[eDebate] ur dumb...

Your Boys Moschiach & Muhammed getsomepoliticalnuance
Fri Apr 4 14:44:10 CDT 2008

Matt is right -- this conversation has devolved into exercises in pedantry
and solipsism.  It's a waste of time/ Inbox space for the community.  It
should end here.


On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 1:40 PM, matt stannard <stannardmatt at hotmail.com>

>  Can't we ban high school kids from posting?
>  ------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 14:23:09 -0400
> From: getsomepoliticalnuance at gmail.com
> To: omritarded at gmail.com; edebate at ndtceda.com
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] ur dumb...
> 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.
> A.
> 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
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> ------------------------------
> Pack up or back up?use SkyDrive to transfer files or keep extra copies. Learn
> how.
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080404/9ae41005/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list