THEORY

[INNIT]

i'm excited to learn how many people, even on this small forum, seem to be interested in deleuze, even some 15 years after the real revival of deleuze studies took place. deleuze is no longer fashionable in theoretical circles; his relevance is waning. some of the most enthusiastic and chic "deleuzians" have moved on to other process philosophers (e.g. whitehead) or have tried to critique or think beyond the now somewhat played-out deleuzian "politics of the new" or "politics of newness" (this article by galloway being a perfect example: http://cultureandcommunication.org/gall ... k_Bloc.pdf). i personally dislike most "deleuzian" scholarship because it does little more than vapidly apply deleuze's jargons to various objects, failing to capture the 'spirit' of his thought: to actively transform inherited concepts, to cause them to change as they are redeployed. it's why i generally avoid both volumes of capitalism and shizophrenia, because these works seem to serve as toolboxes for uncreative thinkers. i love the deleuze that writes about art (his books on bacon, kafka, proust, and cinema remain my favourite). but, i have noticed that the contemporary thinkers that remain partial to deleuze's ontology seem primarily interested in the deleuze of 1k plateaus, with anti-oedipus still being too anthropocentric for their tastes, too entrenched in notions of the unconscious, filiation, etc. this tempted me to reread AO, purely because i've always been drawn to the "unfashionable" texts of otherwise popular thinkers. the following passage really struck me, and might be of interest to the folks in the other thread offering their predictions of what will happen in the US in years to come:

Here it becomes apparent that the social machine is identical with the desiring-machine. The social machine's limit is not attrition, but rather misfirings; it can operate only by fits and starts, by grinding and breaking down, in spasms of minor explosions. The dysfunctions are an essential element of its ability to function, which is not the least important aspect of the system of cruelty. The death of a social machine has never been heralded by a disharmony or a dysfunction; on the contrary, social machines make a habit of feeding on the contradictions they give rise to, on the crises the provoke, on the anxieties they engender, and on the infernal operations they regenerate. Capitalism has learned this, and has ceased doubting itself, while even socialists have abandoned belief in the possibility of capitalism's natural death by attrition. No one has ever died from contradictions. And the more it breaks down, the more it schizophrenizes, the better it works, the American way. (page 151 of the penguin version of the text)

i wonder how this passage fairs in contemporary discourse, with its extreme focus on labour shortages and ecology, and its fundamental presupposition (or presupposed conclusion) that attrition and/or the exhaustion of finite planetary resources, will indeed kill the machine, or at least release energies that the machine cannot reabsorb.

[106-2]

what a quote! need to finish 1k plateaus and get onto anti-oedipus.

I would think that it fares pretty well in the context of the reemergence of social ecologies, no? we invented the machine, so to be anthropocentric in that regard surely only makes sense. that's not to dismiss non-human components of the assemblage, but it doesn't seem helpful to consider the machine as totally divorced from its material basis. it's too hot where i am rn to be articulate but what you're saying really makes me think of jason moore's 'capitalism in the web of life'

[popcorn]

would precisely echo Bela's rep comment, you miss a lot of the story when you quote from Anti-Oedipus, because it's written in an incomparably elusive style, it can feel like nothing is called by the same name* twice in that book, saying this as someone who loves and is obsessed with it

I think the "No one has ever died from contradictions..." quote certainly continues to do what it always did: (1) restate the thesis claim that capitalism is a machine that writes difference onto the world and forces subjective actors into production, and (2) piss off maoists?

I would say that the argument holds up well, if you admit that capitalism writes ['inscribes'] "labour shortages" and "climate crisis" onto the world, then those phenomena do admit of understanding as ways that capitalism forces us into production. To discuss climate change contributes to individuals' desiring-production of different styles of work, different diets, different images of homes, different images of urbanity, different taboos (on beef? on dairy?), and so on. We can still say "being is," we can still say "the universe exists," "there is nothing but the eternal dao," but our discourse instead has climate change in it. Our discourse has the unemployment and eviction crises in it. These ideas animate us as much in our chatter as in mating and in our "production."

And so I prove you exactly right that it's easy to use Deleuze(-with-or-without-Guattari)'s concepts, and much harder to once again rip the sky open.

[bels]

That anti oedipus quote is about how pointless it is to take time off work. Using your allotted holiday is a scam.

[kickingthefly]

fred m is most important non-hashtag in art world, u read it here first fellow teens

https://artreview.com/power-100/

[INNIT]

fred m is most important non-hashtag in art world, u read it here first fellow teens

https://artreview.com/power-100/

lmao @ butler ranking 10th on that list. i liked "senses of the subject" and i hear their new book is pretty good but is anything they wrote after 93 really that influential in "the art world" and does the art world rly still defer to JB for its theory of gender and sex?

hartman is dope tho

[kickingthefly]

judy may not be rad at this point but they've been enormously influential on fred, saidiya etc- wasn't this your exact argument when i said how sick i was of dimwit photographers droning on about camera lucida?

