Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

roachboy · 01-24-2007, 11:04 AM

extremist.
there's that stupid word again: like kurtz in heart of darkness, eh?

some positions i argue for:

i think education should be free to everyone.

i think basic medical care should be universal.

i think that the contemporary pseudo-debate about migrant workers is framed in a manner that makes it nearly fascist in its tone and implications.

i think the iraq war was wholly unjustified and that the bush administration should be held to account for it.

i think the bush administration reveals a real structural problem with american pseudo-democracy as there is no way to get rid of them for another 2 years.

i think "free markets" are a type of fantasy formation tht have more to do with the history of capitalist political economy (cheerleading books about it) than anything in actually existing capitalism.

i think the existing rationality (the modes of dividing up information, the modes of reproducing knowledge shaped by them) is incoherent.

by extension, i do not think the present order coherent. i have little faith that it can adjust itself, that it can be adjusted. it is on the basis of this assumption that i can see the possibilty of revolutionary action. it is also true that i see no coherent position from which this action could at the present time be carried out. but in principle, i do not oppose revolutionary social change. sometimes i wonder if that follows from liking the word revolution, though.

i think a radical political critique of the existing order to be both politically and ethically important. fundamental even. it is a mode of political and creative action. it is something concrete that can be done.

i do not see any of this as extremist.
there is no connection between these positions and any inflexibility in debates or in how i might think about the world.

i think that the word "extremist" as pan is using it is meaningless, except as an inflammatory term which is used in recurrent attempts to exclude others from debate. it seems to structure projections.
it never comes with anything like meaningful argument: it comes only with a series of nonsensical assumptions that are held together only by the word "extremist" itself.

if you want debates within which there is flexibility, pan, maybe you should consider ending your relationship with the tactic you use and engage more in actual debate involving content, rather than relying only on assumptions. arbitrary assumptions no less, because the fact remains that neither you nor anyone else can reach around posts and get at the 3-d reality of the person who writes them. given that, you are simply making shit up, and "extremist" is the term you use to justify that. it poisons debate: and then you act all surprised and/or miffed if things unfold predictably from there.

01-24-2007, 11:04 AM	#72 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	extremist. there's that stupid word again: like kurtz in heart of darkness, eh? some positions i argue for: i think education should be free to everyone. i think basic medical care should be universal. i think that the contemporary pseudo-debate about migrant workers is framed in a manner that makes it nearly fascist in its tone and implications. i think the iraq war was wholly unjustified and that the bush administration should be held to account for it. i think the bush administration reveals a real structural problem with american pseudo-democracy as there is no way to get rid of them for another 2 years. i think "free markets" are a type of fantasy formation tht have more to do with the history of capitalist political economy (cheerleading books about it) than anything in actually existing capitalism. i think the existing rationality (the modes of dividing up information, the modes of reproducing knowledge shaped by them) is incoherent. by extension, i do not think the present order coherent. i have little faith that it can adjust itself, that it can be adjusted. it is on the basis of this assumption that i can see the possibilty of revolutionary action. it is also true that i see no coherent position from which this action could at the present time be carried out. but in principle, i do not oppose revolutionary social change. sometimes i wonder if that follows from liking the word revolution, though. i think a radical political critique of the existing order to be both politically and ethically important. fundamental even. it is a mode of political and creative action. it is something concrete that can be done. i do not see any of this as extremist. there is no connection between these positions and any inflexibility in debates or in how i might think about the world. i think that the word "extremist" as pan is using it is meaningless, except as an inflammatory term which is used in recurrent attempts to exclude others from debate. it seems to structure projections. it never comes with anything like meaningful argument: it comes only with a series of nonsensical assumptions that are held together only by the word "extremist" itself. if you want debates within which there is flexibility, pan, maybe you should consider ending your relationship with the tactic you use and engage more in actual debate involving content, rather than relying only on assumptions. arbitrary assumptions no less, because the fact remains that neither you nor anyone else can reach around posts and get at the 3-d reality of the person who writes them. given that, you are simply making shit up, and "extremist" is the term you use to justify that. it poisons debate: and then you act all surprised and/or miffed if things unfold predictably from there. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite