/lit/ - Literature

>>16730259
Twitter is a private enterprise.

>>16730259
If he were alive today he would have been cancelled in about 2017.

>>16730268
Unironically kill yourself if you use these kinds of arguments sincerely.

>>16730268
the whole point of Foucault's oeuvre was to debunk this dumb argument

>>16730279
What's the issue with Twitter banning accounts? They can do what they want, they have a right to refuse service.

Explain your position.

>>16730259
>leftists pride themselves for being his followers
they literally don't and foucault isn't a "leftist". Today's "leftist" are just self hating white people.

>>16730293
Really? Can you give me a summarization?

>>16730296
i have the right to bomb twitter HQ as well

>>16730259
>"cancel culture"
lmao

>>16730296
Rights can be criticised you fucking cuckold piece of shit.

>>16730305
And the federal government has a right to give you a life sentence.

People who identify as "leftists" on twitter are against cancel culture, white guilt, etc. and distance themselves from and often fight with "liberals," who you're thinking of. Go on there and see for yourself, if you're feeling masochistic

>>16730328
I'd prefer the death penalty.

>>16730316
Nobody is saying that you can't criticise Twitter for whatever they do.

I'll give you an example of a barber shop, you can say whatever you want to say and if the barber tells you to leave then that's his right. It's refusal of service.

>>16730259
disciplinary this disciplinary that. God damn, faggots. Read some of the writings and ideas he had at the end of his life. Even if we do have disciplinary instances in the 20th and 21st century the mechanisms of power are much more sophisticated than the 'disciplinary' mechanisms.

>>16730316
Easy there friend..
OP was criticizing the hypocrisy of people who claim to follow someone who scrutinized disciplinary power of authoritarian right wing governments while championing Twitter cancel culture, to which this person simply seems to have suggested no such hypocrisy in that they are not identical issues given the private nature of a company only possible in a non authoritarian country.

>>16730259
>Leftists

Didn't the most explicit leftists of the time consider him and other postmodernists bourgeois puppet?

>>16730348
mechanisms of power are pretty simple.
it's money. it's debt based currency that is brought into existence out of thin air and dominates every aspect of our lives.

>>16730333
Be sure to negotiate that with the prosecutor then. Happy bombing!
>t. not an FBI agent

>>16730259
Twitter doesen't enforce disciplinary power, you dumb fuck.

>>16730365
most terrorist attacks are orchestrated by glow niggers

>>16730361
>mechanisms of power are pretty simple.
>it's money.
>it's debt based currency that is brought into existence out of thin air and dominates every aspect of our lives.

>>16730361
Literally read Foucault, pseud

>>16730259
His ideas are used for power, just like anyone’s elses. It’s the same shit everywhere

>>16730268
>§ 230

>>16730372
dumb frog poster
>>16730374
I only read his history books
>psued
right back at you

>>16730380
>I only read his history books
so you've read nothing but the books he changed his interpretation of later on his life?

>>16730385
No, and I'm not criticizing foucault and he is probably right about whatever claims he makes but the oil that keeps the machine running is the dishonest money system.

>>16730403
yes, but you can't reduce the mechanisms of power and their sophistication to "it's a dishonest money system". It was a dishonest money system that once applyed disciplinary mechanisms and then started to apply biopolitical/liberty control mechanisms, two very different ways to sustain the 'machine' and that in no way can be reduced yo "it's debt based currency that is brought into existence out of thin air and dominates every aspect of our lives."

>>16730422
methods of control have changed and merit analysis but "it's debt based currency that is brought into existence out of thin air and dominates every aspect of our lives." that are the reason these power institutions are needed in the first place.

>>16730442
Yes, who's saying that it isn't so?
But a mechanism of power is not the "debt based currency that is brought into existence out of thin air and dominates every aspect of our lives", it's the mechanism by which that system is sustained. It's relation to the changing structure merit the analysis, and that's what Foucault worked on.

>>16730442
>>16730456
You guys want to share a marlboro red with me?

>>16730456
Give me the title of the book

>>16730466
smoking is bad 4 u

>>16730468
There's no book, Foucault died of gay AIDS before writing about the topic. We do have the lectures he gave at the end of his life on the topic: "The Birth of Biopolitics" and "Society Must Be Defended" There are many topics, but an important concept he develops is that of 'governmentality', a development in the mechanisms of power in our age that controls freedom by expanding it.

>>16730466
I only smoke with frogposters.

>>16730482
Thank you anon I will give it a read, have a ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-happy day

>>16730484
Was foucalt right? Is loli sex redpilled?
Why did he think aids was fake? Was he a circa '80s anti masker?

