[eDebate] in the guppy tank

Kevin Sanchez let_the_american_empire_burn
Thu Jul 2 20:48:23 CDT 2009


jackattack: "the problem is, mr. strategist extraordinaire, the only difference
between this attack and the other attacks is that you were the culprit."

i actually considered that, i really did, before writing that last parenthetical
paragraph. the real difference is that in those other attacks (even the ones
on me) i flowed you as, if not winning, at least advancing a good argument.
(by 'good', i mean sound.) in this instance (and in my could-well-be-wrong
opinion), you *substituted* invective for substance - and the intensity of
the invectives rose as the substance gradually disappeared. that indicates
vacuity to me, and it makes me rethink your previous engagements: were
you picking your targets with the same ouija board that picked me and then
getting lucky on soft opponents? ...anyway, i titled the post 'in defense of
lost causes' both because it's a title of a zizek book (which i fancied would
aggravate you) but also because i'm conflicted. the figure of the troll *is*
useful; i like the idea of someone around who takes it to be their role to
persistently negate/refute everything i say and continually mock any claim
i have on being authoritative. that's healthy. but that someone has to be
egalitarian with their hatred and coolly rational in their thinking, else their
refutations become useless. it was not the 'fuck yous'. call me 'pissboy' as
much as you like, but have a reason, is all i'm asking. proclaim that i enjoy
sticking gerbils in my anus for sexual enjoyment - fine; but be winning the
debate when you do so. on iran and structuralism, it was not even a wash.
the drunken baffoon who swings at the air is funny for a minute, but after
that, becomes starkly pathetic.

"you need to backtrack through the arguments that have taken place and
come up with your own defense of the soft coup. you started with mousavi
good and backed out. you have no strategy."

zizek started with 'mousavi good' - he doesn't speak for me; he can defend
himself: http://communism.blogsport.de/2009/06/24/izek-on-iran/

what i wanted to emphasize was western liberals'/leftists' misrecognition of
genuinely courageous iranian protesters. this wasn't a failed '53; it was an
attempt at a peaceful '79. cynicism should give in to solidarity, and in this,
you're on the wrong side. i defend a recount by an independent authority;
i argue against anyone who stereotypes the protesters as zionist stooges:
that's my 'strat' and it's a successful one because it's true.

'whose side are you on?' were the last words of reese erlich's article, was

all that subject-heading was about. (ask questions before you guess wrong,
my old coach used to say.) as i'm forced to repeat, his article is dated the
29th, so i couldn't have interjected it earlier in the conversation; and since
he thoroughly refutes your thesis point-by-point, you'd have to respond to
his arguments regardless of who posted them (i.e., me). i also don't recall
you responding to the preliminary analysis of the voting figures by chatham
house and the institute of iranian studies at the university of st. andrews:

perhaps ahmadinejad won, but irregularities of that sort call for a recount,
and none of that responds to the basic idea that people should be allowed
to protest nonviolently in public, whatever the result. if your argument was
so 'well-structured' and 'compelling', then it shouldn't be so difficult for you
to answer the above.

by the way, i'm relatively confident that the charge of confusion/obfuscation
applies more to your posts than mine, but even though i have to go through
piles of crap to reach a coherent sentence, i don't make that charge, since
it's often an argument of the weak (e.g., 'foucault is gibberish') i'm writing in
the king's english, replying to every clause i can, so learn you some skills. oh,
being right helps too.

"5)... also, curious how your email content got deleted in transit. did you
really mean to say that you accidentally deleted right before you pressed
send? a mawkish post with just a title that says "The Big Lie" and no content
actually fits gerbil's description dead on. scrambling for strategy in the shark's

this evidences your paranoiac need to concot conspiracy theories when you
have no data which contradicts the simpler explanation - a personal example
of what's fatally debilitating with your foreign policy 'analysis'. what chomsky
says about u.s. idealogues - that the crimes of our enemies are declared as
atrocities and our atrocities are lowered to minor crimes - is true of you, but
in reverse: you're willing to believe anything negative about the u.s. or israel
on the slimiest evidence, while ahmadinejad becomes a folk-hero. my problem
with this *isn't* that it attaches negative conotations to all u.s. and israeli
actions - that's an unqualified good. my problem is that it makes every world
event about the u.s. and israel; then when independent, spontaneous actors
try to take matters into their own hands - say, a mass protest movement in
iran - paranoiacs like you (racistly!) assume that (perhaps a majority of) the
people of iran are acting on behalf of the imperialists. to paraphrase zizek in
citing badiou, that's how a truth-event gets misrecognized.

(i really did write up a post, clicked send, and it came out blank on edebate.
when i looked in my 'sent' folder, however, it was blank there too, so i guess
the problem was on my end. why would i intentionally send along a blank only
to write a full response out the following day? again, vacuity. stroube's last
sentence applies more to himself, again sadly.)

Hotmail? has ever-growing storage! Don?t worry about storage limits. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090702/075b4e12/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list