/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3565295]

Why do stupid things like queer theory exist

[Anonymous No.3565300]

Grow up pal

[Anonymous No.3565303]

>>3565295
Because stupid things like middle-class, privileged, cis, heterosexual, males exist.

[Anonymous No.3565307]

It isn't because of stupidity alone. People are just smart enough to take shitty ideas and run with them.

[« 零 » !Ry9.23Wow. No.3565314]

"CULTURAL MARXISM".

[Anonymous No.3565321]

>>3565295
Because of Jews. Every time the Jew take his pen to write, it's to destroy the white man's culture and heritage.

[Anonymous No.3565327]

>>3565321
Why do stupid things like white people even exist

[Anonymous No.3565333]

>>3565314

Does Cultural Marxism as a political force actually exist? Or is it just a buzz phrase?

[Anonymous No.3565350]

>>3565295
It comes from solipsists who are overly obsessed with their place in life.

[Anonymous No.3565353]

>>Why do stupid things like queer theory exist

Because it gives certain people with no actual productive skills or ideas an excuse for a career in the academic world - God knows they wouldn't be able to feed or clothe themselves outside of it.

[Anonymous No.3565355]

>>3565353
They would have been dependent on a man otherwise.

[Anonymous No.3565358]

Because the Humanities envy Science.

Science has theories and explanations based on hard empirical research.

The humanities try to emulate this, but instead of empirical research they use arm-chair philosophy.

[Anonymous No.3565359]

>>3565355
Hmmm ... or had to find a "real" job ...

[« 零 » !Ry9.23Wow. No.3565373]

>>3565333

"CULTURAL MARXISM" IS A METHOD OF SYSTEMATIC SOCIOCULTURAL DECONSTRUCTION & SUBVERSION CREATED BY GERMAN/JEWISH "MARXIST" INTELLECTUALS IN THE NINETEEN THIRTIES.

IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT IS, RESEARCH IT. THERE ARE PLENTY OF SOURCES ONLINE.

LINKED HERE, IS AN ACCURATE & BRIEF HISTORY OF "CULTURAL MARXISM":

http://www.marylandthursdaymeeting.com/Archives/SpecialWebDocuments/Cultural.Marxism.htm

[Anonymous No.3565374]

>>3565353
>academic
>productive
choose one and only one, ever

>>3565333
A local housing committee is planning to proactively integrate neighborhoods if that's cultural marxism

[Anonymous No.3565389]

wow crack investigating there sport-o you solved the case now the people can not help but see the truth!

real neat thread OP, thanks for taking the time out of your schedule to be a fuckwad

[Anonymous No.3565397]

>>3565295
>Why do stupid things like queer theory exist

Chomsky explains why:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzrHwDOlTt8&t=6m09s

[Anonymous No.3565409]

>>3565389
>anal_devastation.jpg

[Anonymous No.3565424]

>>3565397
lel, je's clearly gone senile, the old twat

[Anonymous No.3565427]

>>3565424
I thought that with the whole "I'm listening to people apparently in my field talking, and it sounds like gibberish" thing.

[Anonymous No.3565446]

Have you actually read Judith Butler up?

[Anonymous No.3565447]

>>3565446
>up
OP, obviously.

I guess that was one of those Freudian tits

[Anonymous No.3565451]

>>3565446
>The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.

In light of this quote, why should I bother?

[Anonymous No.3565467]

>>3565451
is it 2deep4u?

MIRIN VERBOSITY

[Anonymous No.3565485]

>>3565307
My instincts tell me this can't be the explanation for it.

[Anonymous No.3565494]

>>3565485
It has already been explained ITT, shithead.

>>3565373
>>3565314

[Anonymous No.3565621]

>>3565397
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzrHwDOlTt8&t=6m09s


/thread

[Anonymous No.3565625]

>>3565295

Draft-dodging Baby Boomer grad students at Yale with nothing else to do.

[Anonymous No.3565626]

>>3565295
Queer Theory exists because assholes like OP ask questions like that.

[Anonymous No.3565635]

>>3565373
I am fully against it. If humans want to be a bunch of lowly tribal apes forever then fuck 'em and destroy them.

