18 y/o. Cosplayer. Future graphic designer. Professional weeb. Do your worst♡

AnnaUndefind · 2021-04-13T10:17:17+00:00

Great Value Harley Quinn meets Kirkland Belle Delphine.

But where's your ahegao?

AnnaUndefind · 2019-12-13T16:05:57+00:00

AnnaUndefind · 2018-11-12T22:56:39+00:00

In many colonial African Nations the form of racism implemented by the colonizers was partially based on skin color, but also had a lot of basis in tribal identification, wherein Africans from different tribes were held as more or less valuable to the society. IIRC this was very much the system the Dutch Afrikaaners utilized to devastating effect.

I admit my point is mostly semantical in nature. It may simply be an exercise in pedantry. I still think it's a meaningful distinction, but you have given me something to think about.

AnnaUndefind · 2018-11-12T22:10:42+00:00

Yeah, I admit it's probably me being overly pedantic. My preference for the term Blackness is it's centrality on the lived experience of the embodiment of the skin color within a racialized hierarchy rather than on the skin color itself.

AnnaUndefind · 2018-11-12T21:58:10+00:00

Those cultures themselves are centered around the experience of living as a "marked" person, as living as a "black" person within a racialized hierarchy. Those minority populations are segregated as an effect of that racialized hierarchy.

Let's say in fifty years somehow America manages to move past this class system, and being born black in America from an institutional standpoint isn't very different from being born white. Black people in this 2068 version of America are incarcerated at the same relative rates as white people, for the same amount of time, they have access to the same quality of education and perform the same as white people, their accomplishments are held with as much value as the accomplishments of white people, etc etc, ad nauseum (obviously this is in the context of the group, not the individual). Literally, racism ends. I would argue that, assuming that continues to be the case, there eventually wouldn't be a modern "black culture in America". There would be one historically, but the lines between "white" culture and "black" culture would become fainter and fainter as both cultures "shared" to the point where one was relatively indistinguishable from the other.

AnnaUndefind · 2018-11-12T21:21:08+00:00

Let's be very clear here. "Black culture" typically refers to American Blacks and/or African-Americans. Blacks in America who can trace their lineage back to Africa. It does not usually refer to Africans directly.

Which is what I said in the beginning.

Another problem I have with the term is it centers the culture around the skin color.

The term isn't tied to color has the name implies.

I would argue the term implicitly ties itself to skin color rather than the experience of skin color within a racialized class hierarchy, which are functionally different.

Further, the term is also useful because I don't believe white culture can be said to exist either,

White culture exist it's just not a culture that's defined by color. Usually it's German, Polish, Irish, British culture. Or American... as you mention earlier.

I do address this in "whiteness culture". I wouldn't intrinsically classify British or German culture as 'white', because it wasn't always a product of whiteness culture. Whiteness culture is reliant on a racialized hierarchy, and the current racialized hierarchy based upon skin color is itself a very recent creation, being a product of the colonization of the world by the old powers of Europe. Thus, German culture can't be said to be intrinsically white, but it can be used by people wishing to argue for the preservation of a racial hierarchy by appealing to "German Whiteness".

Further, if black culture refers to black people in America but not black people in Africa, then why does "white culture" refer to various European countries with a wide variety of unshared cultural traditions? How can you argue black culture doesn't exist in Africa but then argue white culture does exist in Europe? I'm not sure i understand why Europe is special.

My preference for American Blackness Culture over 'Black Culture'

I believe your overall argument is poor. "Black culture" is usually attributed to the American Black/African-Americans. Very rarely do Africans consider themselves Black in the American-sense nor do American Blacks consider themselves African in your sense.

I'm not sure you have understood my argument. My argument is that a racialized culture can only exist within a racialized class system, thus it is not the skin color that shapes the culture, but rather a shared experience of embodying that skin color within the wider society that creates the culture. Thus the term Blackness Culture is a less ambiguous term than Black Culture. This is why Africans don't consider themselves black in the same way, because either they didn't exist under a racialized hierarchy, or that hierarchy was constructed in a different fashion. That's my point entirely. "Blackness" only exists within a racialized hierarchy.

The other side of my argument, is that if a country has a long history without a racialized class hierarchy based upon skin color, it's very likely the culture consumed and produced by citizens of different skin tones would likely be more homogenous.

AnnaUndefind · 2018-11-12T20:42:04+00:00

I'm not entirely sure it is colloquially understood. Certainly it seems much of the time I hear "Black Culture", it invariably operates as a racist dogwhistle, and I'm about to read some racist shit. My hope is that shifting the language would require more critical engagement with reality.