>>16730279
that's not even an argument. but a statement of a fact.

>>16730505
I don't think he was right about those topics. Look at Vanessa Springora's book "Le Consentement". She was the girl getting fucked by the guy that wrote the age of consent petition, Gabriel Matzneff. On the book she explains how she's fucked and how what that old fucker did to her was wrong, placing herself as an exaple of what can go wrong in a society developed by french theory. Also Foucault died of gay AIDS, so he was wrong about that too. I don't really know the details of his position infront of the fag disease. He did love the USA tho.

yeah the poststructuralists would cringe at the state of the united states, especially the me too movement. their basis for wanting to abolish age of consent laws was that "a contract does not come before love" or something.

>>16730564
>have sex with old creeper at age 14
>regret it
>i'M a ViCtiM
Women

>>16730470
It's good for me
>>16730484
I don't have anything to say about that, but will you look at the colors here and the way the light makes the dying leaves radiate.

Twitter cancelling is NOT a sign of disciplinary societies, it's about control societies briefly described by Deleuze. As a matter of fact, despite all of the accusations being thrown around, cancel culture is the pinnacle of libertarian and neoliberal (if you're American and misunderstand this, fuck you) thinking. There's nothing less disciplinarian than tarring and feathering people in the public arena and not relying on the law to ban them from appearing in public.

>>16730654
Fine, but it's a misassumption to consider twitter as a public space. It simply isn't.

>>16730348
>>16730366
>>16730422
>>16730654
There's people on the board that actually read Foucault? who would've thought

>>16730668
Sure, because it's heavily corporatized and infused with a neolib ontology of possibilities. That, too, is the sign of societies of control. The problem is that the digital world is just a simulation of what we used to think of as the public sphere. You're onto something, bro.

>>16730668
>but it's a misassumption to consider twitter as a public space
It should be

>>16730700
You can say it's a public space, but please don't mistake it for what we previously thought of as the public arena. We're not trying to debate semantics here.

>>16730687
When we say something is virtually a thing it doesn't make it the thing it virtually is, nor does it change the nature of the thing it virtually is.

Mock turtle soup contains no turtles, and the existence of mock turtle soup does not affect the essential idea of the turtle.

>>16730700
Is this the true face, you propose the state to force seizure of private enterprise?

>>16730259
They're only his followers in the sense that they like getting fisted in the ass and dying of AIDS.

>>16730785
>the state to force seizure of private enterprise
more like private enterprise should force seizure of the state, am I right or am I right?

>>16730760
I'm not convinced that it is a public space in any sense. I'm happy enough if they want to use a new term, but it is not the same thing as a speaker's corner in an actual public space.

It is semantics, but you've to be careful they don't get away with changing the language.

>>16730268
is twitter a publisher or a platform?

>>16730785
>Is this the true face, you propose the state to force seizure of private enterprise?
Yes.

>>16730802
Depends what you mean by force seizure and state. The thing about words...

>>16730259
>cancel culture
Non-issue for anyone that is not a bourgeois desk jockey. Kill yourself.

>>16730853
/lit/ is for bourgeois desk jockeys, fuck off now you dumb faggot.

>>16730815
Either way it doesn't matter, twitter can refuse service to whomever they want to.

To answer your question and this is my own opinion, twitter is not a publisher. If that means it must be a platform then so be it.

>>16730815
Publishers are platforms.

>>16730279
Twitter's cancel culture is nothing like state coercion. If you need that explained to you, you're a fucking jackass

>>16730259

Leftists don't pride themselves on being his followers absolutely and without exception.

They've appropriated some of his views about marginalised groups in society being centred in discourse and brought closer into the fold. Though they've been doing this before Focault anyway.

They still have all the familiar disciplinary inclinations they've always had they just adopt views of leftist philosophers they find useful and massage them until it fits into their overall systems of belief/value.

Here's an example

I am a fascist, Foucault sounds extremely based to me. Where do I begin with him? Any other pomo (I know he rejected the label) philosophers I can use to advance the thought of actual idealism?

>>16730259
>cyber bully a celebrity
>this is more oppressive than public executions

>>16730935
It's not more oppressive, it's more efficient and sophisticated.

>>16730347
the barber shop doesn't have the power to redefine society u absolute sperg

>>16731129
That's where you are wrong. The barber shop has more influence upon society than twitter has. You are underestimating the power of barber shops and (grossly) overestimating the influence of twitter. You sir, are the sperg.

