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
@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.
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.
yes, i took it as literal, but then realized it's hard to discuss without the metaphorical (which i have found is difficult due to narcolepsy)
i would say TTC are baton tossing
handing over active thought to heuristic
As a programming-as-language arts person, would say a heuristic is still thought. Thought as optimized subroutine, but thought nonetheless.
yeah, thought terminating cliche is not terminating thought, but a targeted thought
so ending the active specific thought and delegating it to an optimized subroutine
So, graceful exception handling pattern.
@beadsland precisely
keeps us from seg faults
The axiom being that even in the event of seg fault, the processor is still Turing machining.
the trouble is that we don't want to exception handle warnings that really should be thrown and we can use the same patterning to do both
"that's capitalism" can help you move towards praxis, disengage from theory
but you can also use it to disengage from theory and not engage in praxis, accept it as a just-so
"i'm not an expert" can be used to recognize i don't have the time to get a PhD in every sub field and i need to rely on expert consensus
or it can be used to say "so i don't need to know that"
capitalism as a grand narrative starts becoming mythos
just the way the world is
so the grand narrative form tends to lend itself more towards the abuse of "there is no ethical consumption" line of reasoning as a moral excuse, to not consider what is unethical about this consumption vs that.
at the end of the day, we do have to consume, so we do have to reconcile at some point
hence, concern about it being used that way as a TTC, as a way to break, rather than continue
we have to identify the semiotic specter
Nah, the floating spectre, the empty phantasm, is identified with each signification, each invocation.
We have to mind our language. Stop taking a demi-demiurge's name in vain. Less swearing in lieu of speaking.
Is not a TTC, but common vulgarity, that stymies action.
Starts?
We've already established that a break is a continue. The processor continues Turing machining.
As keywords, break and continue are equally syntactic sugar for so many branch-on-register-flag instructions.
It is only the map we apply to our territory, this being the control flow, that makes one appear as a contradiction. The contradiction is inherent to the knowable purpose we bring to the processor, in the form of a program, not to the machine, itself.
Hence my "Starts?"
Ah, K. This is conflation of syntax with pattern.
The syntax is try/catch.
The pattern is how the try/catch relates to things outside of scope.
One is keywords, the other idiom.
The construct "i'm not an expert" is always already embedded in a flow. A conjunctive "so" or "but" sets up different patterns.
We've discussed previously the problem with PEP8 taking on exception handling. Substance is distinct from style.
Difference between capitalist realism (capitalism as state) and capitalist dadaism (capitalism as exception).
State information just gets passed around: the purpose of the system.
This is why Marx left Grundrisse in a drawer, unpublished. Too much history of medieval collectivism. Violated the teleological control flow diagram of his developmental cosmology.
Dadaism subverts contradiction, continuously. Exception handling is an anticipatory break. Is what it is not what it ought.
@beadsland "is what it is not what it ought"
as we can see from you continuing to engage it can be hard to think yourself into ending a thought
"i am safe" allows me to pass it over in a way that telling myself it's ridiculous that i'm dwelling on this fails
the cliche is a mechanism
the subconscious isn't a place, but we do pre-define sets of action that we perform in an autonomous way
And this, here, is a fundamental trap of liberalism.
The commitment that autonomy is at once aspirational and yet also thoughtless.
"You do you" is Eu-gen-ics.
deilann v -0.2.1. 
