Kritiks
meanmr...@my-dejanews.com
starts to truly believe their kritiks after they start winning rounds with
them. just because you can find one or two or maybe even three people who
have written books that say saying the word "nuke" is bad doesn't mean that
it is. words have no intrinsic value. it is the intentions behind them that
make them mean something. there are no bad words. i could say "nuke" all
day long and i don't feel that i would be trivializing the subject nor would
i be "numbing" anyone. it is just an abbreviation for nuclear weapon. i
would really like to know the implications. the same thing goes for any
other kritik. why is feminism so much better that patriarchy? why is
normative thought bad? what makes cultural imperialism so evil? somebody
give me real world examples here.
drh
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
SNbkwm
>make them mean something.
No, it is the interpretation of a statement that gives its meaning.
>i know that i am going to piss some people off, but why is it that everyone
>starts to truly believe their kritiks after they start winning rounds with
>them.
Actually, I've never won a Nuclearism debate. The rounds where I've run it,
I've had completely conservative panels. They all told me that my Kritik was a
horrible position. I've had teammates win rounds with Threat Construction, and
they don't agree with it. I don't base my philosophies on what wins rounds,
because bullshit wins rounds.
Matt Singer (a.k.a. "Rabid Badger")
Bronc Debate
http://www.warbarge.com/BroncDebate/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This has been a public service announcement.
zapata
meanmr...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7e7540$3fs$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>i know that i am going to piss some people off, but why is it that everyone
>starts to truly believe their kritiks after they start winning rounds with
>them.
no, it's not that i win rounds with them, i haven't even run too many this
year, i've been debating affirmatives that don't work well even in policy
debates. but it's definitely not a "winning" thing for me, i just don't
believe in systems of thought control.
>just because you can find one or two or maybe even three people who
>have written books that say saying the word "nuke" is bad doesn't mean that
>it is.
we'll get to this in a sec
>words have no intrinsic value.
ok, this is not correct, how can you profess that words have no value? words
are our only transmitors of thought, there's not other way for humyns to
communicate, if that has no value, nor impact then there's nothing that
would, I would go the opposite direction and say that words have all the
intrinsic value in the world, as our communication they would have to
contain that for debate even to make sense, the word is the only way for
that to operate, words do have value, thats why a kritk of language would
make sense.
>it is the intentions behind them that
>make them mean something. there are no bad words. i could say "nuke" all
>day long and i don't feel that i would be trivializing the subject nor
would
>i be "numbing" anyone.
read carol cohn, the language of nuclear weapons and nuclear war planning is
insidious, nothing about them makes sense, the ways in which nuclear
planners have framed nuclear language demands that we ignore the facts and
accept nuclear war as "the way it goes" and anyone who says otherwise is
simply wrong, that's a bad way to think. To accept nuclear war under any
circumstance is bad, to think that nuclear weapons are ok, and will never be
used, because we have fail-safes, and a reliable detterent or some other
bullshit is not good.nuclear weapons can kill every living thing on the
planet, we can't afford to think thoughts like that. this is not just the
claim of a few authors, it's the thoughts of anyone who examines the subject
and thinks about it even a little bit, (i.e- they're sane, and coherent)
>it is just an abbreviation for nuclear weapon. i
>would really like to know the implications.
see above, read carol cohn, bulletin of atomic scientists august 1987
> the same thing goes for any
>other kritik. why is feminism so much better that patriarchy? why is
>normative thought bad? what makes cultural imperialism so evil?
because killing people is bad, because silencing thought is bad, because
domination of another for your own gain is evil, that is why these things
are bad, 1984 is a time that i don't want to live in, and these all are just
another brick in the wall to getting us there.
>somebody
>give me real world examples here.
