/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21839378]

>government institutions hold power over you. did you know that? bet you didnt

why is he considered a philosopher again

[Anonymous No.21839391]

Is that the guy who raped a bunch of little boys in a graveyard lol

[Anonymous No.21839400]

>>21839391
Yes
>>21839378
Because of this
>>21839391

[Anonymous No.21839428]

>go to school and get taught just enough that you can buy funko pops from Amazon and nothing more
>go to hospital and get told that you need to buy funko pops to cure depression
>go to prison and get used as slave labor to make funko pops

[Anonymous No.21840828]

>>21839428
The entire society is completely ruined. It was bad before too, and no one noticed, but now it's much worse.

I just spent 2 hours setting up a printer. This reality isn't real. A printer is something you plug in hit "Print". It doesn't have drivers, buttons, or apps. Just print, only.

There are no options to print from within most apps on Android. Android can barely do anything at all. Android isn't real. It was made by a sex slavery guy (Andy Rubin) who was paid $90 million to quit Google after his sex slavery scandal.

The government is bad.

I have no feelings about anything anymore.

[Anonymous No.21840914]

>>21840828
The real world isn't reality anymore. The internet is reality. The real world is simply a staging ground for things on the internet. Go to the gym to workout so you can look good in pictures you post on the internet. Go to a restaurant so you can post pictures of the food on the internet. Watch a tv show so you can talk about it with people on the internet. Go to the park to film a video to post on tiktok. Set up a printer so you can print the things you saw browsing the internet. Print pictures of places you've only ever seen on the internet. The real world is dead.

[Anonymous No.21841018]

>>21840914
It never was. Reality? What is that? All we know is the interface.

[Anonymous No.21841481]

>>21840828
Printers never worked like that

[Anonymous No.21841631]

>>21840828
>itt zoomer anon finds out android is linux and printers have drivers

[Anonymous No.21841741]

>>21840828
I remember people struggling for hours with dot printers 30 years ago. The more shit change the more it stays the same.
Also you probably are using a non optimal print service for your given printer model if you're struggling that much. Assigning a static IP address to the printer may help too, but it could be a million things. Troubleshooting printers has been a PITA for decades.

[Anonymous No.21841751]

>>21841741
It's probably an HP piece of shit that wants to install a bunch of bloatware and requires its own retarded file type and program instead of just using xps.

[Anonymous No.21841776]

>>21841741
You should get a life.

[Anonymous No.21841780]

>>21841631
>everything is insert demographic I dislike here
Boogeymen are so 2016

[Anonymous No.21841783]

>>21840828
HP printer? I'll never buy one again.
I personally can understand drivers, but once you need an account or apps you can go fuck yourself.

[Anonymous No.21841787]

>>21841780
Millenials all know how how to use computers at the comp tia A+ level because they grew up through 5 operating systems, ipods, iphones, inkjet printers and went from playing with a black and white palm pilot to a pocket pc to using a note 20.

[Anonymous No.21841788]

>>21839378
I don't think anyone considered him a philosopher

[Anonymous No.21841792]

>>21841787
zoomers had the same evolution from windows 98 on school computers all the way up until they implemented chromebooks. it isn't unique to millennials at all, but the chromebooks are a recent development and their own massive fucking problem. it will become evident in the way you only think it is now, that today's kids will graduate with no practical experience on windows devices.

[Anonymous No.21841798]

>>21841792
Anon schools had macintoshes in 2000. Apple lobbied to be in the classroom for years. One of my teachers actually had all the old apple 2s. My zoomer sisters are literally afraid to torrent and my actual boomer father is the one who jailbroke a firestick for every room.

[Anonymous No.21841802]

>>21839378
That's almost exactly the opposite of what he says, did you even read him ?

[Anonymous No.21841804]

>>21841798
>Anon schools had macintoshes in 2000
...they also had windows 98, until they didn't anymore. I don't know where you live but not a single school I have ever been to even had so much as a single macintosh accessory in their rusted filing cabinets.

[Anonymous No.21841811]

>>21841798
>My zoomer sisters are literally afraid to torrent and my actual boomer father is the one who jailbroke a firestick for every room.
This says more about your family's ability to teach than an entire generation

[Anonymous No.21841824]

>>21841804
I lived in the west. We had bubble macs from 98 up until maybe 06 then they had macs and macbooks then they finally went to windows 7. Nothing rusts much in the west because it's not wet and we don't have teachers unions stealing all the school money in my state.

