"literally all" added to the same shit heap as "unnecessarily slander"
"literally all" added to the same shit heap as "unnecessarily slander"
Miller sounds like he has difficult personal problems and should have never been allowed to travel to DPRK.
The other two, imprisoned Americans are evangelicals and can rot for all I care.
May all tankies receive 6 years hard labor and all mentally suffering people be set free.
the misfits aren’t even good
Anonymous said: conservatives say liberals are fascist, liberals say conservatives are fascist, how is this different from socialist critique of liberalism and conservatism as both being fascist? not a gotcha question, I want to learn more
The dichotomy between liberal and conservative comes out of the specific class formation that capitalism created in order to develop itself through the primitive accumulation phase. It involved the creation of social hierarchies based on skin colour and genitals and such that could be used to justify violence on a massive and genocidal scale, securing the consent of some of the populace by allowing them a small part of the booty. This evolved first into a situation in 18th and 19th century Europe where capitalists were united under a liberal/whig party and feudalists were united under a conservative party. Slowly, feudalists themselves were turned into agricultural capitalists through reforms like the end of the corn laws, and the two parties became the two wings of capitalism. Liberals are typically internationalist in character, believing that capitalism should be continually pushed to its greatest bounds, and this means that the state must take over some functions in society to ensure its proper stewardship. They also wish for rationalization, including the removal of old social prejudices to a degree to make capitalism more dynamic. Virtually no nation in history developed through capitalism without strong state discipline of individual firms, without socializing the costs of research and development, and without doing major amounts of economic planning, possibly through proxies like the military-industrial complex or simply straight up like japan’s MITI. Conservatives on the other hand are the group of fearful provincial capitalism. They embody what capitalists hate about democracy, that the state powers used to expand capitalism could also be used to take their property from them. They believe in the lies of capitalism about social hierarchy and fear the loss of the continued violent coercion that keeps property safe. Liberals on the other hand believe that letting black people and homosexuals and such be rich improves capitalism’s standing in the eyes of the poor, helping them to believe that they one day may be rich too. American political discourse tortures any concepts until they became staid, nondescriptive, predictable, simplified and entirely controllable, so these ideas manifest as “big government, small government”. Based on these signifiers, American pundits then proceed to bash each other by noticing that one or the other had parallels in an old and hated enemy, Nazi Germany, the fascists. This group represents the failure of both capitalism and communism, the former to keep the state, the latter to seize the state. They’re closer to conservatives in the sense that they believe in the lies of capitalism about hierarchy and in the direct application of violence to gain their goals, and that they’re typically those provincialists who are excluded from the power halls of capitalism on most days, the petit bourgeoisie, upwardly mobile professionals who resent both the upper and lower classes as parasites. They do tend to discipline firms that don’t follow their policy dictates though. However, under fascists as under liberals and conservatives, property is safeguarded no matter what. Instead, they’re a threat to the internationalist capitalist order because they believe in national capitalism, not international capitalism, and will stop capitalism from expanding in a more totalizing manner. They’re also ideologically motivated to fight communism in the extreme, meaning they can be useful at times. We’ve reached a point where capitalism can set them up and knock them down with relative ease, such as the 1965 Indonesian coup and the 1998 Indonesian revolution, where American and world bank dictates were able to cohere and eliminate governments in a matter of hours (4 in the latter case). Socialists note that it’s only capitalists that use fascism because it’s inherent in capitalism’s crises, and bash the entire system for its creations, where as liberals and conservatives are only looking to score rhetorical points by comparing their opponents to an old hated enemy in form but not substance.
i missed this. like.
The glamorized white lowlifes, to use the old word that i think works best as a generalization here, illustrate a kind of individualism many white people see in themselves and not in others.
When we examine class and race together, we can realize how destructive the tropes are for everybody and can recognize a hierarchy of oppressive production where white people are most free from oppression and black people are most oppressed. The tropes teach a determinism for blackness and an individualism for whiteness. I’m using the traditional binary black-white here for a reason. A consistent spectrum of white to black in white supremacy exists, from white to less white.
Can you imagine a breaking bad with black characters being produced in the US? It’d be too real, too obscene, and it’d break all the rules organizing how we discuss white people passively cultivating a society in which white people are the shining beacons of enlightenment for all not white people.
These white characters, by the way, are often based on real people white people loathe. Whiteness likes to imagine itself as a transgressive order that cultivates a rugged individualist spirit struggling to survive in the midst of insurmountable odds. Especially in the US, we have tucked away the old engine of social production ”the wilderness” into our shirts and keep it close to our hearts.
The antiblackness in whiteness composes black characters as debased individuals who suffer their state of affairs, make poor choices, and end up responsible for their state of affairs. We aren’t supposed to ask what caused their state of affairs. That’s just ordinary. On the other hand, Walter White has cancer and Jesse Pinkman needs a father and both have big hearts and so, you know, give them a break.
Whiteness sees in white lowlifes a grotesque upward mobility full of seething excess worth dwelling upon for a while. If a character were other than white, a narrative would be too realistic. This anti-realism is very problematic.
seven hours of teaching today. that is teaching from 8am until 9pm. a long day. swore i’d stay off tumblr. failed.
We’re working with first graders (sophomores) on Nancy Farmer’s House of the Scorpion. Farmer’s book has been very useful to teach basic literary skills. We’re reading Octavia Butler’s Parable of the Sower next, which is much more complex and engaging. Farmer has been a good warm-up. (Although Farmer’s social politics are very problematic. Her interview in the afterword is a major letdown as it includes casual fear-mongering about immigration into the US across its southern border.)
They’re working for a hundred minutes to create three, ten-minute presentations today and presenting next class.
Praise and I co-teach this class. I have three sections for twelve hours a week and she has the sections for six hours. The students love intro to lit because it’s six hours of English language work that is as enjoyable as it is difficult. We’ve created a five semester “AP” English track at our school. From second semester of first grade until graduation, the courses increase in difficulty with three semesters focused on building reading and writing skills. Third year, they get AP lit during the first semester and an English Composition course the semester of their exams. We develop college application essays and hone critical writing skills.
We’re trying to develop a strong curriculum. And I believe we have support. Our Korean colleagues have so much to contend with teaching for exams and handling EFL duties for the lower level students that they’re happy we are invested. In Korea, though, a counter-productive over-emphasis on science and maths classes exists. The homeroom teachers scold students for working on anything else, not recognizing that the critical thinking and rhetoric education in our classes is entirely in support of the work the students do in other classes. We’re all problem-solving.
We have 200 students in each year and 33 students in advanced English lit classes in first grade. This is great. I’d like twenty percent enrollment next year. That’s as high as we can expect. I want to maintain this number going forward. In second year, students here take conversation courses with another foreign teacher. I teach the AP track. Bringing a strong curriculum the students enjoy to our school board can help broaden learning culture here.
Really, the studying for the test culture is so popular here, the third year of school is mostly nothing but testing study. So much course work is crammed into students’ first four semesters of high school. And they take night classes at our school. Hagwons are banned. Our lit courses are a great relief for many of the students who can use their skills in English to carve out student-directed learning and discourse within a very competitive and authoritarian educational environment where being able to perform well on tests is the most important aspect of life.
I’m happy to work with them day and night to justify keeping us around for them.
I can actually think of situations when “unintentional praise” would be accurate and precise where as I can’t think of any situation in which “necessary slander” makes sense.
sure. and that’s why i think it’s the opposite of slander. slander is intended harm offered at a time where some other spoken representation is called for and whatever the word for unintentional praise might be is unintended benefit at a time where criticism is expected. so, you’re right. unintentional praise might be accurate and precise where slander is always going to be problematic.
I apologize in advance for my simplicity; but maybe everything that lifts instead of dragging things down?
C’mon. No need to apologize. ^^~
If I said, “Hey, don’t unnecessarily slander him,” that leaves room for slander to be appropriate at some time. In a very significant way, slander is always unnecessary, I guess. To insist some slander is unnecessarily offered suggests that we might find the appropriate place and time to slander. That’s very strange. At least, that usage would change the particular nastiness of the act described by that word.
Slander, unless I’ve always had it wrong, is a pejorative, as it’s a false representation of someone that is meant to hurt their reputation. Something like that. Slander never has an appropriate time; furthermore, slander can never be “necessary” because it’s always an intended harm offered at a time when some constructive criticism or praise is deemed more appropriate.
The opposite of slander is something like unintentional praise. The claim that “they unnecessarily slander Lenin” is as nonsensical as “they unintentionally praised Palin” because both praise and slander are willful.
I’m a total word nerd. I’m doing my thing. Ignore me.