"peace is relative but it depends where your relatives live" bradley klein
you want real world examples?
back to history 101
Afghanistan
angola
bosnia-hersegovina
cambodia
chad
ethiopia
iran
iraq
kuwait
namibia
nicaragua
northern ireland
somalia
sri-lanka
sudan
the west bank
the gaza strip
hiroshima
nagasaki
north korea
vietnam
and they call this peace?
drew
M. Williams
> this is not just the
> claim of a few authors, it's the thoughts of anyone who examines the subject
> and thinks about it even a little bit, (i.e- they're sane, and coherent)
This is bullshit, pure and simple. Your quote from the beginning of the post
("i just don't believe in systems of thought control") is *directly*
contradicted by your rant about every "sane" and "coherent" person agreeing
with your position. In fact, I'll bet our good friend Foucault would have a
lot to say about this in his books, especially _The Birth of the Clinic_ (the
title may be slightly off, but I think that's it). You are attempting to
establish a knowledge/power structure that uniquely justifies your
interpretation of "normality" and what is and is not your conception of Truth.
Those who don't support your system of thought are insane and in the words of
Foucault, "have no knowledge." By creating this dichotomy between the sane and
those who disagree with you, you begin to setup a system of oppression and
thought control. Oh wait, you wouldn't do that . . .
> see above, read carol cohn, bulletin of atomic scientists august 1987
See above, read Foucault.
> because silencing thought is bad,
You mean by things like calling people insane if they don't agree with you.
[Oh yeah, you can't kick out of your word usage because you've already
established that word usage *does* have impact and must be used carefully. If
you kick out of your usage of language, so can the people you indict of using
nuclearist discourse. That could be a problem.]
Matthew Williams
Bonneville Debate
Idaho Falls, Idaho
lbf_superstar
>The rounds where I've run it,
>I've had completely conservative panels.
Were they completely conservative, or is it just a very liberal
argument to begin with? Nuclearism to me sounds like an extreme form
of political correctness. Make no mistake, I agree with some
political correctness, but not nuclearism.
LBF superstar
BSicwa
>Bonneville Debate
>Idaho Falls, Idaho
That was the single best post I've ever read on this newsgroup. Thank you.
Joker
chased him away. Those were the best.
>> this is not just the
>> claim of a few authors, it's the thoughts of anyone who examines the
subject
>> and thinks about it even a little bit, (i.e- they're sane, and coherent)
>
>This is bullshit, pure and simple. Your quote from the beginning of the
post
>("i just don't believe in systems of thought control") is *directly*
>contradicted by your rant about every "sane" and "coherent" person agreeing
>with your position. In fact, I'll bet our good friend Foucault would have
a
>lot to say about this in his books, especially _The Birth of the Clinic_
(the
>title may be slightly off, but I think that's it). You are attempting to
>establish a knowledge/power structure that uniquely justifies your
>interpretation of "normality" and what is and is not your conception of
Truth.
>Those who don't support your system of thought are insane and in the words
of
>Foucault, "have no knowledge." By creating this dichotomy between the sane
and
>those who disagree with you, you begin to setup a system of oppression and
>thought control. Oh wait, you wouldn't do that . . .
I think that you're right, at least in some sense. How am I going to phrase
this?
It may be true that there's no such thing as a "good" discourse. For
example, feminism is, in the same way Drew portrays nuclearism, a "good"
discourse, but only because it's perceived as an underdog. On the other hand
(and this is Matt's argument), it holds up the "unique" abilities of womyn
above men. (Maybe not normal, but something that men can never achieve, and
often portrayed as superior in a way. In other words, exclusionary.) In that
sense, it's no better than patriarchy; if the dominating discourse of our
society was feminism, it's conceivable that there would be just as much
oppression, just reversed.
Applied to nuclearism: it's possible that nuclearism could be a dominating
discourse as well. A more pragmatic analysis suggests that if nuclearism was
the dominant discourse of our particular social system, we'd probably living
in a safer (i.e. non-nuclear world).
However, the Foucauldian analysis would probably suggest that even "benign"
discourse such as nuclearism has the potential to be oppressive, i.e. by
marginalizing those who depend upon nuclear weapons for security. A possible
scenario could be attacking a country because they functioned under
nuclearism and were thus a threat to the "safe" world order. But that's the
only example I can come up with right now.