[Anonymous No.21841828]

>>21841824
eastern canada, no teachers unions but an anecdote to our state of disrepair - our electric infrastructure is so outdated that linemen from the states who came for hurricane relief were not trained or equipped to deal with how garbage things were and still are. no surprise at all that this place was technologically behind

[Anonymous No.21841840]

>>21841828
That makes more sense. We actually had solidworks and a laser engraver, cnc router, plasma cutter. Then the photo/video lab had adobe suite plus final cut. We also had cartooning and that had wacom tablets. The area was probably 2nd or 3rd richest in the state and had a municipal sales tax that all went to the school system though. Plus there were two major malls in that municipality and 2 automalls driving that sales tax. I think by now they would be running all vms on school computers and using 365 cloud on whatever netbooks are issued. Was canada not an absurdly taxed country then or does new brunswick not get shit?

[Anonymous No.21841865]

>>21841840
>Was canada not an absurdly taxed country then or does new brunswick not get shit?
holy shit, the things you listed. we had nothing close.
even worse, nova scotia. atrociously
taxed with nothing to show for it. our form of money-siphoning comes in the form of contracts, the recipients, and the awarder of the contract. our schools had this construction deal with the province and TL;DR the contractors absolutely MILKED the taxpayers for privately-owned school buildings that the developers have rights to outside regular school hours, and can use for profit. my middle school had half of a woodshop and my high school had a real one. our parking lot was gravel. our football field was full of boulders. our chemistry lab was in a terrible state. the sorts of things that I hear american schools have is beyond absurd in comparison to what I grew up with

[Anonymous No.21841936]

>>21841865
Canada seems like a great country to live if it weren't for the state.

[Anonymous No.21841942]

>>21840828
>who was paid $90 million to quit Google after his sex slavery scandal.
Damn, imagine getting 90 million buckaroos for being a sex-pest

[Anonymous No.21841944]

>>21841942
dudes rock

[Anonymous No.21841948]

>>21841936
I would agree with that. Canada is the posterchild for parliamentary democracy run rampant. I'm under no impression that Americans think of us often, but were you aware we only have 3 major options for internet? You could probably get a better cell plan in Guerrero. This country is a mummified carcass stripped of its nutritious insides.

[Anonymous No.21841962]

>>21841948
To me living in one of Gods greatest paradises for an outdoorsman with such fucked gun and hunting laws would infuriate me. I think canada would benefit most from a healthy dose of libertarianism. I don't know how so many people who once were wild and hard fell for state intervention in absolutely everything so quickly. I guess your major cities are all portland tier spoiled children and that's how. Dunno but in terms of wilderness it is better than most places down here. We have a few more unique geographical places but we don't have nearly the square milage of virgin wilderness.

[Anonymous No.21841992]

>>21841962
>I guess your major cities are all portland tier spoiled children and that's how.
Canada suffers from an immigration problem, the perpetuation of our current government is by
>1. politically disconnected neoliberal urbanites
>2. third-world immigrants (slave class) that the government incentivizes to vote for them
Even though the "foreign students" "temporary foreign workers" and "permanent residents" can't vote, they do. They bring gangs and join gangs and perpetuate gang and violent crime. They smuggle guns and get caught and get released and stab another person on the bus. Our justice system is catch-and-release.
It's entirely systemic and most Canadians are completely unwilling to accept that there is a problem - and god forbid you tell them the problem is immigration or you're a villain by default. Our government is completely mask-on about the fact that our "temporary foreign worker" program is a legal way to pay slave wages to otherwise illegal workers. I'm trying not to get too tangential because Canada's current political landscape is beyond explanation, but the point is you will seriously NEVER Asee the real problems with this country addressed. You probably couldn't work at McDonalds here because nobody would speak english. We have people dying in emergency rooms and half the people necessary to staff the ambulances but they keep bringing in a million a year. People talk about demographic replacement but that isn't even the problem, existing Canadians are priced out of their entire country.

[Anonymous No.21842012]

>>21841962
>with such fucked gun and hunting laws would infuriate me.
It's frustrating for sure and we don't have nearly the freedom of choice regarding
what weapons we can use to hunt as Americans do. With that said it is not difficult to acquire a gun or hunting license in Canada it's just inconvenient and designed to discourage participation. When I paid in NS, it was about $70 to take the Firearms Safety Course which you pass, then apply for a PAL which is itself a gun license and a daily-updated background check. BUT, the price for this sort of course in Alberta is about 10x as much. Barring the actual type of guns themselves there is not a lot of trouble regarding hunting, and you could hunt nearly the same as in the States.'