The ones that survive will be the ones who will live in a peaceful world forever.

[Anonymous No.3565637]

>>3565635
I am fully against anything that is against cultural Marxism*

[Anonymous No.3565746]

>>3565635

And what makes you so sure 'Cultural Marxism' will bring about that change?

>>>/r/SRS

[Anonymous No.3565758]

>>3565295

Because we let women think they had worthwhile ideas and a place in a academia.

[Anonymous No.3565766]

>>3565358
"Rationality is envy of Reason"

[Anonymous No.3565787]

>>3565758
faget

[Anonymous No.3565792]

>>3565758
THEY SHOULD JUST DIE RIGHT??

HUE HUE HUEH UEH UEH UEH UEH EUH EUE

[Anonymous No.3565798]

these threads kind of convince me that lit doesn't read

like at all

if you want to know why queer theory exists, read some you tremendous cunthole

[Anonymous No.3565813]

>>3565798
refer to>>3565451

[Anonymous No.3565827]

>>3565798

>Anno Domini MMXXIII
>wasting one's most precious resource on bullshit like queer theory

I sincerely pray you don't undertake such foolishness, fag.

[Anonymous No.3565821]

>>3565798
>using the word 'cunthole' with all its negative connotations and hence inadvertently sustaining and perpetuating the hegemonic patriarchal ideological impassé

[Anonymous No.3565838]

>>3565295

1. slot individuals who feel victimized into appropriate "identity groups"
2. segregate these groups from the "victimizing majority"
3. segregate these groups from other identity groups
4. open avenues of study into these "identity groups,"
5. slot the most intelligent, active, and organized individuals into positions of authority within these groups
6. watch as these individuals battle one another for winner of "the biggest victim" award
7. feel secure in knowing they'll never work together to fight a common evil
8. continue growing your stock portfolio

[Anonymous No.3565853]

>>3565838

From first hand experience, this is what brought down Occupy.

Can't tell you how many good ideas, plans of action, etc. were derailed because of people who cried about "muh identity group politics."

It's killed the left.

[Anonymous No.3565865]

>>3565853

How would you prevent this if Occupy were to start today rather than whenever it did?

[Anonymous No.3565875]

>>3565865

It's made me so bitter. I'm not even sure there is a way.

Identity politics has rooted itself deep in society. It's gone beyond the university.

The notion that it's a "threat to corporate America" is laughable. If anything, it's embraced by corporate America; it's an easy, safe way to divide people into marketable sub-populations.

[Anonymous No.3565896]

It's half-right to blame it on Jews.

Derrida started all this bullshit. Deconstruction is the precursor to all this "feelings-safe" academic politicization.

Careful with your language, your words might deconstruct themselves and unintentionally hurt someone's feelings.

[Anonymous No.3565897]

>>3565875
If it's spread to all of society, surely the left protesting other things don't need to be overly concerned with it?
Fluid gender and identity is the logical conclusion of it all. We need to legalise a few more things before we get there.

[Anonymous No.3565903]

>>3565896
Right but all the language Derrida used was French and the precursor to French is Frankish so it's about 35% right to blame it on the Franks.

Careful with your language, you might say something utterly idiotic.

[Anonymous No.3565904]

>>3565838
nailed it

[Anonymous No.3565910]

Gender is a social construct.
Sex is not.

get it right, fuckheads

My sex is male and my gender is whatever I want it to be.

[Anonymous No.3565914]

>>3565903
Derrida has 0 Frank blood.

Nice try, Jewbacca.

[Anonymous No.3565921]

>>3565875
It's weird, since the left since the 60s or so have been mostly against identity politics (at least beyond their own tribalism, that is the people's fronts v the front of the people and similar). If you look at the race movement or the feminism movement the move has been away from the ideas of different discrete skin colours or discrete sexuality or discrete genders or discrete sexes. I think the fundamental issue has been the debasement of education, especially since the 80s and 90s, in the English speaking west, and some aspects of political correctness. Insofar as political correctness is "being polite and respecting others as people", there's no problem, but there's almost (fittingly) a double meaning, whereby words like sex and gender, or African-American and black, or history and his/herstory come into the discussion and create immense confusion at stages where people are still trying to work out the lay of the land as it were. It also seems to have become much less clear who are agent provocateurs, people there to disrupt and confuse, and that tactic would seem to even have become professionalised more within the workforce.