>>16730948
This. Public executions, with all the spectacle and gore, were less efficient in keeping people in line. A quarterly efficiency review is way more compelling when it comes to make people do what you want them to do. Look at how the consulting firm McKinsey works: they do monthly review rounds and have a system of micro raises. I assure you, you'll never find a cohort more oversocialized than people who work at the Firm.

>>16730923
Try Paul De Man. He used to be like a post-structuralist twin of Derrida, but after he died it came out that he wrote a ton of pro-Nazi shit during the war and he was cancelled and erased.

>>16731148
how

im being trolled amn't i

>>16731183
No no no no, barber shops truly hold power in our society, Anon. Read on Deleuze and the flows that hair holds.

>>16731183
>he hasn't heard about black barbershops

good thing biden is going to bring back critical race theory training, you need it!

>>16730668
The privatization of what was once public space has been a disaster for humanity.

>>16731214 At least this guy >>16731200 is trolling i think you're genuinely that retarded

>>16730259
Foucault is the opposite of a leftist, dumbshit.

>>16730268
>Leftists supporting the right of private companies to dominate public discourse

>>16730700
>>16730760
>someone asserts that something should be some other way than what it is
>some retard responds by saying “but it isn’t currently that way.”
Are you a lobotomy patient or something?

>>16730866
>twitter can refuse service to whomever they want to.
Just like Facebook can ban all black people from their website if they want to, right?

almost like people are thinly veiled selfish pragmatists invested in their vague tribes above all else much less selfawareness and fairness

>>16730668
who gives a shit you retard why do you care public and private aren't even well-defined

>>16730268
>this is the leftist who calls you a bootlicker

>>16730361
cringe and brainlet redactive capabilities.

lets be real here bros would you let yourself be taught philosophy by white gay obama here

>>16730268
holy shit lmfao are you serious

>>16730259
Oh fuck off

>>16730668
In common law it’s fast becoming one. There’s been a bunch of defamation cases in which big tech is characterised as a publisher. So, by that standard it’s public.

>>16730259
>worse than anything
Twitter is worse than the Gestapo and NKVD? Stop the presses!

>>16730259
are you fucking retarded or is this you just trolling?

>>16730259
Because both Foucault and twitter are neoliberals (i.e. fascists)

>>16730923
Even Derrida might work for you. He dismantled everything, and the left actually hated him for this and accused him of being inhuman and nihilistic. He always denied this in part because being French he had to play the leftie game. And later in his career he started trying to placate the left even more by suggesting deconstruction is political and that there are “undeconstructables” like a (naturally) left-leaning “justice.” But even for all his sucking off the Justice warriors near the end, he was still walking a fine line between supporting them and warning them that all their “justice” would set up unjust authoritarian structures to be deconstructed. Not exactly what you’re talking about, but despite his insincere attempts at politics, or maybe even because of them, Derrida is very useful.

>>16731342
>>16732343
Where did he support privatization?
He literally just made a statement. God you conservatives are so fucking braindead. Your tiny minds are preoccupied with making insipid gotchas and bad faith arguments

asd

What should I read first from Mr. Foucault?

>>16733419
>bad faith
Says the guy pretending not to know that the only reason to bring up that twitter is a private company is the implication that they can do what they want. What a faggot

>>16730268
>leftists supporting the public/private distinction
Lmao

>>16730259
trash thread

>>16733440
BECAUSE THAT'S THE REALITY WE LIVE IN
IT'S A FACT YOU IMBECILE

>>16733460
What is your point retard? It's still an example of what Foucault was talking about regardless of whether it is a private company or not, so why bring it up at all?

>>16731540
You're the retard. There's no way a digital product, whether assembled by the state or by a company, can be a public space in any normal sense of the word.

>>16733474
Do you have any argument whatsoever to support that statement?

>>16733468
>so why bring it up at all?
because he's a faggot you retard

>>16732834
Fascism is liberalism but it isn't neo liberalism.

>>16733502
Fascism is Fascism. Liberalism is Liberalism. Neo-Liberalism is Neo-Liberalism. Descriptive words are different for a reason.

>>16733468
I'm not claiming to know his intentions or beliefs. He just made a simple statement and you dumb fucks couldn't wait to take a jab at LeFTiST

>>16733543
His intentions were beyond obvious you dishonest faggot.

>>16730305
holy based

>>16730305
Need any help? I could pitch in a bit

>>16733576
It wont accomplish anything. It'll just kill innocent bugmen.
If you really wanna make a change stop using petrodollar.

>>16730259
Foucault would 100% agree with this critique to be clear. Foucault is clearly not taken as seriously as right wingers would like to believe.