[Anonymous No.21842068]

>>21841802
i read discipline and punish and this is my takeaway from it. if you think his main thesis is opposite to this feel free to share what you think it is

[Anonymous No.21842124]

>>21841776
That knowledge probably pays for his life, Walmart Wagie.

[Anonymous No.21842215]

>>21842068
Discipline and Punish is among his works as a historian of ideas, alongside those on madness, sexuality, medicine and epistemology. The point of those books is to recontextualise contemporary social facts many take for granted, consider their functions in various historical iterations and how their configuration came about. Through that form, they're generally more accessible than his harder works, such as Les Mots et les Choses, or his lessons at the Collège de France. It's similar to what Elias does with some books detailing the evolution of eating manners to understand civilisation.

As to your point, government in itself is rarely mentioned. Power isn't seen as a top-down imposition of the state through institutions, instead, a power-knowledge exchange creates hierarchies regardless of government, which may be instrumental but not causal. Individuals aren't simply with or without power, but wield it more or less in complex webs, horizontally as well as vertically.
In the case of prisons, it isn't so much that governments run them, but that a power-knowledge relation produces a subjective view that they work, they can reform criminals or keep them away, and that they condition behaviours outside. Individuals, therefore, take on this subjective knowledge and exert power on their peers, outside of governmental intervention.

You could put government at the origin, as a precursor to both knowledge and power, but that's really flipping the thing on its head and doesn't make much sense. The mistake is understandable though, if you've just read D&P, since it deals with a state social fact, unlike the aforementioned other genealogies.

[Anonymous No.21842325]

>>21842215
okay i see how you could get irritated at the term „government“. the books thesis is more like: large institutions hold power over you. but to expand on what i find lacking with it is: theres no appreciation for the sociological and even biological necessities that drive hierarchies. he makes it seem as if some sadist woke up in a vacuum one day and decided thats how its done and thats how humanity would be made subservient. not only does the critique not genuinely examine the benefits of those structures, which would be necessary for any rational analysis, but he also doesnt offer any solutions. he either knows none, making his critique redundant or he had some in mind but doesnt disclose them, essentially making him dishonest in his intention. i really dont know whats the takeaway from foucaults discipline and punish other than him trying to gaslight me into being suspicious of large institutions because of „muh power“

[Anonymous No.21842362]

>>21842325
>he makes it seem as if some sadist woke up in a vacuum one day and decided thats how its done and thats how humanity would be made subservient.
No, that's how you read it. It's same as when people ridicule Marxists by reducing it to "muh evil capitalist conspiracy".
It's not about individuals. It's about systems (or strutures) that emerged from a process for which Foucault tries to trace the milestones through history. Of course he doesn't consider "biological causes" because those are made up in within their own systems.

[Anonymous No.21842434]

>>21842362
>Of course he doesn't consider "biological causes" because those are made up in within their own systems.
you can literally claim anything if you discard with physically verifiable facts because they might be "socially constructed". there ceases to be right and wrong if you do that, which is why im not buying into fuckos hogwash. saying "all is socially constructed" and then coming up with an extremely dumbed down but seemingly logically coherent explanation of how things work is not providing anything of value but at best a misguided arts project. glad that you brought up the commies because they did exactly the same with their negations history bullshit

[Anonymous No.21842447]

>>21842325

Any book is bound to leave some things out, the necessity or not of hierarchies is not in this one's scope.
>he makes it seem as if some sadist woke up in a vacuum one day and decided thats how its done and thats how humanity would be made subservient. not only does the critique not genuinely examine the benefits of those structures
I'm confused by how you came to this point. Foucault is thoroughly amoral in both language and analysis. His account of power-knowledge hierarchies is much more emergent and interpersonal than malicious and intended. Overall, he very much does take into account the benefits of such structures, they're as productive as they are coercive, as he knew well from his education. Many people seem to confuse critique with criticism, and project some sort of moralism on Foucault's analysis, it's all very unproductive to me.

As for solutions, again, this is somewhat out of scope from my point of view and I think critique is not redundant but valid in itself. In any case, Foucault was politically active in the early 70s in favour of prisoner rights, alongside many jurists of the time, founding an association that distributed cultural and intellectual products within prisons and pressured for changes in their organisation and fundamental use.

[Anonymous No.21842487]

>>21842434
Physical facts aren't discarded, their disposition in centres and margins in ways that change over history is critiqued. If you're curious about biology specifically, I suggest you read that part of Les mots et les choses. Right and wrong is irrelevant here, Foucault isn't a 17th century moralist, but whether or not social facts are constructed does not impede any ability to form morals, unless you appeal to nature which is fallacious anyway. Not to be rude, but I wouldn't call something extremely dumbed down if I failed to engage with it this much.

[Anonymous No.21842606]

>>21842487
>when people think evolutionary psychology and evolutionary biology are the same as an appeal to nature fallacy which is saying something like "a man deserves 9 wives cause a lion got a harem of shelions"

[Anonymous No.21842651]

>>21842487
i see that you have extensive knowledge about foucaults works but you seem a bit stuck with his argumentations and vocabulary. the way i see it foucault suggests that the power structures in society are oppressive (if we can agree on this at least). he suggests that the reason why these systems exist is that they are self-perpetuating and influence their subjects towards upholding them. this is to me a faulty argument without further elaboration because the main reason these systems exist is left out: that a (biological) necessity for such systems exists in humans. people literally want those systems and would eventually create them even if they grew up in a space without the schools/prisons/churches etc he describes. they could vary in form but they would be created. thats what i dislike about the book and i dont see the contribution in something that makes extensive examinations under a fundamentally false premise. to me its a silly book

taking a quick look at the wikipedia reception page at least some people seem to agree:
„overestimation of the political dimension“ „proposes an explanation in terms of power-sometimes in the absence of any supporting evidence“

[Anonymous No.21842664]

>>21842651
>i see that you have extensive knowledge about foucaults works but you seem a bit stuck with his argumentations and vocabulary. the way i see it foucault suggests that the power structures in society are oppressive (if we can agree on this at least). he suggests that the reason why these systems exist is that they are self-perpetuating and influence their subjects towards upholding them. this is to me a faulty argument without further elaboration because the main reason these systems exist is left out: that a (biological) necessity for such systems exists in humans. people literally want those systems and would eventually create them even if they grew up in a space without the schools/prisons/churches etc he describes. they could vary in form but they would be created. thats what i dislike about the book and i dont see the contribution in something that makes extensive examinations under a fundamentally false premise. to me its a silly book
Based. Take for example the orthodox church in the soviet union. It was banned and illegal yet the very moment the ussr fell it rose back up like a phoenix from ashes. Despite what fascistic types think, the state doesn't need to enforce morality, charity, family, or theology. They all arise naturally if the state gets the fuck out of the way due to latent necessity. Reality itself necessitates church and family and community and trade.

[Anonymous No.21842694]

>>21841828
i didnt have power for 12 days after fiona because one (1) tree branch was lying across the power line outside my house. literally every, EVERY house in the immediate vicinity of my own house had power in less than two days. we couldn't touch the branch because it was dangerous, even if it would only take a moment. 12 days later, a single truck showed up and fixed it in less than 10 minutes. i live on a sidestreet on the main drag of the third most populated town in this province.

[Anonymous No.21842740]

>>21841948
>You could probably get a better cell plan in Guerrero
i actually think we are rated either #1 or #2 in most expensive/shittiest internet service in developed countries. and its been a neverending battle for years if not decades to keep it from outright falling off the cliff into a hellish abyss. ive lost count of how many times they've tried to push per-GB pricing on home internet plans, and one of these days theyll succeed. just as an FYI for non-canadians, ~$100+ is a normal price for monthly home internet service

[Anonymous No.21842790]

>>21842664
NTA but I'm more black-pilled about it while agreeing that these systems seem to be emergent from human behavior in most observed environments. Black-pilled because I still think these are ultimately "bad things" they're means of dominating people and they often do it arbitrarily in self-reinforcing loops that have no particular reason except to reproduce an inherited system of domination. That is bad to me simply because I constantly run into these systems of domination that subjugate me without giving me any reason for doing so. The literal reason often given is its just some form of "the rules". I can rationalize why humans do this, tell a story about it, and the story I generally hold is a somewhat psychological one that humans feel compelled to rank and order each other because they are socially dependent creatures, but at the same time that they want to benefit from their social activity and feel drawn to social behaviors they also feel anxiety about their social dependence. Social dependence both ensures their survival and threatens it, because it can be taken away from them or made highly conditional in a burdensome or outright exploitative way (like the slave who requires their master's favor to live, and who ultimately may have a greater fear for the risks of freedom in a foreign land). So humans hedge their social risk by actively engaging in ranking, ordering and policing behavior between each other to make social reality predictable. But the forms of domination that emerge, while they may have a local predictability, can adopt that appearance of arbitrariness, because in a sense the whole point of the ranking and ordering and social rituals are to assuage the anxiety of social dependence. The object of domination doesn't have to be morally guilty, and the means of dominating them doesn't have to be based in "reason". The sacrificial victim is paradigmatically innocent.

In that sense we are very evil animals. We hurt each other simply to reassure each other that abuse is ritually applied to certain people under certain conditions, so we know that WE have a lower chance of being unpredictably abused.

[Anonymous No.21842794]

>>21841992
>They smuggle guns
the overwhelming source of any and all gun problems in Canada is due to having America on our border. that shooter in portapique was a burgerbrained retard who sourced all his guns from america, and all of our recent mass shootings, which were done by guns that were already banned and so banning fucking innocuous hunting rifles clearly solves nothing (because the real issue is systemic with our policing and RCMP systems which nobody in govt has the interest or will to touch with a 10-foot pole), were all done with guns from america. a somali with a glock shoved up his ass is a danger because hes a somalian pirate, not because of the single poopy glock he brought in.

[Anonymous No.21842827]

>>21842790
Which, just to add, I only describe as "evil" because the opposite of resenting that state of affairs, as in the embracing of it, often looks like the embracing of intensifying of categorical abuse regardless of moral guilt. The reason becomes elevated, we abuse and police and rank because it keeps us secure, it makes sure that we the ones who have been chosen as the social subjects to give security will feel less at risk of falling into the category of those that are dominated. So the rationalization of our social behavior invites things like genocide, enslavement, colonial or imperial domination. Our rational response to our condition is to become ruthless and dehumanizing. Whereas our moral inclination is to loathe these behaviors, to constantly resent how base we seem to be. But there isn't a way to totally alleviate these behaviors, so if you don't choose to be a monster you just end up morally black-pilled. You try to be good, but without hope that people can ultimately stop arbitrarily abusing each other for its own sake.

[Anonymous No.21842829]

>>21840828
You need an app to park in most places in my city these days.

[Anonymous No.21842879]

>>21842740
>~$100+ is a normal price for monthly home internet service
This isn't all that much higher than the US for high speed asymmetrical DSL. I pay like $85 for 680mb/s download and 24mb/s upload.

[Anonymous No.21842905]

>>21842790
Nah, local community is the best. It is states that are the worst thing on earth. You sound like you need to go out hunting with a couple buddies for a week and work together to pitch camp, collect wood, cook. It sounds like you are born in captivity in a paved, round cornered, air conditioned artificial environment and sense something is deeply deeply off. And it is. But it isn't the local church group or charity that is against you. It's the state that is your slave owner more than anything else.

[Anonymous No.21842927]

Foucault's work is often simplified or dismissed entirely, which I feel is quite unfair, as his work is very substantial and innovative. In particular I find the idea of biopolitics and biopower to really resonate in the modern era, although many of his other ideas like for example the panopticon are also applicable to the modern day.

The proliferation of biopolitics as a mode of power that targets life itself as its object and domain. Biopolitics operates through various technologies and apparatuses that seek to optimize, regulate, protect, or destroy life at different levels: from the molecular to the global, from the individual to the population. Biopolitics involves both purportedly positive interventions that enhance life (such as biotechnology, medicine, public health) and negative interventions that expose life to death (such as war, terrorism, pandemic), and disciplinary mechanisms that shape behavior through norms and rules (such as education, law, surveillance), and security mechanisms that manage life through mitigating risks and threats (such as emergency measures, prevention strategies, crisis management).

This gives the system a stranglehold on the individual, as they are controlling their very biology and subjecting them to the societal structure and framework of the state apparatus.

[Anonymous No.21842933]

Foucault's work is often simplified or dismissed entirely by the ideologically biased, which I feel is quite unfair, as his work is very substantial and innovative. In particular I find the idea of biopolitics and biopower to really resonate in the modern era, although many of his other ideas like for example the panopticon are also applicable to the modern day.

The proliferation of biopolitics as a mode of power that targets life itself as its object and domain. Biopolitics operates through various technologies and apparatuses that seek to optimize, regulate, protect, or destroy life at different levels: from the molecular to the global, from the individual to the population. Biopolitics involves both purportedly positive interventions that enhance life (such as biotechnology, medicine, public health) and negative interventions that expose life to death (such as war, terrorism, pandemic), as well as disciplinary mechanisms that shape behavior through norms and rules (such as education, law, surveillance) and security mechanisms that manage life through mitigating risks and threats (such as emergency measures, prevention strategies, crisis management).

This gives the system an all encompassing stranglehold on the individual, as they are controlling their very biology and subjecting them to the societal structure and framework of the state apparatus.

[Anonymous No.21843055]

>>21842651
Yes, obviously there is a natural "reason" for these systems since society is made up of humans which are a part of nature. But where do you want to go with this? It's a metaphysical (theological) dead end, in fact not any different from stating that the reason is that God made us this way.
The appeal to human nature that is time and time again brought up against the various critiques of societal structures is nothing more than an appeal to God in the guise of human reason as transcending nature (thus directly invalidating this appeal). You cannot infer anything about human nature without using our made up system(s) of knowledge, i.e. applying made up methods based on made up categories. Human nature as such is utterly intangible as an object of science while the historical trace of the construction of these systems gives a reasonable field of research.
I mean, yes, in the end you could argue with Hegel that our made up system(s) are indeed the appearance of the Absolute but I wouldn't guess that you a Hegelian. Correct me, if I'm wrong.

[Anonymous No.21843070]

>>21842905
I think smaller groups have less need for rituals and systems of domination because there can be higher inter-personal trust, but I don't think humans are capable of systematically avoiding those behaviors or replacing them on any meaningfully typical scale of regular social dependence. A lot of qualifiers there, I wouldn't claim to have clean categories or anything, but I think there is a meaningful sense to concepts of a web of social relationships that forms a kind of ongoing dependency (or interdependence as you like).

But insofar as humans get embedded in larger and larger groups of people and those complex systems of social dependence, they have increased anxiety about those larger systems of social dependence. Which seems natural, it's very easy to spread information at a low level, it has a bio-physical cost that is approachable for the individual. At greater scales you lose that ability, and the anxiety of domination increases. Hence modern people are often highly anxious about the contingencies of their subjugation to states, since that is the highest "unit" of formal social belonging, and its pretensions or attempts at present delineated formal qualities seem a part of the ambient anxiety about its power. In most of the big countries nobody really lays claim to embodying the state, like monarchs and their households. The state is recognized as an alien thing we all seem to rely on and take part in and find ourselves chained to. So a lot of thought and writing has been devoted to defining it and giving it shape, of ritualistically performing its existence, so we can assume some predictability in relation to it.

I don't think there is any way to put that back in the box. On one hand I think it is likely the thing called the "state" is majorly a development of the scale of human civilization, a way to manage it, and in lieu of cataclysm we aren't going back to small groups. And even if we do I expect the state will linger in odd ways, since the people who have experienced forms of state often want to reproduce them even in isolation from its dominion, and in scales where it isn't clear such ritualized formalism is necessary. It harbors techniques many people know for managing social predictability, so they create those relations again and again out of a sense of its wisdom or duty to do so.

But I'm also not all that dour, the state usually does what it says on the tin. My life is predictable, I have little daily anxiety that I will be sacrificed. I just know the price of my comfort is the arbitrary domination of a lot of other people. Not that I never suffer that, it isn't such a privileged relationship. We all get dominated by these systems, but there are also more predictable and persistently targeted victims than others.

[Anonymous No.21843089]

>>21843055
>But where do you want to go with this? It's a metaphysical (theological) dead end, in fact not any different from stating that the reason is that God made us this way.
NTA but I don't think it is a political dead end, at least. There are a lot of other people trying to tell stories about how God made things to be, and to the degree that one wants to offer an alternative it seems to me that I'm pushed into the position of giving accounts of what God made things for. When I abandon it I'm just left with critique, which is all fine for generating knowledge or accounts of what is happening but not great for histories that situate why it is happening or what to do about it. Then you invoke God and try to duke it out over whose God is more real.

[Anonymous No.21843105]

>>21843070
You really need to stop viewing the world in terms of domination. Nobody at a local church group or charity is trying to dominate you.

[Anonymous No.21843133]

>>21843105
They are trying to ideologically possess you and convert you to their worldview, so they most definitely are

[Anonymous No.21843186]

>>21843105
I dunno why you keep returning to those examples. But regardless, there are rules that people would potentially violently resent one from transgressing. Most churches are the property of some entity with recognized directors that have actionable powers. On the high level that is a system more backstopped and engendered by the state, but on the low end it is socially reinforced by those who depend on and find comfort in observing it. Disrupting a particular kind of church service with questions or debate is not allowed, that isn't the purpose of the church service and people will resent the intrusion on the established social relationships. One can rationalize why this is, but it often comes back to some version of "it's just the way this is" or "it's not right". I'm suggesting that it is arbitrary, it's a predictable social relation mutually enforced vertically and horizontally, and it won't have to be the preacher, nominally in a position of authority and attention in the room, that throws you out because other people listening will just as well throw you out.

But the "because" story I give is simply that there is anxiety around social "disorder", which is a lack of predictable behavior. There is a value in enforcing "social order" to achieve predictable behavior. I don't actually solely privilege domination because I think there is a bio-physical inclination to humans for social interdepence, which could be explained as being "adaptive" insofar as it has not been weeded out by mass death favoring the lone individual. So we behave socially, and it could be said we often seek benefits from that. In that sense there is a positive dimension, the church goers listen to the preacher because they think he shares his wisdom. You disrupt that exchange, you have taken something from me, so it isn't arbitrary to me that I kick you out.

The thing I find ambiguous in such a situation what sense the person can know whether the one disrupting has something meaningful to say, a better offer of wisdom maybe, versus the preacher. It seems funny to invoke this in such a small context, but this is like Schmitt's state of exception. The rules can't encompass all contingencies, and sometimes someone knows more than the preacher and maybe should be allowed to interrupt. But the question is who decides that and on what basis? Writ large that is just the troubling question of revolt, which implicates human social activity top to bottom. But there is a risk factor, and we err on the side of the rules because the risk is more predictable. Hence, we favor arbitrary domination by systems to hedge risks against the socially unpredictable, which I ultimately think the risk of the socially unpredictable is unpredictable forms of domination. I'm comfortable with predictable forms, that is how I hedge my risk. I'm afraid of the stampede.

[Anonymous No.21843224]

>>21843186
Incidentally, and in the same subject as what i was saying here:
>>21843089
You may notice that the ultimate judge of the state of exception is God. Which is why I think at its base the conflict of politics frequently can return to expressions and disagreements about what God wants, even when God just becomes some universal principle or concept that animates a sense of justice. Negotiating the state of exception often requires negotiating what God wants, and that in itself is a hedge against social risk. You'll note that throughout history and I feel like (but don't feel totally confident saying) especially in modernity, there is an attempt at disinterested analysis and scholarship around politics, justice, the proper role of the state. There is a desire to ground the negotiation of the state of exception in something not human, because then there is a sense that we can still determine courses of action that conform to some new or maybe ever real but only recently discovered concept of the predictable. When the state of exception devolves onto a human, or a group of humans, and their arbitrary will, then they've become infused with the power of God. And we become terrified, and we call them tyrants or dictators or whatever, because we immediately identify that there is no check on their will and no cosmic basis for their authority. That is when the deep fear of our social dependence often comes out the most, when it has a face and it acts erratically according to its will.

[Anonymous No.21843261]

>>21843186
Stop with the word salad. I'm saying as an individual human being. A church small group is not dominating you. You sit in a Socratic circle and interpret bible readings or you plant a community garden. The point isn't dominance that is ever the problem it is always selfishness.

[Anonymous No.21843313]

>>21843261
Sure, but you seem to have an emotional attachment to disputing social domination, because I agreed that smaller groups can forgo a lot of that kind of ritualized, formalized behavior out of small scale trust relationships, which I think are differentiated from other kinds of social relations by low cost and higher potential frequency of information transmission. Negotiations of positions can be flexible and more fluid in those circumstances, and while compromises are made they can appear as rather agreeable and miniscule to those involved.

But in respect to the example of small groups I simply said that I don't see them having any bearing on the persistence and regular emergence or reproduction of other systems of social domination. They can't replace the state, nor many other larger scale systems of social relations we engage in, so it's not that important. I don't dispute that you can hunt with your friends and avoid having any significant social dilemmas or anxieties, but I also don't think you can categorically say it is never going to happen. One of the smallest interpersonal units of trust and familiarity is the immediate family, and the negotiation of the ranking and ordering of familial obligation is seemingly as old as time. I'd call that politics, personally. Sometimes people even colloquially call it family politics. But I think it doesn't have a substantial difference to the motivations for politics proper, and often it does invoke God very directly to ground familial obligations and rights. And often it results in violence, sometimes deadly, even between the closest and most familiar kin. I'd claim there is even an ancient fear of that kind of disorder, so an emphasis on familial structure and form is very ancient even before anything we recognize remotely as a "state" appeared.

[Anonymous No.21843321]

>>21843261
>saying as an individual human being. A church small group is not dominating you

it is when they are pressuring you to conform to their belief structure and rules through coercion and threats (of eternal damnation)

[Anonymous No.21843428]

>>21843313
But anyways, I spent a lot of time here. Just saying I'm very black-pilled about the world of people. It isn't hell on earth, I crave a "proper" association to it and feel compelled to negotiate that like anyone else, and overall I live comfortably, but I also think it's just a monster in disguise that has no proper form commensurate with justice. The only rational kind of justice of the social that I can determine is that it is predictable, which seems like a very weary and bankrupt version of justice. The law is the law and it is always right doesn't resonate with anyone, there is always dispute that the law is blind and it grinds people up, that there is some sense of purpose to the law that should be active when the law produces injustice. Then you are thinking about what God wants, you're imagining justice exists and can be realized or approached more perfectly. I think forms of social domination can be renegotiated to avoid "injustice", though often that requires violence at bigger scales. But I dont think anyone can predictably ground justice in something that doesn't produce exceptions, and not even just rarely at the margins but quite commonly all around us. And I don't think people want to risk constant renegotiation of ways of life and belief in such large, scary contexts. So we are stuck here, and effectively I think this kind of dynamic is at least some explanation for forms of sadism, which I do think pleasure in performing domination is something "normal" to humans, or that is to say I think attempts to explain it away as learned behavior or something is cope. In benign forms it is jeering at the other team in team sports and gloating in victory. We seem acclimated to enjoying when others experience shame or defeat, so long as we have placed it as a "proper" shame or defeat. And punishment or performance of the other's lowered status is pleasurable for people. Victims and losers can reassure us, make us feel comfortable. People focus on winning naturally, it is the proper placement of the loser. But the loser is necessary, and when we are confronted with social injustice a common manner of coping with it is to place it in its proper place, by rendering the person a "loser". I am properly a winner, because I have a job and finished school and have a long term girlfriend. The person who doesn't is a loser, and they make winners feel secure. To attempt to renegotiate social systems to offer the loser a greater possibility of having such things is a risk that could upend my possession of them. So I relish their failure and encourage others to properly place them as the loser, and us as the winner.

Speaking figuratively. Like I said, I think humans are evil creatures that make up stories about why everything they do actually "makes sense" or is based in "reason" and is therefor good. We are just self-important animals.

[Anonymous No.21843599]

>>21843321
I disagree. One comes to the faith on their own volition and through experience

[Anonymous No.21843602]

>>21843599
That's incorrect. Most are directed to religion through social pressure

[Anonymous No.21843609]

>>21843602
This
>>21843599
Not this

[Anonymous No.21843611]

>>21843428
>>21843313
Tldr; i live my entire life trapped in my own head

[Anonymous No.21843622]

>>21843611
"tl;dr" is the refuge of the coward who is unwilling to engage with arguments that may poke holes in their faulty logic and dogmatic beliefs

[Anonymous No.21843627]

>>21843599
This is accurate. People go to scripture and religion because they provide psychological healing.

[Anonymous No.21843635]

>>21843622
You are a bombast incapable of saying anything so you just keep talking hoping nobody will notice.

[Anonymous No.21843657]

Foucault's philosophy is full of contradictions and absurdities when taken to its logical conclusion. He claims to be a critic of modern society, but what he is really is just a critic of common sense. Anything that people agree on must be bad and forced upon them, we should all just be monkeys flinging shit at each other and running around naked in the forest.

[Anonymous No.21843663]

>>21843657
At our core, that is all we really are

[Anonymous No.21844124]

>>21841481
>Printers never worked like that
That doesn't matter.
>>21841741
>Troubleshooting printers has been a PITA for decades.
My post literally says "it was bad before too"

>>21841631
>itt zoomer anon finds out
I'm 39.
I could design a printer, today, that would run a simple print server over a LAN cable. No setup required.