However, I don't see that that's an entirely cogent argument. I don't think
that a non-nuclearist discourse is necessarily oppressive.
The first argument I'd make is that "not thought control" does not
necessarily equate to another form of thought control. Basically you're
claiming that all normative statements, or statements that
qualify/quantify/make a value judgement upon others are just elements of
another dominating discourse. But I think that what Drew is doing is
claiming that those types of statements are bad, but he's using a normative
statement to say that. I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing.
The create an example: if I claim that the KKK is evil, that doesn't
necessarily make me a racist (against white people anyway). That just makes
me anti-KKK... in fact, I'm against racism. Similarly, if Drew says that
nuclearists are bad, it doesn't have to follow that he is reinforcing the
opposing discourse, just that he's attacking the dominant one.
The second argument is that nuclearism is a uniquely disciplinary form of
control, not simply one more type of discourse (and it has elements beyond
discourse). Perhaps I'm setting up a false dilemma, but I think that if
Foucault had to choose between the two discursive modes, he'd probably
select the one that didn't involve holding people in control under the
shadow of the bomb. More on that in a sec.
I can foresee two alternatives:
1. I still think that maybe what Drew's doing there is wrong, but I don't
see anything wrong with attacking a discourse, as long as you're not doing
it from the standpoint of another discourse. That is, he can claim that
nuclearism is bad, but not that nuclearism is bad because it's not
non-nuclearism. (Besides the fact that this is a tautology.) I think that
attacking the dominant discourse is a valuable activity. For instance, I
could make an argument against Foucault from the same ground with which Matt
posits his original claim by saying that Foucault is reinforcing a discourse
based around the value of insane people, simply because Foucault attacked
the dominant order which dictated the truth about what is sane and not sane.
This would obviously be ridiculous. I suppose that if Foucault had done what
Drew said, and claimed that those who tried to classify sanity were insane,
it might have been silly, but I still don't think that it would justify a
performative contradiction.
2. There is, of course, the option that any discourse has the propensity to
become dangerous when it's the only one around (i.e. the dominating
discourse, of course...) I'm not sure that I can believe that. Personally,
I'm inclined to think that if everyone functioned under nuclearism, the
world would be a better place. But then again, maybe I'm biased. Maybe my
pragmatic sense of a "better world" is misplaced.
What I do think is possible is to erect a standard for evaluating two
different canons or discourses. Personally, I choose "love" as my
standard... some other unnamed debaters do as well. Departing from there, we
could evaluate the nuclearist and non-nuclearists discourses based upon
love. The latter produces love, the former does not. It's that simple. I
suppose that then the possibility arises that "love" could become a
dominating discourse... I'm not convinced that this would be a bad thing. I
can't see how, anyway. (Of course, once again, see the preceding
paragraph...)
Perhaps a natural extension of this option would be to apply the point
above. That is, to select a discourse based upon its potential to be
disciplinary. Perhaps we could uphold as our ideal one of non-discipline. (I
think that love and nuclearism would fit within that standard). My point, of
course, is that I don't think that all discourse is bad. Perhaps the only
thing that is "bad" (and I think that Matt sort of got to this in his post)
is discipline, and the exclusion of other voices. This is what Drew did in
his post. This is the main problem with Rage Against the Machine. :) How
appropriate is it to hate those who are evil? Does that necessarily make you
good? I don't think so-- but I think that this is the trap Matt was
describing.
<snip>
>You mean by things like calling people insane if they don't agree with you.
>[Oh yeah, you can't kick out of your word usage because you've already
>established that word usage *does* have impact and must be used carefully.
If
>you kick out of your usage of language, so can the people you indict of
using
>nuclearist discourse. That could be a problem.]
Um... no. I would fully condone and support anyone who wanted to stop using
nuclearist discourse. Furthermore, I think it's pretty shortsighted to
contend that one is damned forever if one ever uses a negative form of
discourse. I used to say "nuke" pretty frequently, but I've since rescinded
that (clearly), pretty vehemently, and I don't think that anyone could
confidently criticize me of being nuclearist. It's ludicrous to close out
any possibility of reform or discovery. People learn and change.