>>16733604
Why isn't he taken more seriously?

>>16730259
Didn't he turn against leftists in his later life? essentially becoming a social democrat

>>16733613
I don't even know what his personal politics are, I just read his books not his personal statements

>>16730296
The clashing nature of public and private in the internet is a fair bit more nuanced because now the private companies are taking the roles of the then public institutions without recalibrating and reconsidering the rights that should be applied to create similar environments.
It is furthering the obsoletion of the government and their constitutions whilst regalifying private companies which can lead to a corporatocracy right under our noses.

>>16733478
The digital is always the product of a primordial mediation, its origin can always be traced to a process of accumulation and organization of capital. For the digital to take place you must have an infrastructure, both legal and physical, with a steady stream of electricity and an internet signal. Although electricity can be obtained individually via solar panels or even through engines powered by gas, you will need an internet provider in the first place. Second, there must always be a platform in which users can interact, and this platform will be built according to the dictums of the profit mode. This situation will always produce an eschewed public place, one in which the flows of access can be easily cut off or manipulated by the platform, and access to the internet can also be easily shut down WITHOUT THE USE OF VIOLENCE. This last part, in caps lock, is crucial. In a public arena you are physically present, whether in an assembly, a pickett, a rally, a pub, a demonstration around a square. In such physical places your access can only be denied via violence i.e. someone will have to remove you from the premises or prevent you from moving into them. Such arrangement ends up creating a different form of interaction, because people can see how power is being used, whilst on a digital platform there are a million of non-violent ways of controlling the attention of users, for how long they interact with a given page, where they can click, whether they can communicate with the person directly or indirectly, etc. Digitalization ends up being more segregated and less centralized. There's no center of power, no nucleus to be the target of action or scorn.

>>16733633
Are you foucault?

>>16733607
Genuine commitment to the implications of any philosophy is difficult, more people, left and right, don’t do the readings and react in basically emotionally ways and just try to rationalize it post hoc.

>>16733435
Discipline and Punish is regarded as his strongest work. Other than that it depends on what you are interested in, Birth of the Clinic, History of Sexuality etc.

>>16733633
None of that makes it not a public space, it just differs from other public spaces

>>16733694
Let me put it this other way: is a shopping mall a public space?

>>16733681
Discipline and Punish is his most read book because it's assigned in social work and psychology degrees, but actually people have chipped away at the quality of some the research in it sad say, for example, there is no historical evidence for the "ships of fools" he talks about etc. but I think History of Sexuality is the best one for laying out Power/Knowledge/whatever by way of the social construction of sexuality by science.

>>16733702
First amendment does not apply in shopping malls, so yeah Twitter is like a mall I guess. Filled with obnoxious teens and tasteless shit. Checks out.

>>16733705
It's also assigned reading in law school, or at least in my country every single law student has read it during introductory criminal law courses.

>>16733705
Oh shit maybe I was think of Birth of the Clinic my bad

>>16733714
Twitter is much worse than a shopping mall. You can destroy a shopping mall, you can throw stones at its windows, you can smash stores, loot products, turn the ice cream cart around. You can punch guards in the face and threaten people, you can set up barricades and generally interact with it physically. Twitter is like an uber shopping mall from hell where there are no corridors guiding everyone to the stores, only some weird argument making decisions about which post to be shown to people and gets liked, retweeted, blocked, banned, etc. Anyway, I think we can say with sufficient confidence that Twitter is not a public space at all.

>>16733702
Kind of, but shopping malls are not very important, social media is very important for political discourse, it's how a great deal of people get most of their political information.

>>16733737
Twitter is a place in which the public interacts with each other, and a very relevant one.

>>16733737
It's like a shopping mall in your mind that you can never escape from, it's like god, if god were a shipping mall

>>16733749
It doesn't matter. A public space is one which is not owned or controlled by a company. Twitter is a company with a single reason for being: profit. It is not and cannot be a public space. It cannot be analysed as such, it has to be thought of as something different.

>>16733762
There are no in person agoras anymore, you are being autistic about this. If the government ran Twitter but it was exactly the same and had the same effect that would magically transform it into another category for you?

>>16733768
>If the government ran Twitter but it was exactly the same and had the same effect that would magically transform it into another category for you?

Not at all. My whole point this thread has been that calling a digital platform a public space is retarded.

>>16733784
Not the guy you were replying to but they should be classified as a publisher if they moderate what content gets publicly hosted on their site.

>>16730268
Heads of state use Twitter, it is effectively a public platform

>>16733796
That's just bookkeeping, legal accountancy.

