Thursday Night Debate Breakdown: Grimes, Red Scare Anna Et Al. on the Sexual Revolution (Pt. II)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 май 2024
- Deep State Kuba, Producer Jordan & C. Derrick Varn join Ben Burgis to finish watching a debate that continues to sound like someone was describing a dream they had when they fell asleep in front of a RUclips video. ("And...Grimes was there for some reason?") You can watch Pt. I here:
• Thursday Night Debate ...
Follow Jordan on Twitter: @jayohardeeayen
Follow Kuba on Twitter: @DrKuba2
Follow Ben on Twitter: @BenBurgis
Follow GTAA on Twitter: @Gtaa_Show
Become a GTAA Patron and receive numerous benefits ranging from patron-exclusive postgames every Monday night to our undying love and gratitude for helping us keep this thing going:
patreon.com/benburgis
Read the weekly philosophy Substack:
benburgis.substack.com
![What You Don't Learn In Film School - Shane Stanley [FULL INTERVIEW]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VBcQVQ2ZaMI/mqdefault.jpg)
![What You Don't Learn In Film School - Shane Stanley [FULL INTERVIEW]](/img/tr.png)
The world's oldest profession began with feminists in the 1970s is a new one
When did that actually become a thing? The whole "world's oldest profession" claim.
That aside, were there any non batsh-t crazy 1970s feminist thinkers or leaders? Seems like they introduced plenty of bad stuff like myths about IPV we still regurgitate to this day
Anna Khachiyan attacking the IDW was actually quite funny!
Didn't the Red Scare woman once ask Ben if he thought she's a Fascist? If so, hilarious and...um... maybe? But probably not?
Re: the Nietzsche/Syphillis thing. Yeah it's probably been debunked. If he had anything, maybe a brain tumour. Apparently his symptoms were pretty consistent with brain tumour/brain cancer.
This debate really didn’t help with my misogyny. Five lame, boring and anti-sex women arguing about the sexual revolution. Is there some agreement among women to be lame and boring? And it’s over the entire political spectrum, both feminist and anti-feminist, woke and anti-woke.
Why do Kuba and Varn think that Perry has some weird ulterior motive here?
I mean, when your articles argue things like "men have to be tamed by society so that they become acceptable"...
They don't think she has an ulterior motive, they think her positions are incoherent.
My issues are plural - Varn’s likely as well. But the big one has to do with the structure of her argument. She repeatedly insists that “people want limits,” “we can’t replace a sexual culture with nothing,” and that “freedom favors the pikes - that’s how power works.” In other words, there’s a right way of living which should steer what’s permissible, except she won’t explain what makes it the right way, beyond gesturing to the unhappiness of late modernity.
It’s clear that she has an answer (and I think it’s either Jesus or haplogroups) and it’s sus that she’s so coy about it.
She did say she has a ton of proposals for the UK government but this wasn't the "time or place to discuss that" (or words to that effect).
So she's hiding her political vision, at the very least. In this debate. I'm unfamiliar with her written work.
Varn is right that most shootings are gang related. Wikipedia for example puts the upper bound for drug gang homicides in Mexico at 400,000 over the last two decades. The question is why do states deploy and maintain policy which incites such megadeath. The answer is that the state's fundamental concern is preserving its own power, is preserving itself. This concern is independent of political stripe. One sees exactly the same thing whether under monarchy, socialism, or democracy. What is variable are the threats identified by the state to itself and the strategies used to defend against them. Foucault explained that under the socialism of the Soviets, the threat was understood as ideological. Dissident voices questioning socialism were a threat to be dealt with by isolating dissidents in concentration camps. Under the socialism of the Nazis, the threat was understood as biological. 'Degenerate' races were claimed to pose a threat to the state's genetic purity and were dealt with by isolating them in concentration camps. In Israel the threat to the state is the numerical superiority of a particular ethnicity. The threat was initially defended against by way of the concentration camp, the model used for Gaza, which Normal Finkelstein describes as an open air prison. Of late the concentration camp strategy has given way to much more direct measures. In each case however it is to be noted that the root of the problem is not to be found within the religious or ethnic or ideological makeup of the subgroups comprising a society. Rather the root of the problem is always found in the very fact of the state.
Okay, but what is a “state”? In an anarcho-capitalist society with private armies and police forces, wouldn’t the different corporations basically become private states, almost like a return to feudalism? If we look at it historically, a weak state can be just as bad or even worse than a strong state. Take for example the fact that the peasantry often tended to prefer a powerful king that could reign in the excesses of the aristocracy. Something similar could be said about the modern welfare state. And we shouldn’t forget that one of the long-term goals of Marxism is the abolition of the state, although a lot of things have to be done before that.
@@ludviglidstrom6924 The security corporation, unlike the state, must convince customers to subscribe with their security service. The state, by contrast, amounts to a monopoly corporation where the purchase of its wares is compulsory rather than voluntary. In any case in practice a private security market would come by way of insurers extending coverage to include policies against not just damage to one's property but also assault on one's person. Insurers in turn hire security which prevents - and crucially does no more than prevent - such assault. Now suppose one such insurer informed its customers of its plans to increase premiums by 10X in order to supply a foreign entity with bombs - bombs to be used to terrorize a particular ethnicity with the goal of driving it out of the territory the entity coveted. Security customers have a huge economic incentive to quickly cancel their policy and subscribe with another security insurer - to say nothing of a way to voice their moral objection. And the polls all show that the better the security consumer understands the entity's objectives the more they oppose what the entity is doing, the entity already regarded as a pariah state in most of the world.
Or maybe the answer is that dealing with drug lords who have hundreds of millions of dollars, can outfit themselves like the military, and can bribe countless officials makes them extraordinarily difficult to root out using traditional methods of state control (police investigations, drug policies) or even indiscriminate government force? In El Salvador for example, the only way they managed to stamp out gang-related activity was by cracking down on people's constitutional rights, but finally they did manage to jail all the gang members in their mega prisons, and plenty of innocent people along the way. And what's funny is even THAT approach wouldn't work in some of the more problematic countries, because El Salvador's gangs weren't anywhere near as brutal, extensive, or powerful as those operating in Mexico for example. You can watch a documentary about it on youtube.
Like...as a general principle. If a problem exists that the state hasn't dealt with, its not really logical to assume that therefore the state must benefit from it. It could also be that the problem is just hard to solve. Like climate change. Pollution. Or combating poverty. Or countless other issues. Governments don't have magic wands that can fix every problem, they are staffed by ordinary people trying to make sense of what are often some very complex issues requiring many years to solve across potentially multiple administrations who may have wildly differing political views, a situation that makes change difficult enough on its own.
And I'm sorry but the fact you did not understand such a fundamental concept makes the rest of your paragraph extremely suspect so I didn't read it. Like if you can't get that logic, you shouldn't be reading foucault