Language changes; discourse changes. This is a difficult question, but I
find it difficult to accept that nuclearism is a dangerous form of
discourse. Maybe there's an alternative I haven't thought of yet.
~Seth
SNbkwm
>argument to begin with? Nuclearism to me sounds like an extreme form
>of political correctness. Make no mistake, I agree with some
>political correctness, but not nuclearism.
I'm saying conservative debaters. I had all three tell me to keep my LD
philosophies in LD. One said that the quotation that should be remembered is
the 2ac's statement, "Nucs are bad, let's get rid of some of them." When I
questioned him as to why we shouldn't get rid of all of them. He said we needed
some. It has nothing to do with the Pinkoes v. Limbaugh. Also, you seem to have
a very narrow view of the Kritik. Nuclearism goes beyond words like "nuke."
There is more to the Kritik.
On a sidenote, Matthew Williams, you kicked some ass in your post.
Cnfuzzd
>starts to truly believe their kritiks after they start winning rounds with
>them.
interesting. First, does this perhaps reveal your own invisible process of
validating knowledge based on winning? (This would be a wonderful time to cross
apply mathew's post)
Also. i think that your suggestion is pure idiocy. I am willing to risk
catagorizing here, and will just say that you are an idiot. not in the
traditional, deaf-dumb type of person, jus someone who doesnt have a clue, no
empathy, and isnt very sensitive.
On the nuclearism debate. I have had problems with this kritik myself in the
past. My antics are probably very vivid to some on the group. then.... i
witnessed techno-strategic discourse being employed to 'hide' (mask) what was
actually happening, and the effect that it had on those around me. It was a 3
star general discussing nato bombings, and, while i cant remember verbatim, i
saw people around me, who otherwise would have reacted to death with horror and
revulsion, react in a very pleasant, even reassured manor. It was the ultimate
episode of Authority using power to employ certain discourse to control
reactions. I still think that there is a certain utility to being aware and
exploiting techno-strategic language, but i am now aware of the terrible
affects such language can have when employed by those commonly associated with
the State, and because of that, i sincerely apologize to charles and seth, and
anyone else whom i may have offended during my raving rants.
On kritiks in general. You are, as i have said, are an idiot. Kritiks are much
more than a couple of books. The closest approximation i have found, and this
is slightly essentialises several arguments simply based on the label kritik,
is the analogy of moral systems. Ive often compared my belief in, say, fighting
heterosexism to christianity, although there are a multitude of diffrences.
> why is feminism so much better that patriarchy?>>
First, you are confusing terms. Feminism is a social movement/type of
philosophy, where as patriarchy, or as i prefer, heteropatriarchy, is a system
of power and social control. Episodes of violence created by heteropatriarchy
include mathew sheppards death, child abuse, rape, sexual discrimination,
female genital mutilation, the feminization of poverty, anorexia/bulima, many
suicides, lesbian baiting. Need i go on?
When you say that feminism is that alternative to patriarchy, i owuld first say
that the concept you probably meant to employ would be a matriarchy, and, that
a matriarchy isnt the alternative to patriarchy.
>why is
>normative thought bad?
Didnt anyone else see the humor in this question?
>what makes cultural imperialism so evil?
Well, the exploitation of third world nations for corporate profit, slavery
(racism and cultural imperialism are very closely linked), the cold war, the
extermination of the rain forest and those aboriginal peoples within it,
aboriginal americans demise, the murder of a mr. konerak by jeffrey dahmer
(read peter kwan, every article he has written involves that situation) most
ethnic discrimination.
>somebody
>give me real world examples here.
I trust these are sufficient.
peace
john nickle
Billy Pilgrim
misconception here. allow me to clarify.