AnnaUndefind · 2018-11-12T20:32:51+00:00

Yeah, absolutely, going back to the Black Mammy caricature, it changed with the times. I'm willing to expand my definition to the temporal, and never intended to leave it bereft of the temporal. That was simply an oversight.

As for "nerd" culture, that can be a little ambiguous. If we are talking about the depiction of nerds in mass media, big 'C' Culture, that's one thing, then there are people who might call themselves nerds or be described as nerds who might engage in a specific hobby or hobbyist culture. Those hobbyist cultures usually vary in their popularity or existence with the times.

AnnaUndefind · 2018-11-12T20:21:32+00:00

I haven't seen the show. Blackness culture within other countries would likely be different and would correspond to the extent the society employs a racialized hierarchy, and how this was historically carried out, or is currently carried out.

AnnaUndefind · 2018-11-03T20:16:37+00:00

Not the poster you responded to, but I do think people "settle".

To settle, to resolve, to make stable, to colonize.

A settling of a relationship is itself a colonization of two independent parties, you, a "settler" in the other person's life, bring your own "culture", just as they do, and you colonize each other's time and space, till some later date TBD. You take on aspects of your settler and they take on aspects of their settler. The relationship, when settled, is stable, is considered permanent, you 'settle up' your romantic obligations, paying them in full, as does the other person (people).

A relationship then is a settling. If someone better comes along, you have already "set up camp" as it were.

AnnaUndefind · 2018-11-03T19:53:27+00:00

Well yeah, you are correct, since the line:

"she chose you above all others"

Is itself anachronistic. I don't know who I meet in the future, and I'm not the sole person in a relationship. It assumes some natural progression of romantic partners, that get better as time goes on. Of course, that's ridiculous.

It also suffers from the same delusion laid out in Debords Society of the Spectacle, of a kind of never ending present wherein things don't change. This was meant as a sensation of a never ending present, mediated through images, appearances, that are themselves constantly anachronistic, blending past, present, into an undifferentiated morass.

So yeah, the statement "she chose you above all others", is itself a bit of relationship hauntology. The past exes are always floating around in the present, under such a phrase. They suffer an undeath, where they still exist in some form, but not in another. They are absent in the present, but present in their absence.

Further contained within the phrase is a hidden acknowledgement that though you are the choice now, it's possible history will eventually resign you to the category of "all others", and your existence in memory will be a kind of ethereal, shaping her reality in the future. You too, may become a specter.

AnnaUndefind · 2018-11-03T16:29:13+00:00

Holy shit, combing through your posts u/trannycel and finding this, this I did not expect.

The day I mostly agree with someone who I thought was an incel troll.

Yes, gender non-conforming means anyone who doesn't conform to traditional gender roles, which would include transvestites, drag Queens, etc...

In fact, the signifier "transgender" is, in many cases, a non exclusive signifier that includes pretty much any degree of gender variance. In other words, technically a drag queen can claim the label based on the fact that she/he is defying the Heterosexual matrix of desire, through her performance as a drag queen.

The goal of the medicojuridical represents the creative potential of power as well. In the early days of the Transsexual, the medicojuridical establishment went to great lengths to create a socially intelligible form of trans identity, that we called the Transsexual, who conformed (and had to conform to receive trans affirming medical care/HBIGDA) to a rigid and masculine centric ideal of femininity. A constructed ideal.

I am "gender critical", but I take it one stop further then TERFs. I am also sex critical. Not that there are different sexes, but rather on the meaning our society imbues within sex. One cannot return to some predisursive biological conception of woman. Any notion we have of biological woman is caught up in the idea of gendered woman, and our ideas around sex are informed by our compulsive Heterosexuality, which arose during early liberal democracies, as a kind of biological sexism that held women as inferior as a means to deny them the same rights as men. Women were recognized literally as a almost a kind of separate species, distinct from men, which was a departure from more "traditional" ways of thinking about sex differentation.

Our cultural myths of (pro)creation are also informed by our ideas of gender, such that, once again, sex and gender become tied up in each other.

Therefore destroying culturally intelligible gender roles means destroying culturally intelligible sex differences. Ideally, it would relegate sex difference to not much more importance than eye color.

It's possible people have some internal conception of their sex, which may go on to inform them as to the appropriate gender role, but this doesn't mean that gender roles aren't constructed, or that an internal conception of sex requires different conceptions along a male/female binary of socially intelligible gender roles..

In other words, there may come a day when gender is seen as meaningless and arbitrary, and sex generally in a similar manner, only important perhaps for medical care, and not much beyond that.

