The encampment will be telestreamed (at least until Google pulls it):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkABIJZJXmk
Anyone know enough about #Owncast to provide technical aid to #StudentSpring?
#Palestine #BDS #BorderWall #colonialism #liberation #LandBack
feel like this is actually a more accurate assessment
the revolution will not be televised could not predict the internet and lowered cost of self-broadcasting but it was able to predict that the revolution will be demonetized and thus suppressed in the algorithm and made impossible to search for
thank goodness we're not modernists
spending all this time examining my actions under the framework of post-post-structuralism has helped me realize that perhaps my time would have been better spent pursuing direct action
Theory without action is to side with the oppressor.
Action without theory is to invite the oppressor inside.
and trying to seek the happy medium in yourself, rather than in solidarity, is to fail to identify the oppressor entirely
Narcissus contemplating a puddle.
makes me think about the issue of trans men and complicity
being told you're narcissus and to seek your answers in the puddle
i'm sure you are familiar with the phenomenon of weaponizing white guilt and the concept of privilege to convince white folks that taking certain actions is anti-racist
but those actions are in fact, subjugation of another group
yes?
[intermediary]
Trans men are often fed a narrative that because "men" are a privileged group they gain male privilege by transitioning. And so they need to be careful not to abuse that privilege.
For white trans men especially, this very often results in an unhealthy level of constant self-checking.
It's built on a faulty premise, but especially when you've been at risk and subject to male violence, very easy to believe.
But because the guilt and privilege being weaponized here is actually an axis of marginalization, it is harder for trans men to reject it due to a lack of power and support.
So trans men, especially white trans men, are more likely to engage in this type of complicit behavior. Sometimes this is done directly, calling on internalized transphobia and the unhealthy narratives directly. Sometimes it's sought out as self-harm, in a misguided attempt of penance.
saw a lot of it when online trans spaces in the 2010s were TIRF-heavy
apropos re TIRF, meet TERD:
https://union.place/@inquiline/112469719694082482
Dogmatism. Penance. Yep.
Just typo'ed TERF as TERD and might keep this as they're not feminists anyway What's this linguistic formation, tho. Acronymic spoonerism-ish, tho not that (The reason I made this typo was making a note on this acct before hitting block, as they just replied to me. A spin thru posts is all RW conspiracy stuff https://mastodon.staycuriousANDkeepsmil.in/@DavidKnestrick/112469688114339131)
I have expressed in the past a serious discomfort with rejecting that TERFs are feminists.
They are not intersectional feminists, but we fixate on second-wave feminists and retroactively revoke their membership in a way we rarely do for first-wave feminists. Despite first-wave feminists having all the same issues as second-wave feminists and more.
People will point out these issues, but they do not revoke their feminist card.
This is dangerous because failing to remember that there are many feminisms keeps us from remembering that not everyone who supports a cause is my ally.
Not all feminisms are good. We must remember this, if we want liberation for all.
Valid and sound.
That said, am comfortable with idea that one can be both a feminist and a dogmatist, and that the former can be subordinate to the latter in one's interactions in matters of liberation.
By and large, those of the second wave critiquing the essentialist stances of some of their peers (even especially second wave peers) weren't revoking anyone's feminism card, even if they were speaking to how some feminisms are incommensurable.
Combining some previous posts on the topic:
The issue with Radical Feminism is not whether or not it is a feminism, but that it is itself a dangerous and oppressive framework.
It is not interested in systems.
In radical feminism, oppression is personal. It is violence. It is men hurting women directly.
So, someone showing up to the meeting just being male is, in this framework, violent by essentially bringing the ghost of the oppressor along. I don't matter in this equation.
Radical feminism is a with any means necessary ideology. To understand this, consider another by any means necessary ideology: anti-fascism.
Anti-fascism states that fascism is such a threat that any means necessary should be taken to ensure it doesn't flourish.
Radical feminism states any means necessary must be used to take power from men to keep them from oppressing women.
Taking away their "feminist card" does not engage with the extant danger of Radical Feminism as a theory - in any of its variants.
and considering radical feminism seems to, like the sun, peak in intensity every 11 years or so, we must speak its name, remind ourselves of what it is
"In radical feminism, oppression is personal. It is violence. It is men hurting women directly."
Ah, so this is the point of reference!
Having a very different relation to radical (yet also Hanischian personal), as historicized root, as rhizome even, hadn't tied it back to a specific claim to rootedness of violence in an ahistorical essentialism.