> > this is not just the
> > claim of a few authors, it's the thoughts of anyone who examines the
subject
> > and thinks about it even a little bit, (i.e- they're sane, and
coherent)
>
> This is bullshit, pure and simple. Your quote from the beginning of the
post
> ("i just don't believe in systems of thought control") is *directly*
> contradicted by your rant about every "sane" and "coherent" person
agreeing
> with your position.
the argument is founded in the literature he's drawing from and from the
ideas within our own heads. one of the main (perhaps the central) pillars
of the post-realist argument is that the structure of international
relations theory is a literal insanity.
drew is not saying "nyah nyah, you don't agree with me so you're nuts,"
he's identifying a method of evaluation (nuclearism) that is structurally
insane.
it is 'insane' for exactly the reasons you list below. it shuts out other
methods of conception. not only does it shut them out, it kicks them while
they're down, and spits in their faces. that is quite literally
'insanity,' the shutting out of any external reality for one's own personal
subjective truth and then the re-creation within one's own head of that
subjetive truth as an objective Truth.
> In fact, I'll bet our good friend Foucault would have a
> lot to say about this in his books, especially _The Birth of the Clinic_
(the
> title may be slightly off, but I think that's it).
nyah, appeal to authority, you lose! all appeals to authority are wrong,
seth told me so.
> you are attempting to
> establish a knowledge/power structure that uniquely justifies your
> interpretation of "normality" and what is and is not your conception of
Truth.
i don't think so. i think the parenthetical nature of the original
statement that drew made makes this a little hard to understand, and i only
get it because drew is one of my best friends and i know what goes on in
that boy's head, but he is not trying to justify his own conception of
rationality, he is trying to *de-justify* an alternate perspective. that
is a deconstructive act, rather than a construtive act.
his conception of Truth is not particularly relevent here, only his
identification of an insane conception.
> Those who don't support your system of thought are insane and in the
words of
> Foucault, "have no knowledge." By creating this dichotomy between the
sane and
> those who disagree with you, you begin to setup a system of oppression
and
> thought control. Oh wait, you wouldn't do that . . .
what it comes down to is this. simply identifying a perspective of the
world which eliminates thought, which quite intentionally shaves off
certain parts of one's mental clockwork (see the quote from 'mother night'
i posted a couple of days ago) as insane is not a constructionist action.
if foucault says it is then he's just nuts.
> [Oh yeah, you can't kick out of your word usage because you've already
> established that word usage *does* have impact and must be used
carefully. If
> you kick out of your usage of language, so can the people you indict of
using
> nuclearist discourse. That could be a problem.]
why is that a problem? what?
what kind of crack do they sell in idaho, matt?
even my rhetoric is proven to have been bad, what is the cataclysmic impact
to letting me apologize and reconstruct my world once again?
apparently it means "If you kick out of your usage of language, so can the
people you indict of using nuclearist discourse."
what a tragedy that would be!
Charles Olney
Oak Harbor, WA
Living my life forever with the memory of Julia Burke and all that she
could have been. Your bright star snuffed too soon, my only goal now is to
honor your life by living my own. We all loved you, Julia.
Joker
>
>are stubborn creatures. We can hear all sorts of things about our leaders,
>and crisises (sp?) over the seas and STILL formulate our own opinions about
>what is going on, and how it could be done better. We are not a race prone
>to being brainwashed easily,
I couldn't help but snicker at this. A concentrated media blitz can
completely sway public opinion with no trouble at all. Good propaganda does
wonders and it's kept a lot of good people blinded for years. (For instance,
the first month of the War on Drugs media campaign was able to sway public
opinion across the board. This is a good statistic. In August 1989, an
open-ended survey had 3% of the people in America defining drugs as the
number-one problem. After the War on Drugs was launched and after the
concentrated media blitz, an identical survey in September revealed that the
figure had changed to 42%. Hmmm... Amazingly, things like this happen all
the time. Most Americans think that 100,000 Vietnamese died in the Vietnam
War.)
>and I refuse to accept that by simply thinking
>the word "nuke", or anything related to nuclear weapons, we are running of
>risk of total human annihilation. If I wanted everyone to believe that the
>sky was green, and I went around inserting the word "green" into my speech
>patterns, in the hopes that it would cause everyone I came into contact
>with to see green, that would be almost as ridiculous as saying that the
>word "nuke" will lead to some cataclysmic event.