[Anonymous No.3565924]

>>3565903
Wise compares Derrida's thought to precolonial notions of the word that are rooted in ancient Egyptian and African society. Wise argues that Derridean concept of spirit/specter as occult pharmakon is indebted not only to the Hebraic notion of ruah but also the Egyptian heka, Soninke naxamala, Mande nyama, and many other comparable Egypto-African concepts of the word, some that are historically prior to the Hebraic ruah. Wise suggests that Derrida deliberately elides related African concepts of the word in order to accord Judaism a place of special prominence within the history of European philosophy. He argues instead that European philosophy must acknowledge its historical indebtedness to Middle Eastern and African thought, which is not limited to the influence of Judaism alone.

Checkmate, kike lover.

[Anonymous No.3565931]

>>3565924
Eurpoeans are a bunch of savages.

See what happens when you let a savage (hitler) into power?

there is a reason Jews are the master race. Because they are the only remnants left of the Mediterranean golden age (ancient Greeks, Romans, ancient Egyptians, etc)

[Anonymous No.3565941]

>>3565897

Making gender and identity "fluid" is ridiculous.

The notion that the passing of new laws will usher a new era of "fluid gender and identity" is even stupider.

Every new "privilege law" masks ten laws that strip civil rights or entrench corporate hegemony.

Look at Cuomo in New York.

Week one: Loudly pass gay marriage laws.

* Cue liberal celebrations.

Week two: Quietly pass law that opens rural communities to fracking.

Identity politics does serve a purpose. It's just not the purpose you think it is.

[Anonymous No.3565947]

>>3565941
>Making gender and identity "fluid" is ridiculous.

Why?

>rural communities
Obviously you have a conservative bias

[Anonymous No.3565963]

>>3565931
> kike detected

[Anonymous No.3565969]

>>3565947

> Making gender and identity "fluid" is ridiculous.

Step out of your bubble. Walk to your nearest factory and ask a line worker if she wants to be a genderless "ze."

Wake up. Grow up.

> Obviously you have a conservative bias

Bro, I stand just left of Trotsky.

The point is to get your priorities straight. First you deal with the big issues, then you worry about the small shit.

Solidarity = unified front.

Identity groups = fractious tribes.

[Anonymous No.3565980]

>>3565931
Which is why they went to war in Afghanistan.

> all those blue eyed aryans

[Anonymous No.3566002]

>>3565969
Making fluid is not the same as getting rid of, and is the opposite of making absolutely static. There are plenty of people who are hes that want to be shes and vice versa who work in factories and elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.3566051]

What the hell is 'queer theory'?

[Anonymous No.3566057]

>>3565931

The jews are a born race of slaves. All antiquity was in agreement about that. If they have since inherited the earth it is only because the true master races no longer retain their better instincts, they have dissolved.

[Anonymous No.3566058]

>>3566051
Meet me in the male toilets on the fourth floor of the library and I'll show you.

[Anonymous No.3566062]

>>3566058

Why don't we just head up to the roof with a bottle of whiskey instead?

[Anonymous No.3566065]

>>3566051
http://www.theory.org.uk/ctr-butl.htm

[Anonymous No.3566082]

>>3566065
>http://www.theory.org.uk/ctr-butl.htm

I get the part about a binary division of the sexes being imperfect and constraining to a minority of the population, but it's absurd to discard the reality of sex out of hand simply because an extremely small fraction of the population has issues identifying with whatever they were born as.

For most people, there is never so much as a single doubt as to whether they are male or female; in point of fact, many people find their sex to be a definite part of their identity that in no way could be questioned or abstracted away without destroying their identity wholesale.

[Anonymous No.3566083]

>>3565941
I'm flattered you took my tongue-tip-in-cheek post so seriously so I'll respond in kind.