(anyway you're assuming that any one involved in these lists actually reads any of this stuff, i'd pay money to see a bunch of gallery directors/biennale curators on a podium asked to give even a basic delineation of fred's thinking)

[INNIT]

judy may not be rad at this point but they've been enormously influential on fred, saidiya etc- wasn't this your exact argument when i said how sick i was of dimwit photographers droning on about camera lucida?

alright, fair enough. it's just strange seeing JB on a list with moten and hartman i guess, not only bc they're not nearly as relevant as the other two right now in the world of theory/cultural studies (at least from my somewhat skewed perspective) but also bc their theories have been the butt of every critique for some time now (which ofc means they're due for a revival soon).

edit: as far as i can tell there are like 3 thinkers who can delineate moten's thought and two of them are frank wilderson

[JewTurk]

Anyone got hot takes on Jordan Peterson?

Seems like his perspective aligned with a certain school of thought and everyone just ran with it. But I keep seeing people (with seemingly very different perspectives than ones he shares) rec his book with 12 pieces of advice and figure I should at least read it.

[BobbyZamora]

Jordan Peterson is a wackjob grifter whose ethos is appealing to tradition. I am sure that in his body of work you can find tidbits of self-help advice that may genuinely be useful or positive (particularly for young men) but the guy really has little of value to say, also I think his position on nutrition is straight up dangerous both environmentally and medically- even if he doesn't intend for it to be part of the "advice" he's giving to people. (Carnivore diet, for the unaware.)

jordan peterson is a grifter that peddles transphobia and misogyny to white dudes. disengage

This is true, but I hope you know the problems run deeper than this simply being another instance of a grifter peddling these kinds of ideas. The vitriolic descent into anti-progressive rhetoric from his base of supporters is not a result of innate whiteness or hate, nor is it merely a result of longstanding systemic issues- a lot of it is explicitly a reaction to the vitriolic rhetoric of its opposition.

My actual hot take is that I don't think the hyperfocus on identity politics over the past 8 years has been constructive, at least not with the way it's been conducted. The rights of marginalized groups are for me non-negotiable, and yet I also find that the discussion (on social media at least) is extremely vitriolic and prioritized over class issues. It's to the point where I'm not convinced that its rapid rise in popularity and media coverage coinciding with Occupy Wall Street was organic, just as I am not certain the radicalization of young white men was totally organic either. There is a certain group of people who will never be open to socially progressive ideas, but I believe there is an even larger group of people who are open to those ideas that have been actively pushed away by the rhetoric of modern leftist movements.

The progressive ideas themselves and even things like inclusivity are not in my opinion what cause divisiveness within leftist spaces but rather the rhetoric, attitudes and behavior of those espousing it- as a minority myself with a relatively unique upbringing and worldview (indigenous, raised on reserve and tribe member), I generally feel unwelcomed in most leftist spaces or at best treated like a novelty- at worst my status as a minority or marginalized person is actively questioned. As a result I usually prefer to engage in discourse with other people from my 'particular' group of marginalized individuals, who seem to feel similarly about these issues.

In a way, the whole thing feels to me like the socio-economic equivalent of greenwashing.

[INNIT]

jordan peterson is a grifter that peddles transphobia and misogyny to white dudes. disengage

This is true, but I hope you know the problems run deeper than this simply being another instance of a grifter peddling these kinds of ideas.

no, i dont know that bc JP is just another grifter peddling white supremacy and misogyny to white dudes lol

[BobbyZamora]

If useful discussion is to be derived from a figure like JP, it's probably best to look at the circumstances that allow someone like him to become so prolific in the first place- I would personally blame the exact kind of rhetoric you've responded with as the reason people of his ilk have gained so much support in recent years. This type of reductive, divisive attitude in which you merely condemn others is not constructive- you simply gain more support from those who don't need to be convinced and drive away those who do.

When I see this kind of rhetoric from people I otherwise agree with, it feels to me as though those espousing it are woefully out of touch with how the majority of people think and what they respond to positively. Do you want to change minds and gain allies or are you just trying to sniff out "enemies"? Which do you think is more useful?

[UnwashedMolasses]

The fact that you were ready to condemn apolitical non-voters in an election between two awful candidates but you're ready to hold out an olive branch to open transphobes says a lot more about you than about whatever political strategy shit you think you're doing here

[BobbyZamora]

This is not "extending an olive branch to open transphobes", I am not a JP apologist, I am questioning the efficacy of the rhetoric of his detractors- particularly the rhetoric targeted at his followers. Not everyone who listens to figures like JP is a lost cause (even though some are!) and treating them as such is quite the self-fulfilling prophecy.