Um... as a debater, I think that you might want to take a class or two in
what's often referred to as "logic." That's known as a false analogy, or
possible a complete non sequitur.
You need to read Carol Cohn's article. Charles has it on his web page (I
can't BELIEVE I am posting this link again) at:
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/7157/cohn.html
>Since I'm only a lowly LDer, and have absolutely no CX experience... I'll
>stop there. However, since this debate turned somewhat philosophical, I
>felt it my duty to add my two cents.
Hm. Something that's always puzzled me: except for a few notable exceptions
like Nozick, Rawls, etc, LDers don't seem to run anything from any
philosopher after the turn of the century. And all those that they do, like
Nozick and Rawls, are basically Classical philosophers anyway. Why not some
postmodernism? Or at the very least, something recent? Are LDers just afraid
of it? Are their judges? I think that the modernism v. postmodernism debate
would be a very interesting one for LD... Then again postmodernism isn't
especially conducive to the concept of "values," I guess. Maybe that crap
should just be scrapped. It's just an ossified convention anyway.
Oh well.
~Seth
M. Williams
> the argument is founded in the literature he's drawing from and from the
> ideas within our own heads. one of the main (perhaps the central) pillars
> of the post-realist argument is that the structure of international
> relations theory is a literal insanity.
Sorry, "literal insanity" is still a concept created to alienate those a
certain class objects to. Furthermore, you aren't even describing what would
normally be clinical insanity. Having a different mode of though (stucturalism
v. post-structuralism, deontology v. consequentialism, realism v. liberalism,
etc.) *does not* in any way qualify someone as "insane." They may have poor
arguments, but that doesn't equate to insanity. Additionally, just becuase
someone doesn't belive George's IR pillars doesn't make them anything other
than someone who isn't persuaded by George. Finally, if the "literal insanity"
argument really is main component of his IR theory, then George is also part of
the knowledge/power oppression structure. You rid the world of the "evils" of
realism and/or nuclearism but yuo simultaneously create other oppressive
structures.
> drew is not saying "nyah nyah, you don't agree with me so you're nuts,"
> he's identifying a method of evaluation (nuclearism) that is structurally
> insane.
And structures that define people as "insane," or again in Foucault's words
"having no knowledge," then you create a system of oppression. That's my
original argument and it really hasn't been attacked.
> it is 'insane' for exactly the reasons you list below. it shuts out other
> methods of conception. not only does it shut them out, it kicks them while
> they're down, and spits in their faces. that is quite literally
> 'insanity,' the shutting out of any external reality for one's own personal
> subjective truth and then the re-creation within one's own head of that
> subjetive truth as an objective Truth.
Interesting. Foucault also says that by the sorts of labelling you advocate,
systems are created that shut out other methods of conception. It's just as
oppressive to say that those who don't buy your arguments are "insane" as any
utterance of technostrategic discourse or the like. Additionally, your
discription of Sartre's conception of praxis at the end of the above paragraph
is completely taken into account by Foucault who founded many ideas upon
Sartre's work. That means, your calling people "insane" is as morally
objectionable as someone saying "nuke." The supporters of nuclear weapons and
those opposed are both trying to legitimize their unique knoledge/power
structure by labelling the others.
> nyah, appeal to authority, you lose! all appeals to authority are wrong,
> seth told me so.
Well, if Seth said so . . .
> i don't think so. i think the parenthetical nature of the original
> statement that drew made makes this a little hard to understand, and i only
> get it because drew is one of my best friends and i know what goes on in
> that boy's head, but he is not trying to justify his own conception of
> rationality, he is trying to *de-justify* an alternate perspective. that
> is a deconstructive act, rather than a construtive act.
Whether justifying his ideas or de-justifying others, it doesn't impact my
argument much. The argument simply is that labelling someone as different,
insane, etc. simply serves to undermine their voice by saying they aren't
upholding your conception of Truth. Finally, whether the act is deconstructive
or constructive doesn't matter, it's pretty irrelevant.
