[eDebate] ur dumb...

[Your Boys Moschiach & Muhammed]

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.






A.

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


>  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