DagSeoul: Positions, Populations, Punk, Poetics

ghostorballoon replied to your post: dagNotes: on the common and insipid sentiments about publishing and writing and their relationship with living well

Blue of Noon or Madame Eduoarda? I forget.

Blue of Noon it is. I owe you a drink. HA-ha! I love that book.

venting

ghostorballoon replied to your photo

I don’t know in what spirit whoever made that art made it, but in the original context that character is already portrayed as a childish clown who gets beaten to death with his own golf clubs.

I don’t know. I don’t care. (It’s Bioshock. I’m not familiar with it. What’s Petro using that for, then?) The explicit denial of white supremacy by pseudo-libertarian, white bloggers is annoying. Since they cannot deny historical fact, they’ve resorted to making claims about language which are patently false. All this crap with Petro. Of course, it boils down to a childish response to a claim most white people are too proud to accept: white people cannot experience racism. It’s not enough for white people to accept that they can experience discrimination for all sorts of reason, but not racism.

I can make the distinction. I experience discrimination where I live, but it’s not racism.

I’ve been arguing with young bloggers about how meaning is constructed and the libertarians want to claim that meaning is natural. That’s what it boils down to, every time. Even Logically Positive, whose points I would like to sympathize with, tryies to argue that meaning spontaneously develops. In other words, different people will have different meanings, implying that it’s ok to be a white person who believes he experiences racism along side others who claim that experience is not possible. It’s an implicit denial of ideology and a rather naive approach to linguistics.

Meaning does not spontaneously develop. Racism, Nature, To Earn—these words didn’t just come to mean something for English-speaking societies.

So many libertarian fantasies—they don’t seem to understand that the free market is the result of governance. The entire notion of the liberating free market as a result of a spontaneous social order that organizes human action best without regulation is the result of a specific kind of ideological composition of society, a capitalist composition. We define what nature is and, for Austrian School theorists, nature is that spontaneous order. For Kant, it was some other organizing principle, basically a force that has led us towards the cosmopolitan. If we were to be fair, we could all likely agree that nature is an organizing principle. The rest is ideological.

This debate about merit on my blog. The people who disagree with me claim their definition for merit is natural. That means they believe it’s permanent, consistent, persistent, and thus true and valid. How much denial must you participate in to believe such crap?

I’m not composing posts about my research to be disagreeable. You’d think I was being mean to white people with the response I get from young white men. And because they know I’m white, I’m accused of “not wanting to be white.” It’s funny how this works. White people like to threaten race traitors with the loss of whiteness through public humiliation. They fail to realize how racist the insult is. You want to be like THEM, but you can’t (unless we say you are.) It’s ownership discourse, implicitly white supremacist.

Who gets to say what merit is? Who benefits most from unearned ambition?

ghostorballoon replied to your post: sonofapritch replied to your post: sonofapritch…

I think Melville too would see it as violently comic. Maybe I’m a stooge for Melville but I see him as one of the great critics of the error of the individual-exception. Benito Cereno, Billy Budd, etc. Even Paradise of Bachelors, Tartarus of Maids

I love Melville. LOVE.

ghostorballoon replied to your post: Saturday Night Sick Couch Movie Time

The scene in ‘Something Wild’ with The Feelies is sublime.

My absolute favorite part. We just finished it. And now are listening to The Feelings.