>>16730259
>leftists pride themselves for being his followers
leftists pride themselves with swapping cum they sucked out of each others' greasy prolapses

>>16730853
Imagine being a nigger

>>16730296
The entire infrastructure they run on were also provided by the very people they ban. Twitter can't do their private enterprise without the fuckin cables in the ground.

>>16730259
>Foucalt
>scrutinizing anything

>>16733543
Shut the fuck up already you dumb faggot, you've been called out and exposed for being a moron and now you're trying to backtrack and claim you didn't know what he was insinuating with that original statement. Dumb fucking retard, this is why leftoids get thrown out of helicopters.

>>16730259
>Twitter is a more salient example of disciplinary power than (actual countries in history)
:D
Go outside guys

>>16733633
brainlet man detected

>>16733633
>>16733702
>>16733737
your posts are extremely kino, where can I write anything by you? have you considered writing a book?

>>16730259
>leftists pride themselves for being his followers and yet Twitter cancel culture is a more salient example of disciplinary power he scrutinized than anything right wing governments ever came up with, what gives?
everybody hates the postmoderns because everyone's christian nowadays
rightoids hate them because they explicitly railed against metaphysics of presence, on which rests the whole of the christian worldview post augustine and in general essentialisms which form the basis of any tradition worth its salt (see Guenon on modernity)
lefties *would* hate them if they understood that their humanist values mean nil because they, like the right, commit to philosophical essentialisms to justify their moral ends
i'm not sure what went so wrong as for the postmoderns to be associated with the left, but i'm guessing it's because everything on the vanguard of culture is generally considered progressive and as such "leftist". in my estimation this view is wrong, though.
both the left and right nowadays are irreducibly christian, albeit with a different flavor and outward character which births the self-masturbatory "culture war". the way i see it the juxtaposition isn't "right v. left", with the left laying claim to the postmoderns, but moderns v. postmoderns, modernist infighting only being about which sibling gets to claim the inheritance of the now-defunct christian inheritance (ie. the culture of the west as such)

>>16733702
If a shopping mall subsumes the functions of the public square in a community than it should be treated as a public space.

>>16737413
The outside world is more immediately connected to and and controlled by twitter than my household is.

>>16737511
He has nothing to offer. By merely stating the facts (or in this case brainlessly fellating the status quo) the way he does, he's not contributing to conversation as much as he is distracting from it.

>>16737575
based point about christianity. the left doesn't realize how christian their morality system is (which imo also holds the left back, at least in the US, from gaining ground)

>>16737575
BASED POST. I couldn't have explained better. Specially the part of Christianity.

>>16737588
So you'd have the police there to prevent the mall cops from removing "trouble makers". This to me seems like more government involvement, with everything that would entail, and more centralised authority.

There are other examples such as cafés, pubs, the aforementioned itt barber shop.

>>16738510
Depends on the nature of the "trouble" being made. At the very least I;d like to see the owners punished in courts if they removed the wrong kinds of it. The government should be able to safeguard the freedoms of the people when they're encroached by private business entities.

>>16730268

>>16737659
I'm the guy who wrote those posts and I don't understand the nature of your conflict. Yes, I was stating some facts because I want to establish that Foucault's analysis of disciplinary societies cannot be extended to the relations of power created by Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Youtube, Whatsapp, etc. The original poster was trying to say that a) idpol leftists subscribe to Foucault's ideas; b) that cancel culture is a corollary o "a"; and, c) cancel culture is a form of disciplinary power, meaning idpols are in contradiction. I just tried to show that OP's argument is completely bogus in two ways. The first is that idpolsters are not acting the way they do because of Foucault, that's just a stupid assumption and it really makes no sense. The second is that even if one were to criticize cancel culture, they would find the ideas in "Discipline & Punish" severely lacking in explanatory power. In that book he is always talking about how before the Enlightenment bodily punishment and other forms of violence were enacted in order to keep people in place, but that it had changed after the industrial revolution, when such type of torture/punishment became obsolete not simply because of "muh human rights", but because capital found a more efficient way of controlling people. So they started controlling production, education, democracy, etc. You were under constant vigilance, you had time tables to follow, certain techniques to be acquired and employed in a certain order, police patrolled the streets more extensively, etc. It is a very good analysis, but not when it comes to our digital lives. Look at tendencies in the work place (specially of cutting edge industries): work using whatever clothes you want, achieve your tasks by any means, flexible hours, take a break whenever you wish to do, play ping pong, work from home a couple of days every week... The paradox is this greater "freedom" (meaning, lack of disciplinary control) actually leads to people self-regulate even more severely than before. Now the individual himself has to be both supervisor and supervised. There's no master behind cancel culture, no guard behind the panopticon.