Perhaps because any essentialism of violence as definitively gendered is a very antefemimist, even ante-Hobbesian, patriarchal commitment.
radical in this case, is in reference to how to address this belief
a liberal feminism cannot address this power structure
so Radical Feminism is a radical feminism, in that the framework leads to the conclusion that abolishing the patriarchy and liberating women can only come about from a radical restructuring of society, not gradual legal change
this is less clear in modern incarnations because radfems currently have the most to benefit from maintaining the status quo, due to gradual legal changes having happened
the inclusion of personal violence in the framework creates a system that necessitates this, so it's a bit of chicken/egg
unlike liberal feminisms which can be radical in terms of identifying legal systems as the oppressive force but not salvageable due to having become fundemental, so requiring a radical solution
the fact that many radfems identified political lesbianism as obviously necessary for women's liberation is a good example of how it is a radical ideology
bisexual women only seeking relationships with other women because men are dangerous is not political lesbianism political lesbianism is denying men relationships because of the belief that doing so will reinforce patriarchy
but yeah, that core is to me, the most essential element of Radical Feminism
in my study of carol j adams i was having to examine other ecofeminisms and what i found interesting was how some found the ability to maintain that core while still allowing some form of intersectionality (usually in quite infantilizing references to Black and Indigenous folks)
while adams clearly is heavily influenced by (and states so herself) radical feminists she rejects essentialism, which is what allows her framework to actually account for more of reality
i have a feeling i disagree with adams on many things, but in her vegetarian feminism, those disagreements matter less as they can't be truly examined until we dismantle carnism
frex, she's anti-porn, but i don't think she'd find it a useful question if she would still find porn always exploitative after carnism is dismantled
she sees liberation on the other side of carnism but does not prescribe it to be the only blocker
apropos:
(Came upon this while thinking through my reply re: cosmology.
Yes, but a radical restructuring of society that only ever envisions society as in the penumbra of a cosmological structure, and ontology that is pre-given chain of causation, thus unalterable.
Suddenly recalling a younger self, disturbed at a UU service on violence that articulated a strict ontology of men, on the one hand, and women-and-children, on the other.
Me, an adult, yet even then once child, of violence at the behest and instigation of a woman, found the reduction… painful.
yes
this is why (capitalised to distinguish from a radical feminism) Radical Feminism is dangerous
it sells poison as a cure
it's not even a placebo
because a placebo is less effective
the poison making you sick justifies that you still need to fight the illness
Hmm... a somewhat, tortured, metaphor.
most radfems have a history of male violence but few axes of marginalization
i don't think it is that tortured [well, in terms of the metaphor]
they justify their own existence through their oppression
So workerism, but for gender.
Well, yes, but per this description, there is, accidentally or otherwise, also an ontologically radical cosmology, a dispositionalism, even.
A metaphysics of irreducible necessarity of causation (here, the gendered necessarity of violence) would of course brook no argument that anything would be sufficient but the cutting away of those so-disposed.
Root, here, is not to be dug up, ground planted with new growth, but rather as a Yggdrasill tap, a stump remaining even if ever felled.
yes! which is why i find adams, as mentioned in my other reply, so fascinating
what happens to radical feminism if you reject essentialism?
[Wrong link (see next toot), though perhaps useful for context, so keeping, if for no other reason than to preserve flow of conversation.]
apropos:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-022-03847-z
(Also came upon just now.)
Dispositional realism, as we shall use the term, is a non-reductive, anti-Humean approach to dispositions which says that natural properties confer certain dispositions as a matter of metaphysical necessity. A strong form of dispositional realism is known as pan-dispositionalism, which is typically interpreted as the view that all natural properties are identical with, or essentially dependent on, dispositions. One of the most serious problems facing pan-dispositionalism is the conceivability objection, and the solution commonly offered by essentialists employs the so-called redescription strategy. In this paper I argue that this orthodox strategy fails in certain cases. This argument, in turn, shows that essentialist forms of dispositional realism are implausible. The discussion points us towards an improved version of dispositional realism. According to this new version, natural properties are not essentially dispositional but necessarily ground dispositions.
i'm trying to remember a time when sophie from mars was discussing a situation where the far-right person she was discussing accepted dispositional realism (which is less common, so remarkable) but disagreed on an aspect of phenomenology that caused the sharp divide. I wish I could remember.
yeah, just making me want to dig that up at some point because we far too rarely engage with when far-right folks engage with anything but claims of objectivism
My only comment here is that, while the question of a schism vis-à-vis dispositional realism sounds tetrapyloctomically juicy, the territories of engagement of overt conservatism are far less interesting to me...
When it is the covert conservatism that is liberalism that is handing out the crayons with which everyone is coloring their respective lines.
i think there is value in recognizing it because it's often used and not recognized by liberals in the same way -
yes, your reality exists, which is why you must be eliminated
So, yes, again, to even think of oneself as engaged in a series of battles that can be won, one must first thing of the front of conflict as one that can sensibly, thus bodily, be inhabited.
An eldritch horror is not something one fights. Rather, such incommensurability with one's own realism of reality, that which is deemed as an (ableist) "sanity", is only ever warded against through gestural evocations.
No tactics but that of tacit refusal.
yes, confronted, but not engaged with
recognizing when this is happened though, so refusal comes sooner, is bolstered by looking up and recognizing the leak in the ceiling before the appeal to rationalism commences
@deilann Perhaps.
Nonetheless, am far more often confronted by the covert conservative who does not recognize the overt conservative as legible, as coherent, as makeable-as-sensible.
So disconnected is the covert conservative even from the concept of premises, of postulates, without which the very notion of an ontology, let alone an ontological schism, is purposefully beyond their ken.
Bringing us back to the challenge of (that is, the challenge presented by) feminisms.
my personal is often confronted with what i will now call trickle down rationalist bigotry
the person who holds enough liberal sentiment to be swayed by the covert conservative and then i get the diluted and reprojected bigotry framed in an objective obvious truth a la rationalism
so they take the scraps and post hoc form the justification from what they think they remember but in terms of their own adherence to rationalism and refusing to engage with the possibility it was never coherent to begin with because it felt coherent when they heard it
Okay, but that's just Enlightenment as read through a Usian's haze-filled crystal ball passing for primary school history.
@[email protected] and we're back at why grand narratives are powerful, but in a destructive sense
We do seem to keep finding ourselves in the same Rumiesque field.
and we're back at why grand narratives are powerful, but in a destructive sense
i find the ability to smell grand narratives descending incredibly useful because they are the moment to pivot back to "hello, i'm here. you're here. we're talking about something that affects me. and you. this is real"
i am also getting increasingly frustrated at the use of capitalism as a grand narrative as a thought terminating cliche and should start doing this to everyone
This is the second time "thought-terminating cliche" has come across my radar in past few days.
Construction feels, as before, so much less nuanced than exploration in Mending Wall.
Indeed, such TTC, as construction, begins (in that it opens) with a rationalist premise, an idealism, regarding thought, as such, as virtue.
Thus anyone who would attend to their wall is without virtue—for refusing to think, to discuss, to argue. There's a sealion energy here that feels very 90s Skeptic.
And this bring us back to praxis without theory.
And also, scarily, Landmark Education.
The praxis of calling out grand narratives is not an immunization against grand narratives.
Only an attempted eviction. Upon success, the architecture remains. Free to be let, to be inhabited by, a different narrative, to which it is equally suited.
That house must be unbuilt, even especially despite whichever tenant tenet may be in residence.
Otherwise, is but a airbnb property for politics.
structuralism would identify the utility of the house from its structure
post-structuralism would identify the house by what house-like qualities an air bnb fails to manifest
let's identify it by what we could make it be
regardless of wrong link, wanted to get my hands on the bibliography, but this gave me the same answer
absent referent is also reference to Adams and i think it's something you might find interesting, if not useful
A hauntological semiotics.
Cf. espacement (essential spacing), Derrida's un clin d'oeil (moment of blindness), as developed in Lawlor's Implications of Immanence.
eating well was released shortly after the sexual politics of meat which is interesting in terms of getting to the same place
@deilann So yeah, Memoirs of the Blind, which again Lawlor develops, comes two years later.
Although here exploring arting rather than eating.
if we take aesthetics as the study of the things we need to thrive but not to survive, art is eating
Way back machine to the rescue.
But yes, we've come to such juncture of Adams and Derrida before, have we not?
this is their juncture, yes
Well, yes and no.
Would suggest that the hauntological "wink" that transitions the absent referent is a different juncture, yet same phenomenology.
i think i could make a case for derrida being the most widely misunderstood and misused philospher, not butler as recently popularized by philosophy tube
we just invoke deconstruction, rather than his name when we do so
This would be a sociological argument. Regarding which terms of art are more widely spoken, however they may be ghosting their authors in the being-spokeness.
As not modernists, we might want to consider whether "deconstruction", as term, is anywhere near as common as our own language communities would lead us to suppose.
i don't know if it's as much now, but in basic fascist infiltration 10 years ago i saw it regularly used as a dogwhistle for Cultural Bolshevism
So an even narrower usage than every generation's tom, dick and mary sue having deep coming of age thoughts about "this is not that".
"You do you" is Eu-gen-ics.
deilann v -0.2.1. 
