Well, your mileage may vary, I just bristle at the hagiography. I think that was one of his weakest works. Again, a shitty person in a position of power is going to depict criticism of themselves as "neoliberal capitalism emulating a facade" etc.
-
-
Replying to @DockCurrie @anti_minotaur
But how was Mark in a position of power?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @anti_minotaur
I'm not saying he was, I'm saying he wrote a boring manual for people in a position of power to delegitimize, stygmatize, pathologize and dismiss those who critique their position. At best it is easily recuperable *by* Jordan Petersons, even if not written from the same place.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
People in positions of power don't need manuals on how to stigmatize those who critique his positions. It's about the pizza hut worker who gets fired from his job and doxxed because he said something racist on facebook when he was 11 years old.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Right, so its about stigmatizing those who call out racism. You see how that line gets pushed? You say 'when he was 11,' what about when he was 14? When does the threshold for 'actually needs to be held accountable for racism' kick in? Its a defense of privilege and reaction.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Age is beyond the point: I am simply highlighting the ridiculous ends to which these accountability processes will go. Perhaps the threshold that you describe is another problem with the puritanism that has been usurped by 'leftists' and technocapital, insofar as these
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @e_goeth @DockCurrie and
accountability processes can never seem to determine a threshold themselves: Often times, the threshold oscillates between extreme excess and sheer pettiness. It ALWAYS, however, stops before 'calling out' any true power relations. Not to mention, to support any accountability
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @e_goeth @DockCurrie and
processes that involves the ruining of ones life, job, and so on is absolutely indefensible.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I'm quite sure that Jordan Peterson et al would enthusiastically agree. That's my point.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
What does that even mean? The point is that agreeing on a problem doesn't invoke the same solution nor does it flatten the distinction between the proponents of a thesis. Like saying some religious folks think earth is not the center and some Copernicans also believe that thesis.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
It's just flat-out leveling of differences by the adjacent-logic.
-
-
Fisher did that himself by having a flat, one-dimensional text easily recuperable by anyone looking to delegitimize those who critique them.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DockCurrie @NegarestaniReza and
No, your understanding of it is one-dimensional. Fisher is specific; "The first law of the Vampires’ Castle is: individualise and privatise everything. While in theory it claims to be in favour of structural critique, in practice it never focuses on anything except individual[s]"
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.