>>16738786
>Foucault's analysis of disciplinary societies cannot be extended to the relations of power created by Twitter,
Foucault himself would obviously disagree with this ffs, he saw oppressive power structures under every leaf and rock, something with the magnitude of twitter's ability to control public discourse obviously applies

>>16738786
good post from someone who actually read Foucault

>>16730296
(1) Something being legal does not entail that it is morally right. In Nazi Germany it was legal to discriminate against Jews, but that does not excuse the practice. This is a basic principle known as the is-ought distinction.

(2) If you support the right of Twitter to ban people, then how come you think that private universities should be required to accept students of all races and ethnicities? How come you think bakeries should be forced to make cakes for gay?

(3) Twitter actually does not have the right to engage in censorship, because they themselves have made the argument that they are a platform and not a publisher, which entails that they are not allowed to restrict viewpoint with which they disagree. If they do want to restrict viewpoints, then they are allowed to do that, but in that case they must be re-classified as a publisher (which incurs additional responsibilities and legal liabilities).

>>16730348
Refer to number. If I own a bakery am I allow to tell gay people to fuck off? If I own a private school can I say no blacks allowed?

>>16738794
Did you even bother reading Foucault once in your fucking life, man? Yes, of course there's a myriad of power relations going on in social media and Foucault would be stocked by all of these new emerging forms of power. But it's not disciplinary power. He himself started shifting away from this point of view later in life, and even started reading liberals (I use this word in the world sense, not in the American one) such as Hayek and engaging deeply with their thoughts. Anyone can see that cancel culture is much more akin to the sort of control structures spoused by people like Nozick. Nozcik went so far as to say that policework could be privatized and private insurance companies could break the monopoly of violence held by the state. He also spoke extensively about how business/individuals could ban people from social life without going to the justice system and whatnot.

>>16738836
>this is a basic principle known as the is-ought distinction.
embarrassing post

>>16738844
lolbert here, interesting in bridging my understanding over to post-left ideology. did Foucault ever write anything on Hayek?

>>16738836
>(1) Something being legal does not entail that it is morally right. In Nazi Germany it was legal to discriminate against Jews, but that does not excuse the practice. This is a basic principle known as the is-ought distinction.

No it isn't, lol. The is-ought distinction simply maintains that there is a logical difference between statements of fact and statements of value, and there is no way of bridging the gap from one (statements of fact) to the other (statements of value). I do understand what you're trying to say, but I'd recommend you read people like Gustav Radbruch who tried to infuse legal positivism with moral content (he was an adversary of Kelsen in the aftermath of nazism).

>>16738844
The panopticon of the internet watching what everyone does and says on it, and normalizing some opinions while suppressing others is so obviously an example of disciplinary power you can't possibly not get it. Foucault literally compared prisons to factories, he would have a fucking mental breakdown looking at the internet

>>16738858
Yes, actually!
His lecture on "The Birth of Biopolitics" is specifically about his concept of the different kinds of Capitalist ideologies (lolbert, neolib, etc.). He actually died a lolbert (according to some); you should definitely read him if you are one.

>>16738836
>that does not excuse the practice. This
True, but it does justify the regime.

>>16738858
He did, and he actually had a bit of a fling with liberals later in his life. Deleuze is the one who came up with the concept of "societies of control", more or less following on the steps of the Foucault of Discipline & Punish and shunning Foucault's embrace of neoliberal ideology. You might like reading The Birth of Biopolitics.

>>16738873
Sorry, man. You've just not read the book properly. Read Deleuze's Postscript on the Societies of Control (https://www.jstor.org/stable/778828?seq=1)) and compare it to Foucaultian Societies of Discipline.

>>16738902
If a factory's organization is given as an example of a disciplinary power in Discipline and Punish then there is no reason to not include something like social media

>>16738882
>>16738893
yoo based thank you both. i'll read it. any preliminary reading i should be checking out before engaging?
>inb4 start with the greeks

>>16738914
Just the books which Foucault is analyzing. Foucault's lectures always almost feel like diaries of what he's recently read and how it affects his general viewpoint on the world. Therefore, you should know about what he's reading. That's stuff like Hayek "Road to Serfdom," "Human Action" by Von Mises, etc.

>>16738914
You might want to brush up on what he wrote in Discipline & Punish, but if you don't have the time you don't have to read the whole book. Try to find a secondary source, even a simple one like "Foucault: A Very Short Introduction" (you can find it on libgen) and read it, it's only around 150 pages.

