User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 133

  1. #41
    Twerking & Lurking ayoitsStepho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    4w3 so/sx
    Posts
    4,836

    Default

    ^thats what I was thinking
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGuffin View Post
    ayoitsStepho is becoming someone else. Actually her true self, a rite of passage.

  2. #42
    Senior Member htb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    When I was ten, my friends and I would follow "and justice for all" with homage to the Soviets or Chinese, just to turn heads and annoy our teachers. This kid's stunt simply happens to coincide with hotheads who can't tell the difference between statute and constitutional rights.

  3. #43
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Here's a wonderful explaination of what I'm talking about from Slavoj iek:
    "In sex, the effectively hegemonic attitude is not patriarchal repression, but promiscuity; in art, provocations in the style of the notorious Sensation exhibitions are the norm, an example of the art fully integrated into the establishment...If, today, one follows a direct call to act, this act will not be performed in an empty space it will be an act within the hegemonic ideological coordinates: those who "really want to do something to help people" get involved in (undoubtedly honorable) exploits like Medecins sans Frontieres, Greenpeace, feminist and anti-racist campaigns, which are all not only tolerated, but even supported by the media, even if they seemingly enter the economic territory (say, denouncing and boycotting companies which do not respect ecological conditions or which use child labor) they are tolerated and supported as long as they do not get too close to a certain limit...."

    --"The Prospects of Radical Politics Today"
    That's really the whole comedy behind this farce. The kid thinks he's striking out against the status-quo, when in fact the stance he takes is one that's fully supported by the status-quo(as can be seen by the sympathetic voice given to him by the media). The reality is he's acting exactly how the status-quo wants him to act, and thus actually reinforces it.

    But of course he gets to revel in the illusion that he's making a bold stand because he gets to talk about enduring being called a "gaywad" on national TV, and thus we the audience become all sentimental and proclaim him such a brave little boy. Give yourselves a nice round of applause for playing your part.

  4. #44
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    ^ Err...from your OWN source (did you read the whole thing???):

    In an incident in US academia a couple of years ago, a lesbian feminist claimed that gays are today the privileged victims, so that the analysis of how gays are underprivileged provides the key to understanding all other exclusions, repressions, violences, etc. (religious, ethnic, class). What is problematic with this thesis is precisely its implicit (or, in this case, even explicit) universal claim: it is making exemplary victims of those who are not that, of those who can be much more easily than religious or ethnic Others fully integrated into public space, enjoying full rights. There is a long tradition of Leftist gay bashing, whose traces are discernible up to Adorno suffice it to mention Maxim Gorky's infa*mous remark from his essay "Proletarian Humanism" (1934): "Exterminate homosexuals, and Fascism will disappear".6 All of this cannot be reduced to opportunistically flirting with the traditional patriarchal sexual morality of the working classes, or with the Stalinist reaction against the liberating aspects of the first years after the October Revolution; one should remember that the above-quoted Gorky's inciting statement, as well as Adorno's reservations about homosexuality (his conviction about the libidinal link between homosexuality and the spirit of military male bonding), are all based on the same historical experience: that of the SA, the "revolutionary" paramilitary Nazi organization of street-fighting thugs, in which homosexuality abounded up to its head (Ernst Rhm). The first thing to note here is that it was already Hitler himself who purged the SA in order to make the Nazi regime publicly acceptable by way of cleansing it of its obscene-violent excess/excesses, and that he justified the slaughter of the SA leadership precisely by evoking their "sexual depravity." In order to function as the support of a "totalitarian" community, homosexuality has to remain a publicly disavowed "dirty secret," shared by those who are "in." Does this mean that, when gays are persecuted, they deserve only a qualified support, a kind of "Yes, we know we should support you, but nonetheless ... (you are partially responsible for the Nazi violence)"? No, but one should insist that the political over-determination of homosexuality is far from simple, that the homosexual libidinal economy can be co-opted by different political orienta*tions, and that it is here that one should avoid the "essentialist" mistake of dis*missing the rightist "militaristic" homosexuality as the secondary distortion of the "authentic" subversive homosexuality.
    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    That's really the whole comedy behind this farce. The kid thinks he's striking out against the status-quo, when in fact the stance he takes is one that's fully supported by the status-quo(as can be seen by the sympathetic voice given to him by the media). The reality is he's acting exactly how the status-quo wants him to act, and thus actually reinforces it.

    But of course he gets to revel in the illusion that he's making a bold stand because he gets to talk about enduring being called a "gaywad" on national TV, and thus we the audience become all sentimental and proclaim him such a brave little boy. Give yourselves a nice round of applause for playing your part.


    I don't get it....Are you trying to disprove your own self using your own sources?

  5. #45
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    How the hell does that refute my argument? He rejects the claim made by the lebsian academic that homosexuals are a special victim category. In fact you actually bolded the part where he states that.

  6. #46
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    How the hell does that refute my argument? He rejects the claim made by the lebsian academic that homosexuals are a special victim category. In fact you actually bolded the part where he states that.
    The author rejects the claim by the lesbian academic that 'gay is the mainstream/status-quo/hegemonic label of victimhood'/the poster-boy of victimhood. Aka, priviledged victim. The "in" victim. The lesbian author claims that using the gays as the 'poster' for victimhood, we can classify then what the disadvantages are of marginalized groups.