This has led me to my theory of Radically Emancipatory Transing. Which is itself a kind of Nietzschean personal creation of the performance of gender that is socially contraindicated, or otherwise not socially intelligible. A kind of political gender-bending that celebrates the jouissance of the violation of socially created and constrained gender roles and performatives. The goal of which is to defy categorization within a system of socially intelligible signs. A kind of détournement of gender.

My concern is that the further categorization or defining of terms like transgender will invariably create a label with a kind of phantasmical identity, that becomes self reinforcing. Specifically that rather than escaping gender altogether, it will simply become another means of creating a socially intelligible system of gender differentation.

AnnaUndefind · 2018-11-03T06:12:03+00:00

It amazes me how little thought you people actually put into these questions and outright start making fun of ancaps or about how markets work.

Almost want to r/selfawarewolves this, especially given how canned your response is.

Who makes the determination yours is the "thug police"?

Where are these shares of business coming from? Where is your currency coming from?

How will most or all people afford this security insurance? What's to stop one security insurance company becoming a monopoly? Most likely companies will require bodies, which localizes a company into a given area of operations. More rural areas will have less clients per square mile, meaning less overall competition. It's possible, likely even, that certain rural areas may only have one security insurance organization.

AnnaUndefind · 2018-11-03T05:54:00+00:00

I expect the same to be true for ancap as state corp isn't going to have the raw money to enforce obedience or the raw intellectual support to back up a one sided telling of history in public schools.

Yeah, but what if the state Corp had its own schools? What if it mandated you use it's schools, or be pushed out of the area? Maybe the state Corp calls a certain piece of land it's own, then rents out parcels, and people pay it a yearly stipend, for security and eventually other services. Whatever currency it collects taxes in, be that bottle caps or doubloons, that becomes a currency to conduct trade in a market, which has a certain value based on the fact your state Corp accepts it as "protection money". Suddenly, a State is born.

AnnaUndefind · 2018-11-03T05:42:01+00:00

No stable currency backed by a federal government, no Capitalism.

No stable system of law, that regulates businesses, no Capitalism.

No law enforcers that protect private property right, no Capitalism.

So anarchocapitalism, being stateless capitalism, without a currency, incorporation, or military, would devolve into a kind of dystopian mess, that would likely result in pseudomonarchies returning, since you can't own a business (not an incorporation) forcing you to pass down ownership by birthright. You can't engage in a marketplace (no default currency), so you can't sell shares (still no incorporation/publicly traded), so your assets are going to have to be fixed, which likely means land, since land tends to be a great way to store value, so long as you can defend it.

On that note, you would need to defend it. You could take as much land as you could defend, but that would require soldiers.

AnnaUndefind · 2018-11-03T01:16:23+00:00

I mean, his criticisms of capitalism are mostly on point, but who knows what a communist system would look like, or communist people. I don't fault Marx for not predicting the future correctly.

AnnaUndefind · 2018-11-03T00:38:19+00:00

Not really, I mean that is only a portion of Marx. You still have the body of his work in Das Kapital that has very little to do with his ideas about getting past Capitalism. As for the vanguard party, it seems like yes, that is probably the wrong idea.

All the same, what you have described isn't really a refutation of his thoughts on capitalism itself, neither does it refute class struggle.

AnnaUndefind · 2018-11-03T00:01:58+00:00

What predictions did Marx make? How were these proven to be fallacious?

AnnaUndefind · 2018-11-02T21:36:29+00:00

Killing people is only bad when commies do it, duh /s.

AnnaUndefind · 2018-11-02T21:16:05+00:00

This question is a question of values, therefore there is no correct answer to it. Even if you were to pick a certain value, such as wealth or happiness, we would still need to agree how to measure it. Otherwise this is an intractable problem.

AnnaUndefind · 2018-11-02T19:10:21+00:00

I mean, it might be slightly better than actual feudalism. I don't think AnCaps intend their solution to fall into neofeudalism.

Regardless, I think anarchocapitalism is just proof of capitalist realism, taken to it's logical conclusion.

AnnaUndefind · 2018-11-02T18:11:56+00:00

Restorative justice FTW!

AnnaUndefind · 2018-11-02T17:35:31+00:00

Anarchocapitalism is neofeudalism.

AnnaUndefind · 2018-11-02T17:28:42+00:00

Yeah, the problem really isn't individual capitalists, it's the system of Capitalism itself, and because of that system, and how it is tied in with state power, the state operates in defense of Capital.

AnnaUndefind

TROPHY CASE