I wasn't talking about "making" anything, anything. I believe it is the inevitable conclusion an open and intelligent mind will come to; that sexuality, gender and identity are all essentially meaningless concepts. The internet is a catalyst for this. Right now, posting as Anonymous you are being identity fluid. Trolling in one thread, discussing politics in another, shyly admitting to a hairy man who's showing you his cock on webcam that even though you're only 11 you already play with your clitty and think about boys. There are people of both/all genders on these boards who slip in and out of character(s), claiming one or another depending on the context. They are gender-fluid.
Some days, I only get off to redhead lesbians. Other days I might find that only black BBW's pissing get me wet. Another day I might only get hot watching twinks fuck in the shower. That is fluid sexuality.
The self is an illusion, so why would the habits and aspects of self be any more real?
You might find an obese man's small penis repugnant, in much the same way a child might react to a fine whisky. For some it is an acquired taste. Man is a creature that can get used to anything.

If enough people believe in this paradigm then identity politics is made redundant. No one needs or has privilege or privilege laws because those identities are meaningless. Yet more laws still in the law books but consigned to be ignored as no longer relevant, until those books are finally burned.

The only laws that would need changing are drug laws.

None of your presumption I'm just suggesting more of the same.
I'm still being about as serious or flippant as I was in 3565897 (fluid sincerity could be a thing) I mostly just took the opportunity to talk about fluidity.

[Anonymous No.3566087]

>>3566083

Look pal, I'll make it simple for you.

There are male and female, and there is abomination.

[Anonymous No.3566103]

>>3566082
>constraining to a minority of the population
It's constraining to the entire population. It's Kierkegaard's whole if you label me you also negate me thing: I am no longer me, I am an African-American Pansexual Woman who don't need no man, or a WASP married closet homosexual man in the Republican party or whatever. Also, try reading Gender Trouble and see how manifest a "reality of sex" really is.
>simply because an extremely small fraction of the population has issues identifying with whatever they were born as.
That has nothing to do with it. She does discuss it, but you've misread where she's coming from, and transexuality is not really a core point of hers even if it does get discussed.
>For most people, there is never so much as a single doubt as to whether they are male or female;
But there are often doubts as to whether they are "man enough" or "lady like" or need to "man up" or have "feminine intuition" or whatever. And that's all people, not just people that want their junk cut off or stretched out or whatever it is they do now.
>in point of fact, many people find their sex to be a definite part of their identity that in no way could be questioned or abstracted away without destroying their identity wholesale.
Then do they have an actual identity? If there is nothing more to you than having being a man or woman, are you even developed as a person at all, is there anything of yourself that is truly you? I've never met anyone who is only a man or woman anyway, I don't think it exists.

[Anonymous No.3566115]

>>3566087
I agree, but male and female are ideal forms and not real. We are all abomination. We're just too ashamed to admit it yet.

[Anonymous No.3566117]

the fact that you guys care about this shit is embarassing

[Anonymous No.3566121]

>>3565451
Oh God what the fuck/

[Anonymous No.3566122]

>>3565303
owned

[Anonymous No.3566124]

>>3565827
>anno domini
>not falling for that "common era" bullshit

I like you.

[Anonymous No.3566130]

>>3566124
i hate you

[Anonymous No.3566135]

>>3566103

You want to negate sex as a core part of identity, go right ahead, but you'll be catastrophically wrong as far as nature is concerned. You're also trying to void hereditary identity, which is very tiresome because it has been done to death.

There is sex, which is binary and decided at birth, and there is gender, which is an abstraction from sex that some have found necessary to establish their identity in life.

You seem to think there's some absolute kernel of identity that a human being can be reduced to that is sexless, but if you're going to throw out sex, you have to throw out a lot of other things first. Ultimately you're not going to be left with anything concrete, which means your conscious identity will be subject to every chance fluctuation.

You think someone like Alexander or Caesar ever had cause to wonder whether they were truly men? It's an almost absurd notion. Formerly one was effusively proud to be either a man or a woman, a father or a mother. All that your types have done is given people who are naturally strong and secure a dram of identity poison to drink. You shouldn't be surprised when they spit it right out at you.

[Anonymous No.3566139]

>>3566087
Atheist conservatives, truly the worst of the bunch.

I am what I am and you cant objectivity claim otherwise.

[Anonymous No.3566141]

>>3566135
I don't want to be a man or a woman. I want to be a superior individual human.

[Anonymous No.3566142]

>>3566139

another strawman. it must be shitpost o'clock again

[Anonymous No.3566144]

>>3566135
what a boring ethnocentric view of the world

[Anonymous No.3566145]

>>3566065
Wow that website is ancient.

[Anonymous No.3566148]

>>3565451

Do u rike it?

[Anonymous No.3566151]

>>3565838

Disregard dykes, acquire currency

[Anonymous No.3566154]

>>3566130
Fuck off with your godless time.

[Anonymous No.3566157]

>>3565838
That might be the most succinct post I've ever read.

[Anonymous No.3566158]

>>3566144

I might care enough to correct you if I didn't feel like wave of university-jargon would be my reward.

[Anonymous No.3566161]

>>3566135
>but you'll be catastrophically wrong as far as nature is concerned.
If you want to put nature up on a pedestal, complain about hermaphrodites getting "corrective" surgery or breast implants or medicine in general.
>There is sex, which is binary and decided at birth
By a medical professional. Like, again, if a natural hermaphrodite is born, a doctor makes a judgement about whether the child will become a boy or a girl and appropriate surgery is undertaken. Nature has no idea of binaries like "boy" or "girl", but we do, so we intervene.
>You seem to think there's some absolute kernel of identity that a human being can be reduced to that is sexless
It's ability to choose not removal or denial. And it's not reduction, a human being is still a human being whether they have a penis or a vulva or both or neither.
>You think someone like Alexander or Caesar ever had cause to wonder whether they were truly men?
Alexander was a midget and Julius Caesar was cuckolded by Mark Anthony, so you work it out.

[Anonymous No.3566164]

>>3566141

That is noble. The sad thing is that these movements automatically gather the dregs of society which are a million miles from being able to aspire to anything like that. They would rather play the victim until death overtakes them.

[Anonymous No.3566172]

>>3565451

I read Critique of Pure Reason for leisure. What the hell is this?

[critic is gay !H.A58KCjY2 No.3566184]

>>3565295
post-structuralism is being twisted by degenerates to make everything appear as a social construct

[Anonymous No.3566185]

>>3566161

>Nature has no idea of binaries like "boy" or "girl", but we do, so we intervene.

Now I'm inclined to doubt whether you even understand basic biology.

XX codes for female, XY codes for male. Female is the default; the gestation of a male has to be actively induced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_differentiation

and read this while you're at it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans

>a human being is still a human being whether they have a penis or a vulva or both or neither.

What is a man? A miserable little pile of secrets!

>Alexander was a midget and Julius Caesar was cuckolded by Mark Anthony, so you work it out.

Please don't apply contemporary gender mores to antiquity. It creates a very silly false-perspective.

[Anonymous No.3566186]

>>3566184

>Post-structuralism

Good lord, I don't even know what structuralism is

[Anonymous No.3566195]

>>3566172
Out of context quote from the middle of a paper.

Basically, went from "How does the flow of money consistently structure society?" to a mistrust of the "consistently" part (temporality: these apparent structures are only temporary) and so to something like "When someone with power exerts that power, what kind of structures arise? How does it change existing structures?" things like that. It's a move away from finding out the grand structure to looking at how different events influence each other and society.

[Anonymous No.3566200]

>>3566185
>XX codes for female, XY codes for male.
How do you know you have an XX or an XY, you ever checked? What about people with XXX XXY XYY or similar?

Again, this is in Gender Trouble, which is now nearly 25 years old. It's basic stuff to any kind of discussion like this.
>Please don't apply contemporary gender mores to antiquity. It creates a very silly false-perspective.
Oh look, gender is fluid when it suits your argument, wow.

[Anonymous No.3566201]

>>3566195

Is there any particular reason it's so obtusely worded, other than the obvious?

[Anonymous No.3566202]

>>3566200
If gender is a fluid, is it New Coke or Old Coke?