    Your author disagrees.

    What HE COUNTERS is that the it is not as simple as that - that homosexuality is not really a "priviledged"/poster-boy of victimhood in society as the lesbian author claims because their integration can happen much more easily than other 'victim' groups. He is saying that the different political drives within the homosexual lobbyist groups makes it seem as if this group is greatly marginalized when such image is driven by the 'militaristic' sub-section of the group. (2nd bolded)

    Aka, he's challenging that "homosexual rights" is really not the 'priviledged victim' as the lesbian academic claimed. Right.

    Now...

    You said that the kid is under the "illusion" that he's striking out against the status quo, because he's really just adhering to it, by supporting gay rights.
    Wouldn't that mean that 'gay rights' would have to be the priviledged victim (countered by your article) in order for the kid to accomplish supporting the status quo? The one in society that everyone 'feels sorry for'/the priviledged victim...which, your article is claiming that the gays are not.

    Either the gays are the priviledged victims supported by the status quo. Or, they are not. Your article claims the latter. Yet, you're saying that the kid is fulfilling the former. If the gays are not some 'special victim category', then wouldn't the kid's stance be more applaudable...he's supporting friends and family members who are gay (he said so in the interview), not due to any notions of the 'it', popular cause (special victim) of the moment, as, according to your article, the gays are not that.

  7. #47
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    .
    Either the gays are the priviledged victims supported by the status quo. Or, they are not. Your article claims the latter. Yet, you're saying that the kid is fulfilling the former.
    The kid is giving credence to the illusion that homosexuals are a specially oppressed group; when the reality is they're not. As Zizek makes clear, they can be more easily assmiliated into society than anyother "oppressed" group. Which gets into my question as to why so much special attention is given to Gay Rights to begin with.

    You're not really refuting my argument here.

  8. #48
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    The kid is giving credence to the illusion that homosexuals are a specially oppressed group; when the reality is they're not. As Zizek makes clear, they can be more easily assmiliated into society than anyother "oppressed" group. Which gets into my question as to why so much special attention is given to Gay Rights to begin with.

    You're not really refuting my argument here.
    I was still editing (again) when you responded so you didn't fully respond to my post.

    I don't think you really understand my point.

    I'm refuting this notion where you are trying to tie in an article that says, 'gays are not a priviledged victim group' to assuming that that was the motivation of a 10 years old kid.

    The new "it" cause.

    You go on about how he's under this "illusion" and create this reality for the kid, about the kid [he's doing it to support an "it" cause], and then you use an article to prove why his supposed "illusion" is really an illusion.

    You're basically giving him a label, and then finding a source that disproves the merit of the label, and saying, 'look, what a foolish boy.'

    It's all you!

    In the interview, he said why he chose this cause, "he (is close to) knows a lot of people who are gay."

    He even mentions, 'until sexism, racism is gone...' (like your article said, there's more 'priviledged victim groups' such as these)....but his focus is on gay marriage, and he explains why.

    That's what I'm refuting...you're projecting him to have this illusion of taking up this 'hip cause' (gay marriage) versus others (which he clearly mentioned, racism, sexism, but only in passing).

    The interview with the boy clearly indicates a personal stance motivating his actions rather than any kind of hip, "in" statement, hence focusing on gay marriage rather than the other causes he mentioned (in passing).

    Which is why I'm confused by you presenting an article that refutes that homosexuality is a 'special victim' group, yet, you somehow think that that is the stance of the boy. Through what evidence?

    Edit, to add, to bring it back to the analogy with you: if you talk of some of your 'unconventional' political stance as a teenager, I'm pretty sure there's some articles that take the opposoite/con side to your stance.....and I can just as easily present that; but it doesn't make your unconventional stance as a teen any less of a stance because of it.

  9. #49
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Good. A wise lad.
    There were bright kids even in Nazi Germany.
    All of them were wasted, though.

    In America a kid like this is not wasted.
    Those who speak against the kid want him wasted.
    It is only a dream.

    This is the flag paradox.

  10. #50
    Senior Member Silent Stars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    INFj
    Posts
    410

    Default

    Or maybe he was just an attention whore, or parroting his parents' beliefs, which is a hell of a lot more likely than having an actual full understanding of anything political at his age.
    Enneagram 9w1 sp/so
    [sigpic][/sigpic]

Similar Threads

  1. Trying to type my 10-year-old
    By phoenix31 in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 07-02-2016, 02:08 AM
  2. Court Rules Against 17-Year-Old "Right to Die" (vs treat a treatable cancer)
    By Totenkindly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 02-06-2015, 11:16 AM
  3. People refusing to accept the possibility of objective definition
    By Elfboy in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-18-2012, 11:20 PM
  4. 92-year-old shoots neighbor's house after he refuses to kiss her
    By Sniffles in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-24-2011, 05:28 PM
  5. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 12-14-2007, 03:50 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO