Poll: ???
Poll Options
View poll results: ???
I think biscuits with cheese is a legitimate dessert
7 50%
I am right about desserts
7 50%
Voters: 14.
Page 1 of 2
#1
If what are perceived as the rights, properties or binding promises of and for the people are threatened or violated by the state, and people protest this threat by following the rules and regulations of protest under the state - thereby making it easy for the state to track, mobilise against and subvert their cause, weakening them to the point of ineffectuality or dispersion

when they lose their object of contention, is it their fault?

Quote from an obnoxious article about an anti-marxist marxist

That’s what the police order does, it tells you to take part in the fake politics – casting a ballot, going to a town hall – and tries to divest energy from what Ranciere calls real politics. After all, the Egyptian revolution didn’t start because people started sending nicely worded petitions to the government. It started when people manifested themselves in the public spaces that were once apolitical.

Is the kind of protest that involves standing in the Designated Protest Area, allowing the police to mark them, surround them and essentially limit them, just generally working within the comfortable bounds of the state actually subverting it when it begins to break its own promises (which it has infinite power to do)? How does one truly convince a state not to do whatever it pleases without creating an element of existential threat?

Is that kind of protest really "fake politics" of the kind in which the public take a referendum to be collectivist sovereignty rather than an advisory whisper in the ear? Does that kind of protest not simply affirm the powerlessness of the subject under the state?
Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
Last edited by Banjocal at Mar 31, 2017,
#3
its ineffective. vandalizing shit
Quote by korinaflyingv
On the come up we were listening to Grateful Dead and the music started passing through my bowel and out my arsehole as this violet stream of light. I shat music. It was beautiful.
#4
what kind of biscuits, what kind of cheese, is there grapes and cherries or apples and pear on the plate, is there relish or sweet jam and honey, are we having port or sweet white wine or something more savoury


important to draw a line between a lunch/snack and a dessert plate (all the same to me tbh, but I have a crazy sweet tooth that leads to me often having desserts for main meals)
O.K.

“There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want.”
~ Bill Watterson


O__o
#5
theguitarist 
Mostly the dry light flavoured ones, perhaps some camembert and the stuff with fruit in but mostly smoked cheese and the usual styles. A few grapes. Nothing flourishy - nothing that you wouldn't get from an upmarket public house

This is like dessert after an evening meal with wine and polite but cheerful discussion. After steak and risotto and other such nice dishes and they're all having quite delectable cheesecake and you're just sat there eating pantry food like a cunt
Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
#6
Give me a few hours so I can be appropriately high for this bullshit.
Quote by zgr0826
My culture is worthless and absolutely inferior to the almighty Leaf.


Quote by JustRooster
I incurred the wrath of the Association of White Knights. Specifically the Parent's Basement branch of service.
#7
Biscuits with bleu cheese is absolutely delicious and I'd have that as a dessert each and every day, with a rotating variety of cheeses.
Quote by Axelfox
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Quote by H4T3BR33D3R
I also have to do that. Cottaging this weekend
#8
Quote by Banjocal
theguitarist
Mostly the dry light flavoured ones, perhaps some camembert and the stuff with fruit in but mostly smoked cheese and the usual styles. A few grapes. Nothing flourishy - nothing that you wouldn't get from an upmarket public house

This is like dessert after an evening meal with wine and polite but cheerful discussion. After steak and risotto and other such nice dishes and they're all having quite delectable cheesecake and you're just sat there eating pantry food like a cunt

Oatcakes or gtfo
#9
Quote by slapsymcdougal
Oatcakes or gtfo

Bitch do you even eat pikelets
Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
#10
Quote by Banjocal
Bitch do you even eat pikelets

No, because I may eat dog biscuits, but I won't eat dog biscuits with flies baked in.
#11
the lady doth'm'st've protest too much methinks
#12
Quote by slapsymcdougal
No, because I may eat dog biscuits, but I won't eat dog biscuits with flies baked in.

well, on behalf of Derby, I am offended
Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
#13
Quote by Banjocal
well, on behalf of Derby, I am offended

The very existence of Derby is offensive.
#14
Quote by slapsymcdougal
The very existence of Derby is offensive.

they have Format Festival and there's a lovely cafe up in the second floor of the main freemarket
Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
#15
I am increasingly liking this Ranciere fella.

A "protest" in a streamlined, convenient, and systematized space is not a protest because it sustains the system that is obstensibly. If I remember correctly, Bachrach and Baratz wrote about agenda-setting as an aspect of power. Who can participate, how, and what's out of bounds for discussion is determined by empowered groups before specific topics/wedge issues are on the table (e.g., biscuits and cheese as dessert).
Quote by JustRooster
That's a shamanic incantation of truth if I ever heard one.
#16
The reason the Egyptian protests were so effective isn't cuz they weren't allowed to be in that public place, it's cuz they took effective control of the areas they occupied and called for employers everywhere to shut down their places of business.

Now the difference between that and casting a ballot is that a ballot is a revolution guaranteed to succeed, except in cases of reelection, and requires less sacrifice from citizens. I think the notion that it's "fake" is kinda juvenile. It's the sort of thing people who can cast ballots & have gotten a little too used to it say lol.
#17
^ I don't disagree with the second paragraph (or first), but given Ranciere's Marxist-hating Marxist background, it's understandable that a guaranteed successful revolution from collective ballot=casting wouldn't be of the kind that'd bring about the all-encompassing change he'd prefer.  
Quote by JustRooster
That's a shamanic incantation of truth if I ever heard one.
#18
Q: are government-enabled/allowed critical theorists REAL critical theorists?
#19
Quote by neidnarb11890
Q: are government-enabled/allowed critical theorists REAL critical theorists?

This post isn't English cuz THE GUBMINT can read it.
#23


Gozd in gora poj,
silen ženimo hrup,
uboga gmajna, le vpup, le vkup,
le vkup, le vkup z menoj,
staro pravdo v mrak tulimo,
da se pretulimo skozi to zimo
#24
Wouldn't you want to quantify the outcome of a protest to decide if it's real or not?
If the expected outcome of a planned protest is X, but you're placed in an area where X has no chance of happening, then>?

Bacon Sarnie and the revolution will not be covered, they learned from the 60's.
#25
i vote: I think biscuits with cheese is a legitimate dessert 
Last edited by kali01 at Apr 1, 2017,
#26
Why am I responding to this?

Quote by Banjocal
If what are perceived as the rights, properties or binding promises of and for the people are threatened or violated by the state, and people protest this threat by following the rules and regulations of protest under the state - thereby making it easy for the state to track, mobilise against and subvert their cause, weakening them to the point of ineffectuality or dispersion

when they lose their object of contention, is it their fault?


Ok I was following the first sentence until it disappeared into thin air, but I'll assume it follows into the disjointed question at the end, and say that yes, sure, it's "their fault", but that's ultimately meaningless depending on the context. You can hardly assign meaningful culpability to a people whose protest meets failure if they remain within the confines of what's kosher with the state, if the state maintains considerable mechanisms to control liberties or impose sociopolitical pressure on those protesting. Seems self-evident though, doesn't it? What's even the function of fault in this context?

Is the kind of protest that involves standing in the Designated Protest Area, allowing the police to mark them, surround them and essentially limit them, just generally working within the comfortable bounds of the state actually subverting it when it begins to break its own promises (which it has infinite power to do)? How does one truly convince a state not to do whatever it pleases without creating an element of existential threat?


Is a Designated Protest Area a real thing?

I would say that one of the (arguable) goals of protest in general, and I say this with its own grain of salt because I'm not targeting any specific protest, nor have I participated in any protest, nor do I claim to speak for any particular people who have protested, is to, to some degree, intentionally create some kind of "existential threat." Of course, this goal exists amongst others -- to convince the rest of the democracy that there is mutual benefit to cooperation, to appeal to human rights, to appeal to collective morality, etc. Properly applied friction can of course be impetus for change, but an "existential threat" on its own as catalyst for sweeping cultural change is dead on arrival.

Is that kind of protest really "fake politics" of the kind in which the public take a referendum to be collectivist sovereignty rather than an advisory whisper in the ear? Does that kind of protest not simply affirm the powerlessness of the subject under the state?


I think this first question is nonsensical, but yes to the second question; a marginalized group acting out within only the bounds of their pre-existing marginalization is, of course, an exemplification of their powerlessness. I think that in current Western societies, most people would agree that state-abiding protests (of the type you are describing, at least) is truly no protest at all. However, I think that the greater and more important fight lies in the problem that some people do not see protest of any sort as a viable means of inducing change or voicing displeasure in the first place, and IMHO that's a much more insidious and damaging mindset.
My God, it's full of stars!
#27
I've been pondering all this philosophy talk, and came to the conclusion that if philosophy doesn't challenge the existing power structure then what is the point of it?
Without the challenge it's masturbatory, with the challenge to power it's propaganda.
#28


Yay people are engaging with my bullshit!


Quote by 33db
I've been pondering all this philosophy talk, and came to the conclusion that if philosophy doesn't challenge the existing power structure then what is the point of it?
Without the challenge it's masturbatory, with the challenge to power it's propaganda.

To depart from my silliness for a moment - because I have obviously presented the OP as a conclusion in the form of a question - I don't think it necessarily needs to be for anything other than some kind of "deeper understanding". There's a tendency to see Zen philosophy (and it is philosophy) as an almost egoist form of spiritualism, but in a sense if you're of the sorts of perspectives that Zen is centred around, the necessity of action, or indeed the opposite of endless academic flowcharting (if that makes sense) simply is not as such.

I say that because Zen has a certain destructive attitude towards thinking through language. Well what about people like Derrida, Ranciere, Baudrillard, etc - the "big skeptics"? They're so often accused of destroying things and not suggesting anything to replace what they've destroyed. What about just doing it for the sake of understanding the limits of our existence?
Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
Last edited by Banjocal at Apr 1, 2017,
#29
Protests are carried within a system that bounds them, whatever system it may be. That system could be a government accepted event, it could be a non-government accepted event, but still bound by rules of society and economy, or even as ali said, it could be an electoral system where the protest is done by casting a ballot (e.g like voting for Trump).

If the protest has a certain goal, and that protest can be done inside a system controlled by the state, then by all means do so, there is absolutely no "fakeness" to it at all, because whether the system is state-approved or not is irrelevant to the protest and its goal.
If the problem is that teaches aren't being paid enough, my goal is for the state to pay them more, and my protest is to gather some people and call our representatives to complain about it, go to town halls or other venues and complain about it, and vote for representatives that state they'll solve that problem, then I am still carrying out a protest within the bounds of government, and yet it'll likely be a very effective one too. I don't need to gather hundreds and trash windows and cars, I would only need so if my initial protest just wasn't possible.

So yeah, it's fine. In my opinion the state should give as many "acceptable" venues for protest, in a controlled manner, as it can, and allow there to be effective ways to carry them out. The state should never be so shitty that you need huge violent protests, or even ones with huge economic consequences (like the ones in South Korea, Egypt, etc) for there to be change. Change should be incremental and boring, done in peaceful controlled venues. Passing laws by elected representatives in an effective way that is approved by the population is the optimal one. Casting a ballot in elections (be it legislative elections or a presidential one) is another optimal one.
Reasons like these is why we even developed a state/republic in the first place. Do you think ancient athenians preferred to trash houses and beat up people to enact change in their society?

Quote by 33db
I've been pondering all this philosophy talk, and came to the conclusion that if philosophy doesn't challenge the existing power structure then what is the point of it?
Without the challenge it's masturbatory, with the challenge to power it's propaganda.


Why should it challenge power? Nothing in it explicitly states that's its purpose. Understanding the world is an end in itself. It does have many benefits if you wish to apply it to the empirical world, be it challenging power as you say, or as simple as changing the way you communicate with other people, or changing how you act towards anything in the world (be it animals, material goods, social groups, etc). But to reduce its purpose to challenge power is somewhat shortsighted, it's like asking what purpose there is to doing exercise if it's not to win the Olympics
Last edited by gonzaw at Apr 1, 2017,
#30
Quote by gonzaw

Why should it challenge power? Nothing in it explicitly states that's its purpose. Understanding the world is an end in itself. It does have many benefits if you wish to apply it to the empirical world, be it challenging power as you say, or as simple as changing the way you communicate with other people, or changing how you act towards anything in the world (be it animals, material goods, social groups, etc). But to reduce its purpose to challenge power is somewhat shortsighted, it's like asking what purpose there is to doing exercise if it's not to win the Olympics

That's my point, there is no purpose but to challenge power structures that exist currently, "understanding the World" navel gazing, etc is masturbatory unless it provides something useful.
The most obvious use is a challenge to ignorance, which is the core component of any control oriented power structure and its desire, nay necessity to maintain that ignorance lest it be challenged.
Last edited by 33db at Apr 1, 2017,
#31
Quote by Zaphikh
I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
okay mitch
You are now using UG Black.
You are now using UG Classic.


Listening to: A bunch of forced listening by my composition teacher... some great stuff by Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Schubert, Liszt...


GTA V! ... the 120th game of the franchise.
#32
Quote by 33db
[...] "understanding the World" navel gazing, etc is masturbatory unless it provides something useful..


Why? "Understanding the world" is useful, it allows you to know the truth, and understand every single action you take, every single action others take, every little thing happening, be it in the physical world or outside of it, and it allows you to understand all of that perfectly. You can do whatever you want with that, you can "challenge power" as you can go live alone in the forest.

You arbitrarily deciding what is useful and what is not is bounded by philosophy too. If you believe "understanding the world" is not useful, then your understanding of the world includes that precise statement. Philosophy is what even allows you to think and formulate said statement

Surely believing "Understanding the world is not useful" is useful on its own, right? Or is your post masturbatory?
Last edited by gonzaw at Apr 1, 2017,
#34
Quote by 33db
That's my point, there is no purpose but to challenge power structures that exist currently, "understanding the World" navel gazing, etc is masturbatory unless it provides something useful.
The most obvious use is a challenge to ignorance, which is the core component of any control oriented power structure and its desire, nay necessity to maintain that ignorance lest it be challenged.

Usefulness is relative

challenge to power structures is not something that a given group of peoples are entitled to

there is nothing inherently egoistic (in the pejorative sense, but potentially even in the technical sense) about wanting to understand something from one's own perspective before other uses and perspectives
Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
#35
Quote by Banjocal
Usefulness is relative

However we might all agree that oxygen in the atmosphere is useful.

challenge to power structures is not something that a given group of peoples are entitled to

The desire to change ones situation for the better is not an "entitlement", it is a natural right existing outside of human thought as even animals seek to do this.

there is nothing inherently egoistic (in the pejorative sense, but potentially even in the technical sense) about wanting to understand something from one's own perspective before other uses and perspectives

Depending on which definition of "ego" you choose to use there certainly is, understanding from "one's own perspective" is self centric and very much tied to the sense of self-importance.
#36
Quote by 33db
However we might all agree that oxygen in the atmosphere is useful.


The desire to change ones situation for the better is not an "entitlement", it is a natural right existing outside of human thought as even animals seek to do this.


Depending on which definition of "ego" you choose to use there certainly is, understanding from "one's own perspective" is self centric and very much tied to the sense of self-importance.

Oxygen is useful. The sky also appears to be blue, and cake is often made with sugar. I once had a black-haired rabbit that I affectionately named "blacky".

Sorry mate, I lost you at natural rights: no such thing exists, and in any case, if one fails to change their situation based on some innate desire, that's their fault and nobody else's.
Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
Last edited by Banjocal at Apr 1, 2017,
#37
Quote by Banjocal

Sorry mate, I lost you at natural rights: no such thing exists, and in any case, if one fails to change their situation based on some innate desire, that's their fault and nobody else's.


Since you can not prove a negative, you can not simply say "no such thing exists".
#38
Quote by 33db
Since you can not prove a negative, you can not simply say "no such thing exists".
I can, with my magic beans

problem is, we're both trying to be obnoxious with one another, and we've both seen enough of our respective posts to know our general suggested agendas or perspectives

it's no fun if it's too difficult
Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
#39
are people enabled/allowed governments REAL governments? 

Woah
Quote by arcanom
Mint and chocolate shouldnt be togather.
"Literally Worst Post of 2k16" approved by After Eight Lovers...
#40
We 'bout teh play language games with the phrase "natural rights" in here.

Reified abstractions trigger me
Quote by JustRooster
That's a shamanic incantation of truth if I ever heard one.
Page 1 of 2