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.
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.
"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
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 00s skepticism (scientific and political - think 9/11 trutherism)
and 10s new athiest skepticism and associated anti-feminism
and 20s skepticism
Same house, different name on the mailbox.
You see then, my unease at TTC as a thing we'd contemplate saying, let alone deploying by way of rhetoric.
@beadsland i see them as useful and good, but easy to misuse in ways that hurt us and others
we can't engage with all the contradictions of reality and our own contradictions and how those often contradict with the contradictions of reality at every moment and take action
Pretty sure have tried to disabuse "contradictions" as an axiom previously in our discussions.
Contradictions are not inherent to reality. Nor even inhabit reality.
Instead are inherent to the, inhabitants of they, models we would presume for reality.
Contradictions are the stuff of grand narratives. For what is any (western) narrative without a conflict?
as a subjective materialist, i think they are
@deilann Thus, axiom.
Not reality, but philosophy.
On that note, this discussion has been a welcome distraction to close out a trying day.
Must wrap up.
"i am safe" is a TTC that I use quite often, so i can take action rather than fully reason out how safe i am.
if i were not safe, it would likely hurt me to use it.
Does that truly terminate thought, qua thought, though?
Or instead terminate rumination?
Does one take action thoughtlessly?
Were that is even possible (and arguably, it is not, baring, perhaps, such as somnambulism), would it safe, let alone advisable, to act at the terminus of thought?
also enjoyed as always. 
living with narcolepsy makes it hard for me to engage a lot of times with these concepts because people use my lived experiences as metaphor
Somnambulism, here is no metaphor, although does rest on premise that "thought" is conscious.
That is, my question is to literality of TTC. Does one, literally, act at the termination of thought?
Or does one stop the action of rumination so to conduct some other, non-ruminative action, that nonetheless entails consciousness, thus thought?
Danger of TTC is liberal presumption of a reality in which anyone acts thoughtlessly. Rather than, say, without consideration of others' premises.
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
Would much rather identify it by what we could make the reclaimed lumber and stonework and other materials be.
Beginning with the lego bricks, not the packaging of a franchise-licensed lego brick house.
the materials of a house are particularly suitable to constructing a houes
If all you recognize the thing you step on at night to be is nails, every blueprint looks like a project for hammer-wielders.
What even is a house? What premises are lain as foundation? What tenets of social relations? What axioms of economic organization?
To make "house" legible, let alone legible as something for which any given material is "particularly suitable"?
i should have been clear that's the joke
i could argue that landlords are a material that makes a house a home by pointing to how they sure seem bind the tenant to the property
Such makes a house a farm.
The #tensegrity bind that is #conveyancée #classposture.
The accent in "conveyancée", to unpack the etymology, given here by corvée.
my frustrations with derrida boil down to the fact that he's not post-structuralist, he's anti-structuralist. he feels the need to identify the structural problem, but does not see meaning past that structure. However, i find questioning why we would keep a broken machine in a factory far more enlightening than the specific mechanical fault. Even more, why someone is assigned to work the machine.
Toot immediately above that linked speaks to our architectural discussion.
The ingredients arrayed on the counter alongside the unplugged blender are not necessarily particularly suitable for making a smoothie.
Nor, as you set up, is "Will it Blend" sufficient cause for making a smoothie.
Nelson's reply ties us back to dadaism: Derrida as experiential art. The machine is not inherently broken, only narratively so. We work what is for what is, not what ought. Purpose is what is done.
Again, that's praxis. Sans theory.
Also, operates from postulate that immunization, as a done thing, is a thing that can be had.
Which postulate recent lived history would caution against.
"You do you" is Eu-gen-ics.
deilann v -0.2.1. 