>>16738836
1 is irrelevant
2 is a strawman and you're a retard
3 is also retarded because as we have established it is a right to refuse service, it's not censorship and you're an idiot

I'm not sure why you have to try this kind of strawman tactics, changing the subject, and denying the actual issue by attempting to alter the meaning of things into that which they are not, it's tedious and you should get better at arguing else abstain.

>>16738836
You probably aren't aware, but the bakery was proven right in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

Due diligence prior to posting next time you fucking dare to stick your head up around here you little cunt.

>>16735955
Those cables weren't placed and aren't owned by any public entities.

>>16730361
>power is money
wrong. Fouccault's shitty position was also wrong

>>16738836
>If I own a bakery am I allow to tell gay people to fuck off? If I own a private school can I say no blacks allowed?
These are false equivalences.

Both of these things are not allowed because of your implied prejudice, yet both of those would be allowed if you simply refuse service. There are different legal reasons for this and it may seem to be contradictory but it is not. There are a few things to consider: you are not a slave, you do not have the right to treat anyone allowed to be in your country as an inferior person.

>>16739254
The right to refuse service is not so clear cut as you'd think, anon. Even doctors can refuse to perform surgery if they deem it too risky. That doesn't mean this right should apply to other areas in life.

>>16737575
>everybody hates the postmoderns because everyone's christian nowadays
>rightoids hate them because they explicitly railed against metaphysics of presence, on which rests the whole of the christian worldview post augustine and in general essentialisms which form the basis of any tradition worth its salt (see Guenon on modernity)

>>16730259
Leftist see themselves as an eternal opposition to oppressive forces such as conservative social norms, capitalism and authoritarianism. They believe themselves to have acknowledged all forms of oppression in society and thus aim to improve society beyond those oppressions. They view Foucault as one of the scholars who pointed out these social faults which they're aiming to surpass. It's all a giant journey towards "improvement".

>>16739435
retard thats exactly the kind of dichotomization i'm trying to get beyond -- hence my assertion that the postmoderns CANT be classified as neither left nor right.
re-read my post
>i'm not sure what went so wrong as for the postmoderns to be associated with the left
>the way i see it the juxtaposition isn't "right v. left", with the left laying claim to the postmoderns, but moderns v. postmoderns, modernist infighting only being about which sibling gets to claim the inheritance of the now-defunct christian inheritance (ie. the culture of the west as such)
it's stunning how eager people are to jump to intellectual grandstanding on this board
(not saying i don't get it/am not guilty of it, but it's still vain and the ideal would be for everyone to stop)

>>16739580
Can you expand on what the 'modernist vs post-modernist infighting' actually entail? Last post was great btw

>>16737575
I think I understand what you mean about the left being Christian, but can you expand on it?

>>16730785
Do you expect anyone to deny that, you limpwristed libertarian faggot?

>>16739887
>'modernist vs post-modernist'
the infighting label was concerning the modernists only. as far as the modernist vs postmodernist debate goes, though:
modernists fall into the vanguard of thinkers that hold some form of constructive, structuralist narrative is THE way to go. both the left and the right fall into this camp because they have strongly held moral and legal conceptions, usually branded in the form of 'right' and 'rule' in contemporary political discourse. the postmoderns are naturally opposed to such notions because they see these as fundamentally irrational and thus flawed in some irreducible manner. what the poststructuralists propose as an alternative is highly dependent on the thinker, but it's almost always controversial or unconventional (Deleuze's whole metaphysical shtick is being against what he saw as 'dogmatic' thinking)

>>16740200
well it's essentially just a rehashing of what Nietzsche said + some influence from Jung. the christian God lost his footing in the west, but the values remain unconsciously and reverberate throughout the sociocultural and political climates. the postmodernists seem to just be second-generation Nietzscheans because apparently the point didn't really set in the first time around. the left is christian because their values are christian. (whether they're successfully applied by anyone is another matter entirely, and one i don't see myself as fit to assess - so i'll leave that aside here) you could basically read the Sermon on the Mount and see this for yourself.

i'm sure you could connect Kaczynski's oversocialization here with the culture of the west being empathically christian in nature; naturally those very easily stimulated and impressionable will take on the values of their climate more strongly than those less affected. there's a ton of affinity btwn unc Ted and Nietzsche but i couldn't fit it all into one post here.

on another note i dont want you to take this too seriously as it's "original" "scholarship" of mine and i'm basically just brainstorming this for fun but if you find it interesting and wanna go further with it i'm all for it. just dont take an anon post on 4cheng as an authority on anything pls