> his conception of Truth is not particularly relevent here, only his
> identification of an insane conception.
And his identification of insanity has a purpose. If that purpose is not to
support his concept of Truth, maybe he can tell us what the purpose of the
statement was.
> what it comes down to is this. simply identifying a perspective of the
> world which eliminates thought, which quite intentionally shaves off
> certain parts of one's mental clockwork (see the quote from 'mother night'
> i posted a couple of days ago) as insane is not a constructionist action.
So what? Who cares whether it's constructive or destructive in nature? The
dichtomy in the knowledge/power structure still creates systems of oppression.
Furthermore, there is no clear distinction between that which is and is not
deconstruction. Many have described the act of deconstructing existing ideas
as creating a new system devoid of the harmful assumptions of the past.
Foucault's argument (in _The Birth of the Clinic_) is that the dichotomy -- and
a false one at that -- is oppressive and will be used by powerful minorities to
oppress others.
> if foucault says it is then he's just nuts.
Maybe, but I don't think calling him "nuts" does much good.
> what kind of crack do they sell in idaho, matt?
I don't know. Idaho is more of a meth area. I hear Idaho Falls has some good
meth labs.
> even my rhetoric is proven to have been bad, what is the cataclysmic impact
> to letting me apologize and reconstruct my world once again?
Maybe there is no cataclysmic impact. That, of course, would mean that there
is no impact to nuclearist discourse. Then again, maybe there is an impact.
In any case, regardless of the impact, we can ascertain that nuclearism and the
knowledge/power structures that Foucault opposes are both heavily (although not
solely) grounded in the use of discourse. Thus, the impacts would largely
mitigate eachother. Furthermore, you must remember that my response was in
referrence to the original poster who took a slightly different stance than
you.
In short, it seems quite easy to support your position of anti-nuclearism
without the use of language that serves only to portray others as abnormal
because they don't agree with you. If you can't persuade without such
rhetorical tactics, maybe your position simply sucks (I don't agree that it
does, but there are better forms of communicating it). Why not simply avoid
the whole knowledge/power thing since you gain nothing by resorting to the
"insanity" argument (unless you actually need it to win your position among the
masses).
M. Williams
> >why is
> >normative thought bad?
>
> Didnt anyone else see the humor in this question?
.. . . these are the momentus questions, and these are the wrong questions.
-Pierre Schlag, Penn. LR, 1991
Jodupo
Are they meant to be used in analyzing policy? Some are; some aren't.
<snip>
>It may be true that there's no such thing as a "good" discourse. For
>example, feminism is, in the same way Drew portrays nuclearism, a "good"
>discourse, but only because it's perceived as an underdog. On the other hand
>(and this is Matt's argument), it holds up the "unique" abilities of womyn
>above men. (Maybe not normal, but something that men can never achieve, and
>often portrayed as superior in a way. In other words, exclusionary.) In that
>sense, it's no better than patriarchy; if the dominating discourse of our
>society was feminism, it's conceivable that there would be just as much
>oppression, just reversed.
Seth is making a point about how we percieve discourse, but it presents
another valuable standpoint: feminism can be just as damaging as patriachy.
Feminists justify advocation by saying that since males are in a position of
authority, we should place females as superior to males to even things out.
Now, quite obviously, there are problems with both philosophies (each
justifies subjugation). But it doesn't make them bad.
If you debate and advocate feminism (or patriachy), then you open yourself
up to the performative contradiction because of the nature of the way we debate
kritiks (i.e. idealogy X is evil because it justifies Y. Replace it with
philosophy A).
In the real world, both patriarchy and feminism are seen as "extreme". The
same with Nuclearism and non-Nuclearism (what is Non-Nuclearism called anyway?
Anti-Technocracy?). If both are diametric opposites, then Nuclearism
represents Realsim, nuclear deterrence and any sort of military action while
non-Nuclearism represents Liberalsim, a non-nuclear world and complete
pacifism.
Again, stepping away from the debate world, I think that most people would
agree that Realism and Liberalism both have useful aspects. Absolute nuclear
deterrence is undesirable, but complete pacifism is not realistic. In real
life, humans are not pure good or pure evil, but a combination. Therefore, two
opposing discourses can be useful in explaining different actions or methods.
When you kritik technocratic or authoritarian language, you must add some
sort of weight, like using terms such as "nuke" or "ballistic missile defense"
actually make nuclear war more probable. In doing that, you obviously, as Matt
pointed out, open yourself up to a counter-kritik. The authors don't have to
create an impact on par with a DA, and don't have to condense their carefully
worded lifes' work into an 8 minute explanation.
If you think that this kind of kritik debate skews people's perception of
what the arguments really are (and judging from all the posts we've had, that's
a distinct possibilty), don't run them. Or, start a movement to change the way
we kritk.
On a final note, if we had a perfect form of government or guiding idealogy,
wouldn't everyone subscribe to it with little persuation?
-------:)Joe Pollak
Billy Pilgrim
> Sorry, "literal insanity" is still a concept created to alienate those a
> certain class objects to. Furthermore, you aren't even describing what
would
> normally be clinical insanity. Having a different mode of though
(stucturalism
> v. post-structuralism, deontology v. consequentialism, realism v.
liberalism,
> etc.) *does not* in any way qualify someone as "insane." They may have
poor
> arguments, but that doesn't equate to insanity. Additionally, just
becuase
> someone doesn't belive George's IR pillars doesn't make them anything
other
> than someone who isn't persuaded by George. Finally, if the "literal
insanity"
> argument really is main component of his IR theory, then George is also
part of
> the knowledge/power oppression structure. You rid the world of the
"evils" of
> realism and/or nuclearism but yuo simultaneously create other oppressive
> structures.
i think you're missing the point. at least in *my* conception, and i think
drew's as well (like i said, the parenthetical nature of the comment on
which all this discussion is based makes it difficult to evaluate what
people *meant* to say), describing realism as "insane" is not an attempt to
make a pejorative statement.
seriously.
listen, realists have come unstuck in time. re-read my last post, i'm not
trying to objectify them or describe them in opposition to my own ideology
and thus make them seem bad. i'm simply saying their ideology is
*actually* insane.
it's that simple
> > if foucault says it is then he's just nuts.
>
> Maybe, but I don't think calling him "nuts" does much good.
JOKE
Obadias Felmore
this. just for my benefit.
> >words have no intrinsic value.
Agreed.
> words are our only transmitors of thought, there's not other way for
humyns to
> communicate, if that has no value, nor impact then there's nothing that
> would,
Which comes first? Thought or speech? Obviously thought. The expression
of our thoughts comes in MANY different forms. Not just words. Almost 80%
of all communication between humans is body-language, voice inflection,
facial expressions etc. Therefore, the words are only a vehicle to make
clearer the idea or thought we are trying to convey. An actor can express
anger, happiness, fear, loathing, disgust, to an audience without ever
saying a word (Mimes??). Indeed, it is the _meaning_ behind words that
make them powerful and effective, not simply the words themselves.
> we can't afford to think thoughts like that.
Interesting.... thoughts can kill? It stands to reason that human beings
are stubborn creatures. We can hear all sorts of things about our leaders,
and crisises (sp?) over the seas and STILL formulate our own opinions about
what is going on, and how it could be done better. We are not a race prone
to being brainwashed easily, and I refuse to accept that by simply thinking
the word "nuke", or anything related to nuclear weapons, we are running of
risk of total human annihilation. If I wanted everyone to believe that the
sky was green, and I went around inserting the word "green" into my speech
patterns, in the hopes that it would cause everyone I came into contact
with to see green, that would be almost as ridiculous as saying that the
word "nuke" will lead to some cataclysmic event.
Since I'm only a lowly LDer, and have absolutely no CX experience... I'll
stop there. However, since this debate turned somewhat philosophical, I
felt it my duty to add my two cents.
TTFN.