[Anonymous No.3566206]

>>3566184
>degenerates

4_chon faggot detected

>>3566185
Who gives a shit, I don't my superior doings to be thought of as a male thing and only a male human being capable of it.

fuck off with your "real man" bullishit too

[Anonymous No.3566210]

>>3565451
Because you've abandoned structuralist Marxism, but you're avoiding a praxis Marxism such as Johnston-Forrest or Autonomism by hiding behind Gramsci's skirts?

[Anonymous No.3566211]

>>3566201
Like I say, out of context and middle of a paper. You can look at a similar quote in almost any field and it'll probably look about as opaque. You might as well be asking why set theorists like to write things like "complement of" instead "everything but" or "outside of" or whatever. It's partly rhetorical, partly (counter intuitively) for clarification, partly inherited.

[Anonymous No.3566209]

>>3566206
I don't want my*

[Anonymous No.3566214]

>>3566172
>I read Critique of Pure Reason for leisure. What the hell is this?
I'm seven and what is this?

[Anonymous No.3566216]

>>3566211
The more important question is why is Butler trying to salvage Marxism as a bourgeois Ideology by raping Gramsci to death in public?

Fucking bourgeois Marxists.

[critic is gay !H.A58KCjY2 No.3566217]

>>3566186
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-structural_feminism
>Poststructural feminism is a branch of feminism that engages with insights from post-structuralist thought. Poststructural feminism emphasizes "the contingent and discursive nature of all identities",[1] and in particular the social construction of gendered subjectivities.[2] An important contribution of this branch was to establish that there is no universal single category of 'woman' and to identify the intersectionality of sex, race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, nationality, to name only a few.

[Anonymous No.3566220]

>>3566202
Either/or/and/neither/both. It becomes somewhat of an academic question, since we're focused on being ourselves and not on being a particular kind of thing we're told we should be.

[Anonymous No.3566224]

>>3566200

>How do you know you have an XX or an XY, you ever checked? What about people with XXX XXY XYY or similar?

Well seeing as those odds are better than 1:1000 that I'm normal, I don't feel any need to. I know that I'm not impotent or infertile either, so there's really no reason to check.

>Oh look, gender is fluid when it suits your argument, wow.

Well I'm happy to see that went right over your head. You were trying to make an argument that a traditionally masculine man was not so masculine, but the point is that the concept of heterosexual is a recent invention because the concepts of bi and homosexual are recent. The Greeks understood only a passive and active role in sex, so it's silly to judge the 'manliness' of an Hellene by what he liked to put his member in. It is completely different from modern homo or bisexuality. You can blame the Christians for changing the general attitude towards that. But no matter how bad you think you can twist social perception, the fact of the matter is that a man and woman make a baby and any other combination of those two does not.

[Anonymous No.3566226]

>>3566217
>identity politics

You left relevance when you abandoned praxis for intersectionality. Pro-tip: it just means that you're tearing women apart, literally.—The intersection of bourgeois politics and feminist theory is written onto the bodies of Afghani women by the US liberal democratic war machine. Good job supporting the state with your ideology.

>>3566220
And thus for collective subjectivity—identity politics is clearly an attempt to individuate the actuality of working women's collective subjectivity.

[Anonymous No.3566231]

>>3566216
>by raping Gramsci to death in public
Performative raping's very in, plus everyone in Marxism, from Che to Trotsky gets routinely raped in public, it's only fair Gramsci gets a turn.

[Anonymous No.3566233]

>>3566226
There is no privileged female viewpoint though, at least not a massively far reaching one.

[critic is gay !H.A58KCjY2 No.3566234]

>>3566226
I meant to define it, meaning I didn't express support

[Anonymous No.3566236]

>>3566211

I don't think so. As a writer and reader of fairly dense philosophy, I can tell you that whoever wrote that went out of their way to be as verbose and opaque as possible. I don't care enough to clean it up, but someone who understood the material better would have no problem making that read ten times better and say exactly the same thing.

[Anonymous No.3566241]

>>3566226

well the state is pretty much the source of all contemporary woe in human life, so I don't see why bad ideologies shouldn't go hand in hand with it

[Anonymous No.3566242]

>>3566236
>dense philosophy
Oh yeah? Show me what you got

[Anonymous No.3566244]

>>3566236
>As a writer ... of fairly dense philosophy
Don't leave us hanging, post a excerpt.

[Anonymous No.3566246]

>>3566231
The thing is Che and Trotsky are mostly irrelevant as thinkers. Gramsci's contributions are manifold, but the pathetic actions of post-structuralists in forcing their hegemony through his manifold are as obscene as playing "how many broomsticks can we fit in a Guatemalan child whore before her cunt tears open."

Butler's use of hegemony above is one of the naïvest uses I've seen amongst academics. And I've read most of the 1970s academic marxism coming out of an advanced Western country.

>>3566233
>There is no privileged female viewpoint though
The bourgeoisie wants a word with you, through their obligatory cabinet level spokeswomen Condi and Hillary.

>>3566236
Neh, it is a run on sentence, but otherwise pretty clear. Could have done with splitting into four sentences.

[Anonymous No.3566250]

>>3566246
>The thing is Che and Trotsky are mostly irrelevant as thinkers.
Oddly, Che's become massively relevant in UK politics of the right. Trotsky has been and is still relevant to the UK left since I don't know how far back now.

[Anonymous No.3566256]

>>3566250
>Che's become massively relevant in UK politics of the right.

How?

[Anonymous No.3566262]

>>3566242
>>3566244

Oh yes, I am only too eager to bear my genitals before a pack of rabid hyenas.

[Anonymous No.3566277]

>>3566262
atheist detected

[Anonymous No.3566280]

>>3566277

So what? You want a cookie or something for pointing that out?

[Anonymous No.3566283]

>>3566256
They're copying a lot of his arguments as rhetoric in response to austerity (his whole thing that we should come together against a common enemy or threat, and his whole mestizo thing, have become things like "big society"), and there's some element of spin (they're the radical party that have to do what's unpopular for the future). A few commentators have also pointed out similarities in things like speeches from Cameron to Lenin's speeches, so it sometimes gets even more bizarre than pic related.

[Anonymous No.3566286]

>>3566280
I'll have the cookie if that guy doesn't want it.

[Anonymous No.3566291]

>>3566286

enjoy

[Anonymous No.3566292]

>>3565295
Because there is a market for it and people like Judith Butler are willing to sell out to capitalize on a politically motivated trend. Always remember the corruptible force of the all powerful dollar.

[Anonymous No.3566295]

>>3566262
I'm p. sure you've stolen rather than borrowed those analogies at the beginning.

[Anonymous No.3566302]

>>3566280
Looks like you learned nothing then.

Still a slave to science.

[Anonymous No.3566304]

>>3566295

A charge of plagiarism? That's new from /lit/

Is this what happens when something actually good is posted on here? I wouldn't know, I've never seen anything

[Anonymous No.3566307]

>>3566302

I've got you marked buddy, you're not rustling me this time

More silly Dali picture for you

[Anonymous No.3566312]

>>3566304
It does read a lot like a bits of The Development of Machinery from Ch 15 Marx's Capital at that bit.

[Anonymous No.3566313]

>>3566307
How is kierkegaard "clatrap"?

[Anonymous No.3566319]

>>3566312

Never read any Marx myself, but that's interesting.

>>3566313

I knew it was you, heehee.

But look man, I don't actually have anything against the guy, he's a legit philosopher, if a little pious for my tastes. He rails against the bad side of Idealism so I can't hate him.

Don't ask me to discuss philosophers or philosophy, I don't care enough.

[Anonymous No.3566322]

>>3566319
I found your dad to be quite pious in bed.

[Anonymous No.3566325]

>>3566322

[Anonymous No.3566356]

>>3566319
>Never read any Marx myself, but that's interesting.
Well, Canguilhem's name sprung to mind, so if you have copy pasted from him you've not done it succinctly. I also wouldn't call the writing dense, it's just bad.

[Anonymous No.3566360]

>>3566356

And I wouldn't call you stupid, just droll. Have a nice day.

