THEORY

[INNIT]

[106-2]

what a quote! need to finish 1k plateaus and get onto anti-oedipus.

I would think that it fares pretty well in the context of the reemergence of social ecologies, no? we invented the machine, so to be anthropocentric in that regard surely only makes sense. that's not to dismiss non-human components of the assemblage, but it doesn't seem helpful to consider the machine as totally divorced from its material basis. it's too hot where i am rn to be articulate but what you're saying really makes me think of jason moore's 'capitalism in the web of life'

[popcorn]

would precisely echo Bela's rep comment, you miss a lot of the story when you quote from Anti-Oedipus, because it's written in an incomparably elusive style, it can feel like nothing is called by the same name* twice in that book, saying this as someone who loves and is obsessed with it

I think the "No one has ever died from contradictions..." quote certainly continues to do what it always did: (1) restate the thesis claim that capitalism is a machine that writes difference onto the world and forces subjective actors into production, and (2) piss off maoists?

I would say that the argument holds up well, if you admit that capitalism writes ['inscribes'] "labour shortages" and "climate crisis" onto the world, then those phenomena do admit of understanding as ways that capitalism forces us into production. To discuss climate change contributes to individuals' desiring-production of different styles of work, different diets, different images of homes, different images of urbanity, different taboos (on beef? on dairy?), and so on. We can still say "being is," we can still say "the universe exists," "there is nothing but the eternal dao," but our discourse instead has climate change in it. Our discourse has the unemployment and eviction crises in it. These ideas animate us as much in our chatter as in mating and in our "production."

And so I prove you exactly right that it's easy to use Deleuze(-with-or-without-Guattari)'s concepts, and much harder to once again rip the sky open.

[bels]

That anti oedipus quote is about how pointless it is to take time off work. Using your allotted holiday is a scam.

[kickingthefly]

fred m is most important non-hashtag in art world, u read it here first fellow teens

https://artreview.com/power-100/

[INNIT]

[kickingthefly]

judy may not be rad at this point but they've been enormously influential on fred, saidiya etc- wasn't this your exact argument when i said how sick i was of dimwit photographers droning on about camera lucida?

(anyway you're assuming that any one involved in these lists actually reads any of this stuff, i'd pay money to see a bunch of gallery directors/biennale curators on a podium asked to give even a basic delineation of fred's thinking)

[INNIT]

[JewTurk]

Anyone got hot takes on Jordan Peterson?

Seems like his perspective aligned with a certain school of thought and everyone just ran with it. But I keep seeing people (with seemingly very different perspectives than ones he shares) rec his book with 12 pieces of advice and figure I should at least read it.

[BobbyZamora]

[INNIT]

[BobbyZamora]

If useful discussion is to be derived from a figure like JP, it's probably best to look at the circumstances that allow someone like him to become so prolific in the first place- I would personally blame the exact kind of rhetoric you've responded with as the reason people of his ilk have gained so much support in recent years. This type of reductive, divisive attitude in which you merely condemn others is not constructive- you simply gain more support from those who don't need to be convinced and drive away those who do.

When I see this kind of rhetoric from people I otherwise agree with, it feels to me as though those espousing it are woefully out of touch with how the majority of people think and what they respond to positively. Do you want to change minds and gain allies or are you just trying to sniff out "enemies"? Which do you think is more useful?

[UnwashedMolasses]

The fact that you were ready to condemn apolitical non-voters in an election between two awful candidates but you're ready to hold out an olive branch to open transphobes says a lot more about you than about whatever political strategy shit you think you're doing here

[BobbyZamora]

This is not "extending an olive branch to open transphobes", I am not a JP apologist, I am questioning the efficacy of the rhetoric of his detractors- particularly the rhetoric targeted at his followers. Not everyone who listens to figures like JP is a lost cause (even though some are!) and treating them as such is quite the self-fulfilling prophecy.

There is no perfect solution to complex and nuanced problems, you cannot bend people to your absolute will just because your ideas are correct. I can accept that for many in the US voting is simply nonviable due to factors beyond their control, but my position on apolitical non-voting doesn't otherwise contradict my stances here- we live in a democracy and compromise is ultimately the basis upon which our society is founded- if you're unwilling to at least try to engage with the opposition or make compromises then what is the point of discourse at all?

[UnwashedMolasses]

[BobbyZamora]

[INNIT]

[BobbyZamora]

[maj]

this is the dumbest shit i've ever read, it's like you guys have somehow missed 4 years of politics lmaooo

jordana pete can suck my big fat girl dick and his incel ass followers cant take a whole strip of paracetamol before a bath

[maj]

.

Yall missedd out in some great slams,like some of my best xoxox

[sknss]

Stop talking shite