There is no perfect solution to complex and nuanced problems, you cannot bend people to your absolute will just because your ideas are correct. I can accept that for many in the US voting is simply nonviable due to factors beyond their control, but my position on apolitical non-voting doesn't otherwise contradict my stances here- we live in a democracy and compromise is ultimately the basis upon which our society is founded- if you're unwilling to at least try to engage with the opposition or make compromises then what is the point of discourse at all?

[UnwashedMolasses]

lol

ok

so

first off, saying "The rights of marginalized groups are for me non-negotiable" and saying "we should be more considerate to the supporters of the guy who wants fewer rights for marginalized groups" is fucking rich. You cannot say "I support trans rights" and in the same breath say "we should compromise with supporters of a guy whose entire grift started with denying trans rights"

I see no difference between saying "Not everyone who listens to figures like JP is a lost cause" and "not everyone who votes for Donald Trump is a lost cause" but according to you "If at this point you support Trump you are either evil, ignorant/misguided or you wrongfully think it equates to some sort of political table-flip to reset the game" so when is it acceptable to morally condemn people

More to the point

If your reaction to people to your left is

"now is not the time to lament the failings of neoliberalism and centrist policies. Bernie lost already, you have only one option to stop this before it goes any further."

and

"are you ready to move to a self-sufficient commune to live with other revolutionaries who share your mindset? or do you just wish to wax poetic about the potential of such a revolution?"

and

The vitriolic descent into anti-progressive rhetoric from his base of supporters is not a result of innate whiteness or hate, nor is it merely a result of longstanding systemic issues- a lot of it is explicitly a reaction to the vitriolic rhetoric of its opposition.

but your reaction to people to your right is

"it's probably best to look at the circumstances that allow someone like him to become so prolific in the first place"

and

"we live in a democracy and compromise is ultimately the basis upon which our society is founded- if you're unwilling to at least try to engage with the opposition or make compromises then what is the point of discourse at all?"

you've already told us exactly who you're willing to compromise with

and we are not on the same team

[BobbyZamora]

first off, saying "The rights of marginalized groups are for me non-negotiable" and saying "we should be more considerate to the supporters of the guy who wants fewer rights for marginalized groups" is fucking rich. You cannot say "I support trans rights" and in the same breath say "we should compromise with supporters of a guy whose entire grift started with denying trans rights"

You should engage in discourse and try to change their mind. I don't think trying to change Jordan Peterson's mind would be useful, but I don't think the same is true for all (or even most) of his followers- most of whom are young impressionable and disaffected men.

I see no difference between saying "Not everyone who listens to figures like JP is a lost cause" and "not everyone who votes for Donald Trump is a lost cause" but according to you "If at this point you support Trump you are either evil, ignorant/misguided or you wrongfully think it equates to some sort of political table-flip to reset the game" so when is it acceptable to morally condemn people

People who support Jordan Peterson are also either evil or ignorant/misguided. I'm not sure why you think my position on him would be any different than my position on Trump and his followers. Most of the people from both followings are not evil.

"now is not the time to lament the failings of neoliberalism and centrist policies. Bernie lost already, you have only one option to stop this before it goes any further."

and

"are you ready to move to a self-sufficient commune to live with other revolutionaries who share your mindset? or do you just wish to wax poetic about the potential of such a revolution?"

and

The vitriolic descent into anti-progressive rhetoric from his base of supporters is not a result of innate whiteness or hate, nor is it merely a result of longstanding systemic issues- a lot of it is explicitly a reaction to the vitriolic rhetoric of its opposition.

but your reaction to people to your right is

"it's probably best to look at the circumstances that allow someone like him to become so prolific in the first place"

and

"we live in a democracy and compromise is ultimately the basis upon which our society is founded- if you're unwilling to at least try to engage with the opposition or make compromises then what is the point of discourse at all?"

you've already told us exactly who you're willing to compromise with

I am willing to compromise with anyone who is willing to listen to reason if it means actually getting anything done. Immediate and absolute change is not possible under democracy, it's slow and painful. A vote for Biden is a compromise with the neoliberal status quo in order to prevent a leader who espouses virile fascist rhetoric from being at the center stage of international politics.

I am about as far left as it gets, by the way, so the idea of ever needing to compromise with those who are "to the left" of me is absurd. In your eagerness to jump to conclusions you seem to have decided that I am some kind of centrist, as if my urging people to vote for Biden was not already a compromise with those to the right of me.

and we are not on the same team

That isn't divisive at all. Can you really not see how ineffectual this rhetoric is?

