Kulturkampf

[Uncle]

early america be like "we're forming a bunch of mutually beneficial paternalistic relationships in order to better harvest a specific plant fiber" 

[benji]

early america be like "we're forming a bunch of mutually beneficial paternalistic relationships in order to better harvest a specific plant fiber" 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_as_a_positive_good_in_the_United_States

[benji]

[benji]

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

[PhoenixDark]

I think Trump is guilty based on the evidence and the DA's conduct doesn't change that but my god this is pathetic. And arguably worse than her alleged personal indiscretion. Politicians using the pulpit to grasp martyrdom isn't anything new. But as a black dude there's something especially ridiculous about the way certain black politicians do it. It's literally MLK Day, remembering an era where black figures and politicians were literally being targeted/framed/assassinated/etc with pretty direct government assistance. Maybe that's not the blood mantle to clasp onto as a crook, folks. I grew up in Detroit and heard this shit quite often from Kwame Kilpatrick.

Not to mention the megalomaniac "I'm a black woman saving the world and am above criticism" angle. Jesus christ.

[Polident]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/swannmarcus89/status/1746806599249805615 [/tweet]

[HaughtyFrank]

I think Trump is guilty based on the evidence and the DA's conduct doesn't change that but my god this is pathetic. And arguably worse than her alleged personal indiscretion. Politicians using the pulpit to grasp martyrdom isn't anything new. But as a black dude there's something especially ridiculous about the way certain black politicians do it. It's literally MLK Day, remembering an era where black figures and politicians were literally being targeted/framed/assassinated/etc with pretty direct government assistance. Maybe that's not the blood mantle to clasp onto as a crook, folks. I grew up in Detroit and heard this shit quite often from Kwame Kilpatrick.

Not to mention the megalomaniac "I'm a black woman saving the world and am above criticism" angle. Jesus christ.

Not familiar with the accusation so I can't say too much but it seems telling when someone is more upset about how they're not allowed to "stumble" than addressing the actual accusation. Even when it's bad faith shitheads who figure out that you got dirt on your hand, you still got dirt on your hands.

[Nintex]

The DA has an affair with the prosecutor in the Trump case. She paid him $700k and they went on vacation together.
Hollywood couldn't make it up.
 

[Puffy Fucking Baby]

Are you telling me that Donald Trump may yet wiggle his way out of another jam

[HaughtyFrank]

[Nintex]

Netflix Hitler

[Nintex]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/DannyMMorris/status/1747001653872463982?t=R4TGU8lftOCiHyQzhaMkGQ&s=19[/tweet]

As if the bar could drop any lower they decide to take their palestine bullshit to a cancer hospital

[benji]

This is a good time for Manolo to learn about the history of Israel and socialism.

[benji]

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

[HaughtyFrank]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/DannyMMorris/status/1747001653872463982?t=R4TGU8lftOCiHyQzhaMkGQ&s=19[/tweet]

As if the bar could drop any lower they decide to take their palestine bullshit to a cancer hospital

[tweet]https://twitter.com/davidzweig/status/1747081480415707399?t=a-23DXz_dH2U2zO71TANzQ&s=19[/tweet]

Yeah, maybe let's not shout at little cancer kids

[benji]

Old but new to me:

CONTENT NOTE: This Open Letter depicts scenes of rhetorical violence and related violences.

As writers who have both consumed and contributed comments on Daily Nous, we are disheartened, disappointed, deflated, and yet simultaneously righteously energized by editor Justin Weinberg’s recent platforming of a letter written to Oxford University Press on behalf of critics of philosopher Holly Lawford-Smith’s unreleased and unread book, Gender Critical Feminism.

By platforming this letter, which, unlike Lawford-Smith’s book, can be read — having been violently ripped from the realm of the merely possible to the realm of the actual — Weinberg promotes inaccurate stereotypes about unread books, such as the stereotype that they can be understood and assessed. Also, he may contribute to reality-oppressive practices, such as the possible creation of a journal dedicated to the review of unread books. The undersigned, as possible writers of possible books, are concerned, and call for a ban on such possible journals.

The possible risks are real. More troublingly, they are actually possible — some of the writers we like would go further and say the possible risks are immanent. Everyone we like agrees that possible risks can be much worse than actual harms of the sort for which evidence can be provided. This is because possible harms are very difficult to locate. They elude even the most intensive textual deconstruction, revealing themselves only in narratives of lived experience/diaries.

Furthermore, Weinberg’s decision to publish the open letter exhibits an unfortunate ignorance of the fact that even when a book is actual, one cannot always know whether one will ultimately disagree with the main conclusions of a book until after one has read it — a secondary form of violence, “chronological violence of the real” — that victimizes in particular those who start at the beginning and work their way toward the end, page by page, and front to back, rather than from back to front. (We understand that what counts as “front to back” will vary and that Hebrew readers in particular may find this phrase alienating or even eliminationist. We hereby affirm that Hebrew readers exist and that they are no worse [nor better] than non-Hebrew readers, and this holds irrespective of whether the Hebrew writing at issue has actually been or will be written or read.)

Moreover, criticism of as-yet unreleased and unread books is exactly like cancer: both are bad, both are violent, and both can spread. More specifically, such criticism can contribute to rhetorical violence (which we need not remind you is always-already there) against future, possible, unread books and their authors, or possible authors and publishers, or possible publishers. Given the (actual) recent bans on books in some US public schools, bans orchestrated by politically reactionary legislatures and school boards, we worry that Weinberg’s promotion of anti-unread book sentiment may in the current political context even lead to the grisly slaughter of future unthought thoughts.

Moving on from these serious, substantive concerns, the undersigned Daily Nous users also have similarly serious procedural concerns about the manner in which Weinberg published the post. Given the emphasis of the embedded letter on publication practices, we would like to know if Weinberg consulted experts on publication ethics. For example, did he even browse any of the posts on the Retraction Watch site? Did he first read the books and articles we like on this topic? Did he consult with any of the people we are friends with before writing and publishing his post? We personally know and are friends with people who work on publication ethics, very serious scholars who have long histories of defending methodologies and conclusions we endorse, which makes them sound and true, and yet Weinberg didn’t even DM them on Twitter. Does Daily Nous really want to be the kind of blog that platforms anti-unread book violence without at least first consulting our ideological soulmates?

We are not calling for the retraction of Weinberg’s post. That would be anti-intellectual and censorious, and we are intellectuals who definitely don’t want to limit thought or speech, since that would be a right-wing, reactionary thing to do, and we are definitely left-wing, progressive people who deeply value non-violent philosophy books. However, now that we have stated our opposition to censorship and thereby proved it, we do have some demands of Daily Nous:

[1] In the future, only publish posts with content that has been approved by people with whom we agree and, ideally, those we count among our friends. At a minimum, content should be approved by people we’ve asked to coffee at conferences and/or workshops. This applies to possible content and possible friends as well.

[2] Always include follow-up posts that center (or “centre”—we see you UK readers!) opposing views, but only when the follow-up posts are written by those with whom we agree. If the original post is written by someone with whom we agree, then a follow-up post is not required (because one should not follow the truth with lies).

[3] Take some of the profits generated by Daily Nous and donate them to causes we personally endorse. You can start with Retraction Watch.

[benji]

Yeah, maybe let's not shout at little cancer kids

Those chuds knew exactly what they were doing.

[Eric Cartman]

Maybe they wouldn't have got cancer if they didn't support GENOCIDE

[benji]

Maybe they wouldn't have got cancer if they didn't support GENOCIDE

[HaughtyFrank]

I think this is the first time ever I heard an institution being attacked for accepting money. And this Zionist is so evil he wants... to cure cancer?

And those Harvard students aren't entitled to job offers. When your first instinct after the October 7th attacks was to only condemn Israel and not even mention what Hamas did then you fucked up. Leftists call it consequence culture or something

[benji]

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

All flights at JFK were delayed because of weather, it's 21/-6 out.

[benji]

[HaughtyFrank]

[Polident]

Whichever candidate sends him to gitmo gets my vote.

[Daft Hand]

Noooooooooo you can't apply my extremely uncharitable standards to people i like nooooooooooooooo

[HaughtyFrank]

He probably could have chosen some better examples. Genocide and slavery don't quite compare to alleged rapist

[D3RANG3D]

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

[Eric Cartman]

https://www.pcgamesn.com/osama-bin-laden-anime-gamer

[HaughtyFrank]

[Eric Cartman]

If they were cancer curing missiles, yes?