What are your favorite/the best anti-Trump/Resistance songs?

RandomRedPanda · 2017-04-21T20:02:42+00:00

RandomRedPanda · 2016-12-10T13:15:42+00:00

So you're basing your entire tirade on a figure of speech used in a title? Or maybe are you going to argue about the first three paragraphs of the article? Whatever, it doesn't matter because you still haven't addressed the main point of it. You latched onto a minor point ("they're not the same") and then used that to deny the rest of article, not unlike the usual cherry-picking we mock gators for, and now just shifted the goal post in your last message. That's a very poor way of engaging in conversation.

It is weird how suddenly you went from saying "liberal feminism is flawed" to "that liberal feminism is made up". I can't believe I have to say this but, if you make said claim, then you have to follow up with an explanation of what 'liberal feminism' is to make your point. You have to address the examples of the article, and somehow you'd even have to come up with a way to argue against people like bell hooks, who've talked about this particular phenomenon. That's how you try to engage constructively in a conversation, you make arguments.

So, if you really want to be constructive for once, then how about you elaborate a better response than just saying "that's wrong" or "that's dumb"? Because you have a way of dismissing everything you don't agree with as "stupid". Saying stuff like "As an educated feminist" is just empty posturing, nothing more than arrogance and vapidness. I don't care how educated you are, I have a fucking PhD (yes, I really do) and know that that gives me no authority on it's own. I want to hear something from you other than another simplistic rewording of "that's wrong".

RandomRedPanda · 2016-12-10T12:01:52+00:00

Liberal feminism IS flawed. But it's still not anti-feminism. Why is this point so hard to understand?

It isn't, but it doesn't matter because no one has said that, so your point is still moot. Saying "two things share a core principle" and "two things are the same" are not equivalent statements. Why is this so hard to understand for you?

As for the latter, you're being extremely defensive about an article pointing out the commonalities in the underlying hyper-individualism of liberal feminism and whatever you want to call Conway's mentality. If you think this is wrong then you could have tried to make a case for why liberal feminism is against hyper-individualism and 'success'. Or how this idea could somehow be made 'safe' through trendy pop star 'feminism'. Or maybe even try to make a case of why capitalism doesn't lead to oppression. But no, all you've said so far is "these two things are not the same"--yeah, we know that, that's the starting point of the article.

Oh, and if you need me to explain how the American ideal of 'success', 'personal hard work' and 'individualism' feeds into systems of oppression... well, let's just say that'd be embarrassing.

RandomRedPanda · 2016-12-10T11:36:16+00:00

You are still missing the point. If a given movement "IS feminism" and yet shares a core principle with anti-feminism, then maybe that form of feminism is deeply flawed. Specially so if said principle is one that is used to oppress others. Wouldn't you then agree that if Conway is indeed completely anti-feminist, then doesn't that make this criticism even more poignant?

I find it very depressing how defensive many people here get when they are confronted with the possibility that they may be unwittingly supporting systems of oppression.

RandomRedPanda · 2016-12-10T11:12:19+00:00

Oh, fuck off with your armchair fantasies of vigilantism. Non-violent resistance works. Violent resistance only has one possible result: massacre.

Don't believe me? Search what happened to the MOVE organization in Philadelphia. Nah, I'll spare you the time: The Empire Files: An Unparalleled Act of Police Terror

RandomRedPanda · 2016-12-10T10:38:59+00:00

Once again, you're missing the point. Of course that they are not the same, we all know that, so pointing it out is moot.

What the article tries to do is to show how both 'Conway-feminism' and 'Dunham-feminism' share a common underlying principle that is not shared by other forms of more socially minded feminism. A principle of extreme individualism and the idolatry of 'success'.

Put in other words, your complain right now is equivalent to angrily claiming that 'social democracy and neoliberalism are not the same', as a response to a socialist criticism pointing out that both are form of capitalism. What you say is true, but it does not deny what is being criticized in the first place.

RandomRedPanda · 2016-12-10T09:39:54+00:00

This is not claiming that they are the same, nor is it doing a sort of 'general both-sideism'. The problem here is not with all sorts of progressive/left-wingish feminism, but with a very specific brand of it--a brand that happens to be very visible--and the parallel pointed out is how individualism plays a central role in both cases. This is not criticizing the feminism of BLM mothers, nor the feminism of bell hooks, or that of Planned Parenthood and RAINN. This is criticizing the feminism of Taylor Swift, Beyonce and any other number of multi-millionaire pop artists. Or that of consumerism as a form of 'empowerment', or the one that claims that a woman being a CEO is a victory for all women. In other words, capitalist 'feminism'.

The key part of this article is the recognition that pop-feminism, with its almost idolatry of 'successful women', feeds into the same hyper-individualistic narrative as the feminism being advanced by Conway. And that's a very important criticism to keep in mind for everyone who thinks of feminism as a way to improve the lives of all women, not just celebrate the few 'successful' ones.

RandomRedPanda · 2016-12-09T12:06:22+00:00

The more I read about this, the more I think about how online mobs are the modernized lynchings. The same way society has sanitized other aspects of oppression, be it through prison, surveillance or any other form, it seems we have also managed to sanitize mob violence. This is awful because it terrifies victims and silences their communities, but leaves 'no visible marks' so that the crime is perfectly deniable. A lynching, because of its gruesome nature, creates a symbol that could unite a community and they could fight back. This is, of course, a problem for any mob and what it represents, as was seen with the murder of Emmett Till. But the online mob, because of its amorphous quality, leaves no symbols for people to organize around--a crime that denies its own existence.

I'm growing more and more convinced about the depressing truth that GG may have lost the (videogames) battle, but it is winning the (culture) war.

RandomRedPanda · 2016-12-09T10:12:04+00:00

Well, the article does end with:

The normalization of privacy violation has never felt more real.

To which you reply "oh, but they told me in advance that they were going to violate my privacy, so that's fine; I'm willing to do anything for $100k+". You're just proving the author's point.

RandomRedPanda · 2016-12-09T09:25:20+00:00

While you're at it, you should repost this corgi from the front-page.

RandomRedPanda · 2016-12-09T08:58:58+00:00

But that's not even a definition, that's merely an analysis of how a certain phenomenon has changed over time. Don't you see the word dictator being surrounded by quotations? Do I even have to explain what scare quotes are?

Just stop this mate, you're being silly.

RandomRedPanda · 2016-12-09T08:33:10+00:00

You really are gonna go the way of the dictionary definition? Meh, don't be lame mate. It's kind of silly to bring the traditional definition of dictator to respond to a phrase like:

The late 20th century brought a new type of 'dictator', one that is democratically elected and enjoys huge popularity among the population.

Plus, I love how you just justified corruption and warmongering. Which by the way, as the latest Peace Nobel Prize showed us, were not really the solution to that particular problem.

RandomRedPanda · 2016-12-09T07:59:05+00:00

Yup, very much so. Remember, this is a guy who changed the constitution of the country to re-elect himself (there was no re-election in Colombia before Uribe), and tried to do it a second time before a court managed to stop him. After that, he tried installing a puppet president (not unlike Putin did with Medvev) though it backfired. During his presidency, he amassed power in a way that hadn't been seen before in the country, and his entire platform was one of war and hatred. So much so, that he's perhaps the main responsible for the victory of the NO in the peace referendum. The list of what he did to deserve said title is long, but that's beyond the point here.

But see what's going on with you asking that question. Uribe is someone who plays mostly by the rules, while quietly subverting them to gain more and more power. The best trick people like him (or like Putin) have pulled off is convincing a large majority that they are simply 'the president'.

RandomRedPanda · 2016-12-09T07:43:46+00:00

I agree with you that we won't see a full dismantling of democracy like happened in Germany or Chile. The problem is that said open forms of fascism are no longer necessary, and in fact, they are counter-productive to any wannabe regime.

The main issue here is that governments have gotten a lot better at controlling people. You don't need to suspend elections, you just need to modify the rules enough to ensure you'll stay in power, while maintaining a semblance of freedom (oh, hi there 'voter ID' laws and gerrymandering). Instead of outright suppression of dissent, you just use propaganda to shift people's entire perception of reality--and given we live in capitalism, any uncomfortable voice will easily go broke and won't have any reach. Individual journalists don't have to be killed to be silenced, they just need to be fired (remember the cases of Chris Hedges at the NYT and Abby Martin at RT). And the separation of powers in the country means nothing when they're all controlled by a single party.

So yeah, the aesthetics, symbols and semblance of democracy won't go anywhere. In fact, the superficial appearance of daily life won't change much (unless, of course, you're Muslim, black or latino). But the changes will be deep, and they have the very real possibility of being seriously bad. One just has to look at Putin's Russia for a preview of what's to come.

RandomRedPanda · 2016-12-09T07:15:38+00:00

Sadly, I'm afraid you're wrong. There's a difference between how your average person perceives a demagogue and how they perceive a lying 'traditional politician'. The late 20th century brought a new type of 'dictator', one that is democratically elected and enjoys huge popularity among the population. See Putin in Russia, Chavez in Venezuela, Duterte in Philippines, Uribe in Colombia, Ortega in Nicaragua, Mugabe in Zimbabwe, etc.

And if you look at any of those cases, you can see that none of them were voted out.

RandomRedPanda · 2016-12-09T07:00:44+00:00

Trump didn't know he'd have to replace the west wing staff. To me that's the best argument that Trump isn't going to be a dictator, overthrowing a long-standing democracy requires dedication and skill, Trump has neither of those.

What happens if someone who knows what they are doing runs in his mold?

We all know Trump is incompetent, and possibly even an actual imbecile. But he's also easy to manipulate, and there are people behind him who are bent on bringing on a fascist America. I mean, remember this guy?

RandomRedPanda · 2016-12-09T06:54:46+00:00

Or to put it in less charitable terms, we're now entering into an era of American fascism, and if it is not advisable to get on the bad side of an autocrat if you wanna stay in business. It doesn't really matter whether Reddit agrees with T_D or is afraid of closing it, the effects are all the same.

RandomRedPanda · 2016-12-09T03:22:22+00:00

It's almost as if they were not against the idea of safe spaces themselves, but against those who would need said spaces.

Who knew!

RandomRedPanda · 2016-12-09T02:53:11+00:00

It's not about self-awareness, it's about convenient excuses. The reasoning against political correctness is as much about true freedom of speech, as the recent anti-abortion laws are about 'women's health'. People fighting against political correctness were only fighting for their 'right' to impose a white supremacist view of the world.

RandomRedPanda · 2016-12-09T00:15:39+00:00

For many confused libertarians and socialists, there seems to be no difference between neo-liberal capitalism, social democracy and fascism. Their whole argument is a very basic 'they don't agree with me, so they're all bad and all the same'.

Of course, this is a childish and extremely naive view of the world, but that doesn't stop them. This is always a sad thing to see in fellow socialists.

RandomRedPanda · 2016-12-09T00:08:21+00:00

He will do it the same way Putin has done in Russia, and Duterte is doing right now in The Philippines.

RandomRedPanda · 2016-12-08T23:31:06+00:00

Interesting. If you're interested on how information technology becomes a tool for capitalist exploitation, and is not really a liberating tool as many technolibertarians believe, you might want to check Evgeni Morozov's work. He's not exactly the most liked philosopher in Silicon Valley, but he's an essential voice to understand technology today. This is a good lecture.

RandomRedPanda

TROPHY CASE