>>16739580
rightoid leftists, all the mumbo jumbo
no thanks

>>16740333
>vanguard
should have been *camp

>>16740336
i have to make myself communicable somehow. you'll have to make do with meme neologisms (i for one find them kinda funny but that's just me)

>>16730885
how are they different

>>16732905
derrida was an algerian jew with an axe to grind against france and the french language in particular

>>16733628
this, note how unlike in meatspace where there are collectively owned zones (the street, parks, etc) no matter where you go on the internet it's someone's property already. if the old internet was a series of homesteads the new one is a company town that pretends it's not and also you're not allowed to leave

>>16739310
communications infrastructure is a public utility in generally installed by an authorized monopoly, making it public. it's also installed on public land

>>16730564
The best word on Foucalt was EMJ who pointed out his obsession with punishment was out of his own guilt for being a turbohomo. He had to leave Sweden because it was too tolerant. He was into BDSM because he wanted to be hurt for being a fag. In the end he did what he needed to receive the penultimate punishment.

EMJ's second point was he taught the elites how to make the devil's bargin with the working class: give them sexual liberation and you won't need to improve their material conditions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeB7qTn9Sik
Great stuff.

>>16740333
the postmodern position corresponds with that of global finance. as it claims to be post-ideological, it must be treated as ideology par excellence. slavoj zizek once referred to "anti-oedipus" as the closest thing to a manifesto capitalism has ever had and i think the last decade has more than proved him correct

>>16731129
You haven't been attending the right ones then.

>>16740631
>slavoj zizek once referred to "anti-oedipus" as the closest thing to a manifesto capitalism has ever had and i think the last decade has more than proved him correct
He's absolutely right. I read a lot of A Thousand Plateaus and realized this shit was just a pean to multiculturalism and global labor mobility.

These people have to use really abstruse language because if you weren't spending most of your cognitive energy deciphering the poetics you'd understand immediately that it's just "megacorps good, you're all little fish in their giant pond, when you gotta swim for your lives magic happens"

>>16730268
Control is not about censorship and whether it is legal or legitimate or whatever. It's about crowdsourced regulation. Instead of order being enforced top-down by a strict hierarchy, it is propagated through a network of equals. It follows from communication and constant reciprocal watching from regular people, rather than from rigidly enforcer rules in a secluded place (as would be the case in prison for instance).

>>16730259
Well cancel culture is more a liberal thing than outright left. Leftists see cancel culture as an empty gesture on part of capital to address inequalities while making these difference commodifiable.

Also, left doesn't really worship Foucault. His theories are helpful for realizing modern nature of power but he doesn't provide a pragmatic response. Stuart Hall does a pretty decent summary of the left and Foucault in Two Paradigms.

>>16730268
not even a /pol/tard but kys

>>16730259
Post-modernists aren't communists.

>right wing is Nazi
>it's okay to punch Nazi
>Nazis are monsters and not people
>fight monsters like in the movies
Seems like a dialectical shift happened at some time that responds to perceived totalitarian sensibilities as treatable with totalitarian methods. Cancel culture is a response to former left wing movements and an unconscious embrace of "right wing" totalitarian methods. It's all so soft though because soft people are behind it. Older crowds will continue to be upset as online continents emerge to rectify the discomfort.

The modern American leftist is a power bottom for capital and you suck at baiting them.

Here is how you bait using Foucault:
>Reminder: Foucault was literally paid by the CIA
>Reminder: The Soviets dismissed Foucault's works as deviant gibberish meant to derail socialism.
>Reminder: Foucault continued to frequent bath houses even after he had been diagnosed with AIDS.
>"I have known many pederasts, but few homosexuals." What did Foucault mean by this?

>>16730268
>fascism is a-ok as long as it's not called "the government"
Wow and I thought the annals of retardation were nearly complete

>>16730296
If McDonald's had their own police force that killed anyone who was black then that would be fine right because it's not technically the government

fucking faggot

>>16741645
Retarded take because they would still be breaking the law.

>>16730635
>eat toilet cleaner tablets because they look tasty
>cry in agony because you're dying

Lol dumb minors wtf???

listen
hitlers narrative was slutty. he said whatever he needed to in order to advance his cause
they do the same thing
it's just tools to use for self gain, that's all you need to know

>>16741711
way to miss the point this hard

>>16741770
What point?

>>16741129
that's not how Twitter works though, it does have a top down structure and just censors all sorts of stuff

Why do people think Foucault was a leftist. Dude supported fucking Thatcher and Reagan and right wing islamic regimes

>>16730279
Bill Hicks, is that you?