BS

"defend daca"

I wonder about the phrasing of "defend DACA," used often this week and associated with a march this weekend.
I tend to prefer "defend DACA recipients" or "defend Dreamers," meaning it would be great to have something legislated rather than another flimsy executive renewal.
No, I'm not someone who argues that Trump's point around this differentiation are fair. Complete double standard, given all the executive orders.
That said, congress should act, and in that case it probably wouldn't actually be "DACA" that's defended.
Right? I of course don't know what I'm talking about.

statuefolk

Today in a meeting, seemingly out of nowhere, my boss asked if taking down a Robert E. Lee statue was the same as taking down a Columbus statue.

For some stupid reason I started speaking first but was confounded a bit by my typically literal approach to the question. Of course they're not the same, but they're similar.

I guess the real question is in what ways they're similar or different.

The question was asked with the intonation that they're "not the same," (of course they're not) which I'll take to really mean "they're not similar."

While the Columbus episode was (partially) foundational in determining who and what we are today and the same cannot be said for Robert E. Lee. as a person, and despite the fact that the basic intention of each person was different and the actions they represent are different and the scope of their impact is different, to me the core similarity, in relation to the statue question, is that they (overall, in the final summation) do not represent qualities, actions or characteristics we wish to champion.

Do they have qualities? Of course.

Do these qualities sort of outweigh their faults? No.

If you take someone like Jefferson, a slave owner, do his qualities outweigh his faults in the view of (our) history? Plenty of people would say no, but I think most Americans still say yes.

When it comes to Columbus I think many of the things that were even once seen as qualities are no longer valued the same way. So the society making these determinations changes.

Anyway, we don't need statues for either, though I think the decision around Lee can be arrived at more quickly. While the offenses and impact of Columbus may be greater, Lee's position and context is clearer.

you already know

this is B-S
this is B-S
this is B-S
skies are so blue
but that's not blue
bright is so bright
banana black
really speckled
Those TV people are the worst.

welcome

I'm going to write something falsely emotional and vaguely poetic (aka grandiose) to reinforce an online sense of community and belonging so that I can package you for advertisers. You'll be just the right demographic, historically marginal and young enough to feel the emotion, really-not-marginal enough to be ripe for new advertising.

good job

humans

I'm not sure if Eater or its followers (including me) should be ashamed of how many of its headlines use the word "underground" or "secret." Somebody should be ashamed.

It's Difficult

Today’s left tends to avoid giving such definite philosophical answers, satisfied with “problematizing” and never coming to a conclusion. Generally, thinkers do this under the guise of false humility. They substitute theoretical pluralism for theoretical commitment, presenting the latter as sheer hubris.

I agree.
And I do this.

- - -

so many options for time and effort

bourgeois vs enlightenment

I often read things (intangibles: values, ethics, beliefs, systems) described as "bourgeois" that could just as easily be described as "enlightenment." I suppose the easy explanation here is the historical context of one coming after another, but I also wonder if the B is too commonly used for E-based dispositions that aren't necessarily politically aligned the way B's pejorative implications might suggest.

movement

I'm less and less able to settle on a direction.
My political affinities often get swept into declarations or political maneuvers that I can't honestly agree with, but then nothing's perfect.
I've read so many arguments and directions. Where do they meet?
Should the government manage, or should it all be decentralized?
And isn't focusing on the former really undermining the latter? meaning picking sides is really picking sides
Why waste my time trying to change things that I probably won't and that I'm not even completely sure I agree with?
Or is this spoken from a position of privilege and security? And is there anything wrong with that?
There are so many things I could be doing... and by doing I mostly mean thinking about.

why

not sure why I give myself more and more work

I heard boy

Is there any way to stop all this?

the increased military spending is really crazy

favorite signs

I know signs.
I make the best signs.

and

You're tacky,
and I hate you.

malaise

I hope it's not too reminiscent of Klebold ("You know what I fuken hate...")

iPhone

The iPhone. A magical revolutionary device. Actually it's the iPad that was announced with those words, but they really belong to the iPhone.

Sure, it's useful, but its presence is not a pleasure.

I would be happier if we did not have them. The mobile phone with basic but not-that-convenient texting would have been a great place to stop.

It really is a useful augmentation. One step closer to cyborg.

but what a distraction

to others

~

A few minutes ago somebody I was friends with in high school accidentally messaged me on Google chat/hangout. Clearly she meant to message her fiancé, whose name appears near mine in her list. I could have just not responded, but I gave a sort of joke response, leading to an exchange of happy new year / hope you're doing well / have a good week.

This is not an interesting story.

The point is, it's strange how people come in and out of our lives. I was friends with this person (she was close with my girlfriend in high school and so we became/were friends), we were still friendly after high school, and as with all but a few, basically drifted into not talking. (This reminds me, there's someone I want to email.) I ran into her about 8 years ago in my hometown in a parking lot. Not sure I've spoken with her since then. It's funny to think that most likely we'll never talk again, or maybe we'll run into each other in 5 years again and exchange recognitions.

I run into people from work or the techno scene sometimes outside of those settings, but I rarely run into someone from school. This is OK, as the further from my past someone is (without continuation into the present), the worse the version they know of me is and the more ashamed of myself I am.

facebook

Facebook is a pain.

If it wasn’t Facebook, it would be something else, but right now it’s Facebook.

There’s the whole misinformation thing. “Fake news.”

There’s the constant updating, constant checking.

Facebook.

I wrote about Facebook awhile back:

As the multiplicity of hegemonic theories makes clear, society reinforces its own oppression, advertising its destructive values and false needs to itself. The power and capability for society to do this is intensified and accelerated through social networks. Billboards and commercials impose themselves upon the eye and push values onto us, but Facebook’s users voluntarily turn to it, constantly revisit it, addicted to the messages of their peers.
. . .
No paid-for print, television, or internet campaign can match the power for selling a lifestyle like the constantly advertised lifestyles of real individuals. Surely this is not top-down, unless you consider it the long-term result of seeds sewn in the 20th century. The failed democratic enlightenment of immediate network communication generates a desire and world projection wildly distant from any sub-simulation reality or truth.

While the 1990s models of avatars, online personas, and impersonations followed a more fantastic, escapist orientation, the subjects created on Facebook are meant to be ourselves. As we do our best to generate ourselves digitally, our status-updated online performances merge with our real-world lived subjects in a strange, subject-blurring exchange. Facebook takes the celebrated internet possibility of crafting avatars and other-dimension personas as step further and superimposes the persona back onto the real-world person.

That's not to say that there are no subject-affirming aspects to Facebook, the internet, or any of the examined media. Clearly this is not the case, but what I here mention are unfortunate and dominant tendencies that can be used in the strategizing of militant media, or at least the evaluation of existing media for its effectiveness in counter militancy.

So that wasn’t as interesting as I had hoped, closer to what I had guessed, and in one aspect it’s off the mark. “Surely this is not top-down.” Those of us who work with Facebook in 2017 know the weight of pay-to-play. That’s not to say that as an individual I need to pay for interactions with my "friends," but much of what drives Facebook is paid content. We follow pages. Those pages want their content seen and shared. The more they pay, the more it’s seen, the more (if it interest their followers) it’s shared. This is not particularly interesting beyond its correction of the above analysis.

More interesting is the way that Paul Virilio’s writings on the speed of misinformation and public opinion and sentiment played out in this recent election. But that’s been explored ad nauseam, which Google tells me since is “referring to something that has been done or repeated so often that it has become annoying or tiresome.” Wow, that sounds like everything! P.S. looks like Google strips that from Oxford.

More nauseating than the fake news thing is the forum of public expression. The forum of nonsense. YouTube comments or 4chan come to mind, but they don’t have the benefit of being in front of everyone’e eyes 24/7. They don’t have the mainstream legitimacy. I can hold a job without chewing that. Facebook on the other hand…

OK, so let's force a binary. Is the world a better or worse place because of Facebook? We've (I've) said that if it wasn't Facebook it would be something else, but it is Facebook.
There's certainly positive. Communication, community, expression, information sharing, mobilization, exposure to others.
Then there's the echo chamber.
Then there's the auto-advertising.
The status-seeking.
The obsession.
I don't know. It magnifies and amplifies particular aspects of our cultures and selves, some in ways that we might deem positive, others negative.
I guess I'd critique this moment by questioning the value of trying to judge Facebook or think about what or how it is rather than how it manifests and operates in reality (as a phenomenon). But there's no time for that.

malaise

facebook

iPhone

race

sex

identity

privilege

decency

status

global exploitation

the environment

electoral politics

meetings

expectations

work

watson

facebook live show

Here's an idea for a 10-part Facebook Live series, every Tuesday and Thursday for the first five weeks of 2017:

what to do about donald trump

convene a panel of radical thinkers + moderator

show 1: 8 responses to the guy
(state-based resistance, secession, electoral thing (too late by then), build dem. party for 4 years, etc.)

shows 2-9: discuss the possibilities around each idea

show 10: decide on one, revise the plan, determine next steps

new political party

Is the democratic party the vehicle for progress, is extra-parliamentary action, or is a third party?
How about a new third party?
TPHW - Thought Progress Humanity World [party]
What are its tenets? What does it stand for? How will it gain popularity?
But then why isn't it just the socialist party?

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - BS