[INNIT]

If useful discussion is to be derived from a figure like JP, it's probably best to look at the circumstances that allow someone like him to become so prolific in the first place- I would personally blame the exact kind of rhetoric you've responded with as the reason people of his ilk have gained so much support in recent years. This type of reductive, divisive attitude in which you merely condemn others is not constructive- you simply gain more support from those who don't need to be convinced and drive away those who do.

When I see this kind of rhetoric from people I otherwise agree with, it feels to me as though those espousing it are woefully out of touch with how the majority of people think and what they respond to positively. Do you want to change minds and gain allies or are you just trying to sniff out "enemies"? Which do you think is more useful?

I think that I can call a snake a snake and still productively engage the snake's audience. JP isn't a scholar making an argument, he's a grifter selling a product. There's not much to critique beyond noting that everything that he says is a lie. "Jordan Peterson doesn't know anything about Bill C-16, postmodernism or marxism"--that's the entire critique, which is why no one in Canadian universities give a shit about him (he's regarded as a grifter shock jock that will slowly fade away like every other grifter shock jock).


I don't think that it is "identity politics" fault that JP has an audience. His audience could have engaged the numerous, well developed critiques of identity politics that have come from the left over the course of the past, oh I don't know, four decades at least, but they didn't do that, because they didn't want a solid critique of identity politics, they wanted a white guy with a beard and a degree to tell them that their world view is correct and that everyone else is the problem. They wanted scapegoats (trans folks, feminists, marxists, etc.). This is right wing grifter 101 and no, JP isn't anything new in this regard. He's capitalizing on a well established white fragility that is further exasperated by the fact that the system is increasingly barely working for a large majority of the people that it was designed to benefit.

[BobbyZamora]

I think that I can call a snake a snake and still productively engage the snake's audience. JP isn't a scholar making an argument, he's a grifter selling a product. There's not much to critique beyond noting that everything that he says is a lie. "Jordan Peterson doesn't know anything about Bill C-16, postmodernism or marxism"--that's the entire critique, which is why no one in Canadian universities give a shit about him (he's regarded as a grifter shock jock that will slowly fade away like every other grifter shock jock). There isn't always some deep conversation to be had; sometimes you just disengage, ignore and move on. These grifters all inevitably fall apart anyways.

I never really said otherwise, the first thing I did was call him a wackjob grifter with little of value to say. He will no doubt fade away, but some other grifter will just take his place.

I don't think its "identity politics" fault that JP has an audience. His audience could have engaged the numerous, well developed critiques of identity politics that have come from the left over the course of the past, oh I don't know, four decades at least, but they didn't do that, because they didn't want a solid critique of identity politics, they wanted a white guy with a beard and a degree to tell them that their world views are correct and that everyone else is the problem. They wanted scapegoats (trans people, feminists, marxists, etc.). This is right wing grifter 101 and no, JP isn't anything new in this regard. He's capitalizing on a well established white fragility that is further exasperated by the fact that the system is increasingly barely working for a large majority of the people that it was designed to benefit.

Most of his base is not politically literate enough to even be aware of leftist critique of identity politics and it doesn't help that such critique is often smothered by the left in modern discourse (most of his base is probably not even old enough to vote). JP absolutely does give these people scapegoats (as does Ben Shapiro, Trump, and whoever else) but none of this operates in a vacuum- the way these types of grifters behave only works so well because the right exploits identity politics and bad leftist rhetoric to create reactionaries out of the ideologically vulnerable/exploitable. Racism as it exists in its modern form is often an exploitation of class struggle- it's wholly based on justifying gross capitalist practices by leveraging identity politics (Right wing identity politics) to create scapegoats. Making the issue about "white fragility" instead of class is just playing into the trap- white fragility is just what's being exploited, it's not the root of the problem- you've mistaken the chicken for the egg.

To give an example of what I'm talking about from my own position, I'll discuss the Residential School System and why it wasn't just cultural genocide for the sake of it. Cultural genocide was not attempted just because they did not like us or our cultures, the purpose of the Residential School System was to assimilate all natives into "Canadian" society- the ultimate goal of this was to give the Crown a precedent for dissolving the Indian Act thus freeing them from their economic debt/burden to the native peoples and allowing them to enact imperialism upon Unceded lands. This is also why it was so easy for a woman to lose Indian Status in Canada until 1985.

[maj]

this is the dumbest shit i've ever read, it's like you guys have somehow missed 4 years of politics lmaooo

jordana pete can suck my big fat girl dick and his incel ass followers cant take a whole strip of paracetamol before a bath

[maj]

.

Yall missedd out in some great slams,like some of my best xoxox

[sknss]

Stop talking shite