[Anonymous No.3566362]

>>3566360
I think you mean, "And lo, have a nice day". Look how much better that sentence is.

[Anonymous No.3566368]

>>3565451
I haven't read Althusser, so I couldn't follow that bit, but the rest isn't that hard to scan.
Do you even theory, /lit/?

[Anonymous No.3566371]

>>3566368
That quote got some award for being particularly impenetrable IIRC, that's probably where the poster got it from.

[Anonymous No.3566376]

>>3566362

much as I would love to indulge your petty criticisms, there's a lovely girl on the other end of this phone who really deserves my attention more. maybe if you posted something similar from your own work I could get back to you later. unfortunately, you only qualified for a silly Dali picture at the moment. cheers

[Anonymous No.3566392]

>>3566376
>there's a lovely girl on the other end of this phone who really deserves my attention more.
I am induced to think you are straying from engaging with these criticisms. Indeed, as it is doubtful that this reason of a"girl" on the "other end" of this "phone" itself is not flawed and full of expositional holes, one could be pardoned for wondering if you are missing something crucial here-- that good writing isn't mostly fluff.

[Anonymous No.3566402]

>>3566392

sorry, I write philosophy, not college textbooks. maybe you should try reading something besides the latter

hopefully this one will do the trick

[Anonymous No.3566438]

>>3566402
>sorry, I write philosophy, not college textbooks
Is this division not perhaps convenient, conventional and a little contrived?
>maybe you should try reading something besides the latter
At least I'm not probably ignorant of three-quarters of my intellectual activity, Mr Never-read-any-Marx

[Anonymous No.3566496]

>>3565853
>>3565838
these.

except of course, those actually involved in the time/energy wasting pseudo-leftism that is identity politics are almost always white and well-educated - the occasional token minority being those willing to adopt to the language and rules of decorum (which is all this really is, it's the updated version of the old decorum - of the gentleman and lady - that the privileged use to recognize their own and manage power relations - in other words, it's actually the very thing it sets out to criticize)

the groups the discourse argues on behalf of generally are usually left out of the conversation, having no access to its sites or its terms. and in the end, the discourse amounts to a perversely inconsistent argument about the proper way to argue about privilege and victimization, while also make sure to conspicuously fill your quota of feigned offense at some detail in whatever current pop cultural event in order to prove you're of the correct political stripe

so... we have important and worthy issues... feminism, homosexuality, race relations, etc, being misused by academic careerists as a way to position themselves as worthy of tenure/membership to the elite club etc. it's profoundly phony

[Anonymous No.3566521]

>>3565853
>>3565838
these.

except of course, those actually involved in the time/energy wasting pseudo-leftism that is identity politics (distracting everyone from the problem of Capitalism, consumerism, etc, and from having any unity or clarity of purpose) are almost always white and well-educated - the occasional token minority being those willing to adopt to the language and rules of decorum (which is all this really is... the updated version of decorum that the privileged use to manage their ranks - in other words, it's the very thing it sets out to criticize)

the groups the discourse argues on behalf of are usually left out of the conversation (well, wealthy white woman are a part of it, but that whole area has mainly become a discourse of meaningless "empowerment" and a ruthless careerism that does more to re-subjugate and degrade women as voracious consumers and corporate cogs), having no access to its sites or its terms.

in the end, the discourse amounts to a perversely inconsistent argument on the proper way to argue about victimization and privilege (real problems, of course), while also make sure to conspicuously fill your quota of feigned offense at some detail in whatever current pop cultural event in order to prove you're of the correct political stripe

we have relevant issues... feminism, homosexuality, race relations, etc, being misused by academic careerists as a way to position themselves as worthy of tenure/membership to the elite club etc.

it's just profoundly phony

[Anonymous No.3566588]

>>3566250
>Trotsky has been and is still relevant to the UK left since I don't know how far back now.

Trotskism has been relevant to UK politics.

Trotsky's thoughts and theory are irrelevant, other than his one insight on "the programme."

But "the programme" is only a problem for bourgeois parties, not for praxical class institutions.

[Anonymous No.3566623]

>>3566319
>Never read any Marx myself, but that's interesting.
…