartedly agree on that, too. Our point
of divergence is on the way you deploy parody in this context in this
instance; i think parody's potency is lost when its role as parody is not
obvious/ clarified earlier. This, I think, is what problematizes some
manifestations of parody in rounds (but saying this is very different from
say parody is universally always bad). And email is certainly not the best
textual form of representation for this approach.
I'm over debating this, which was what i meant by 'peace. word.' in my last
post. Sure, before this email i needed to clarify where i stood on
parody. Now i've done that. So now there's no productive content left
to uncover. Let's bloody stop arguing this. We agree on way too much. The
only possible content left is defense for you like 'no i was right in this
instance, too, because...' If you insist on clarifying this, sure, go for
it. But, sorry to disappoint you, I'm probably not going to debate you on
it; I don't have to artificially create a point of clash in a, ahem,
conversation. Are you parodying the stereotypical, combative female or
somethiing? Because, dude, wow, take a Midol.
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 10:08 AM, jesus christ <omritarded at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> 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.
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman