Idpol

[Mr. Veech]

Quote Originally Posted by James

I was talking about: Quote Originally Posted by James greater internet regulation I'm also not a liberal by any means. I think people would probably be surprised at my (uninteresting) opinions on certain issues.

I've personally caught on to the fact that you are by no means a conventional "liberal." You strike me as someone with perhaps a set of beliefs which might be called "liberal," but you are obviously not a liberal - all things considered. You've shown way too much reverence for the past to be labeled a diehard leftist. There's nothing wrong with that.

[Druidic]

James, I never believed you were a 'conventional Liberal' anymore than I'm a 'conventional Conservative.'

I suspect we might both have some surprises for each other.

[Druidic]

The real answer to this problem lies in breaking up the giant monopolies of Google, Facebook and the others. Get them down to a manageable size and hold them responsible for their content. There has to be consequences.

Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Veech

You've shown way too much reverence for the past to be labeled a diehard leftist. There's nothing wrong with that.

I dislike traditionalism for traditionalism's sake and modernity for modernity's sake. Most of the delights I enjoy are from past eras, but the past has the benefit of being unfathomably longer than the present, and this is a particularly awful time for modern materialist thought. I relate more to Aickman or Machen than any progressive, and even some of my friends would look at me sideways if they knew the author of my favourite horror novel was a legit Nazi.

[Zaharoff]

I like that term consequences.
Controlled substances are illegal, but masses abuse with few consequences.
Prostitution is, by and large, illegal. Few bother to enforce.
Perhaps if someone spreads Ebola via fluid exchange, authorities might get involved. Otherwise - no.
Shoot a video of dissecting your neighbor's live kitten? Hundreds would be outraged - millions would race to watch it.
I maintain we are drifting swiftly into an era of less law, less consequences.
An era when wild dogs break into your house, bind you and your family, then set up the live feeds for pay per view of Penetration Tonight.
Some of you count on rules and officials to maintain social order.
The future I picture - and my outlook is coloured by living in a rough neighborhood - is grim and bleak.

[Mr. Veech]

Some of you will not like what I'm about to say regarding the loss of "culture" in America. A great deal of it has to do with the gradual loss of "religion." In the case of Christians, reading one's Bible and practicing discipline was/is a crucial part of one's existence. If the quality of one's character is bad, then the loss of one's faith is lamentable because there's nothing in place which says "NO!" There's just a directionless pursuit of random pleasure - they become a Freudian animal (the reality principle notwithstanding) without form, without structure. This is partially why I hold my tongue whenever I feel the temptation to accuse Christians, Muslims, and Jews of believing absurd things. They deserve respect, even if one disagrees with them. They play a significant role in preserving some of the best cultural achievements.

[Robert Adam Gilmour]

Notes from New Sodom: On Identity Politics

Haven't read the whole thing yet. Very socialist speculative fiction author Hal Duncan.

[Mr. Veech]

I'm not used to the notion that "identity politics" generally refers to individuals trying to make sense of their struggles by identifying with a particular group of people. I always thought of "identity politics" as a synthesis between the existentialist principle "existence precedes essence" and the post-Marxist tradition beginning (more or less) with Althusser's reinterpretation of the late Marx in light of Lacanian psychoanalysis. The whole point, I thought, was that identity is fluid and unstable because it's essentially a cultural construct maintained through performativity, language, etc. I was under the assumption that liberation occurs through a rejection or refusal to be "identified," not the willingness to cling to some predetermined identity.

This is what "identity politics" means to me. Whether or not most of it is tantamount to bad philosophy is an open question.

[Druidic]

I think to most, Identity Politics means identifying with a certain group based on sexual preference, gender, the color of your skin,your politics, whatever. I find such people boring beyond belief.

An Existentialist wouldn't indulge in this nonsense because he or she would know there's Nothing to identify with. As Mr. Veech said, the Self is a fluid thing. And some would even say, nonexistent altogether.

A Question of Identity, eh?

[Robert Adam Gilmour]

it's all one thing: "Why the Theory of Cultural Appropriation is Pro-Capitalist"a guest post by Jonas Kyratzes

Blog of the guy commenting on Hal Duncan's piece.