a fatguy baldspot posted:

Gripweed posted:

This is Paladinus's room

MonsieurChoc posted:

Bodies is pretty dehumanizing, I don't get why it took off.

A Russian troll farm posted:

god i hate the word bodies

indigi posted:

it seems really demeaning and dehumanizing, idk why people would want to use terms like that

FAUXTON posted:

iirc there were two "plasticized human bodies as a museum exhibit" setups going around and one involved bodies of normal people who donated their carcasses/organs with full understanding that they'd get preserved and shown off as museum exhibits, whereas the other was extremely suspect of using the bodies of chinese political prisoners. The one using prisoners went around first but I think it was the second that really took off because it had more access.

but by all means let's have a long-rear end derail about whether the harms in imprisonment of dissidents outweigh the benefits to China.

FAUXTON posted:

the other was extremely suspect of using the bodies of chinese political prisoners

quote:

He says that he obtains them all only through trusted sources, but no outsider has verified that they might not be, in a worst-case scenario, dissidents killed in a Chinese prison, then sold through a body broker to a medical school, and then displayed to the public.

Junpei posted:

A Russian troll farm posted:

god i hate the word bodies

quote:

The Traumatized Object

Objectification is achieved literally. Beginning with the most personal, Fanon points out “In the white world the man of color encounters difficulties in the development of his bodily schema. Consciousness of the body is solely a negating activity. It is a third-person consciousness.”[i] The external stimulus of a child who says “Look, a Negro!” has compelled a physical reaction for the objectified person. One becomes disoriented, and one has to evaluate one’s own “bodily schema.” Most importantly, one sees their own body as an object, free floating in space, a separation between self and world. This hyper-awareness of one’s body produces traumatic effects. It produces a self-objectification, where one feels oneself as an object, and the more this is repeated the more objectification seems an acceptable thing. This is the daily ontological crisis experienced by bodies lacking ‘presence.’ In Fanon’s situation, the experienced lack is of whiteness. As a parallel, for the woman, the experienced lack is of the penis. The significance of this lack is completely imagined. But for the traumatized object, it is felt as a reality. “Look, a Negro!” is akin to saying ‘Look, a monster!’ or better yet ‘Look, a funny picture!’ In being forced to confirm his own bodily presence, Fanon is forced to ask himself, ‘Am I really here?’ Yes, one sees oneself as present, yet one concurrently feels empty of the qualifications to experience being through others. One is stripped of everything but a bodily schema.

Furthermore, when one seeks a psychoanalyst for treatment, the method is to trace the symptom back to the trauma. But Fanon shows us the reverse. He shows us trauma that produces a symptom that reproduces more trauma. Objectification is thoroughly achieved, inside and out. Fanon continues: “…assailed at various points, the corporeal schema crumbled, its place taken by a racial epidermal schema. In the train it was no longer a question of being aware of my body in the third person but in a triple person.”[ii] His play on words is important here. There is a difference in experiencing oneself in the third person and experiencing triple consciousness. The traumatized object is not only objectified literally but is broken into different modes of being. Consciousness is split. One must exist in a sense for oneself, yet differently in another sense, as seen by an opposing world. And, thirdly, one must exist to fulfill the other’s idealization of them. One can imagine the dissociative effects of this daily double-trauma. How can one know oneself if one has to constantly relive a shattered existence? To see oneself as a broken object in the distance, to begin to accept this position of nothingness, is the tremendous accomplishment of a psychotic society whose obsessive compulsion is domination.

Ok Comboomer posted:

https://twitter.com/RollingStone/status/1350974973544947713


and virgins ITT get hopping mad about my low-effort derails

Paladinus posted:

I always thought the idea behind calling people bodies was the implication that while their bodies could be enslaved or destroyed, their spirits remained free and carried on. But that's purely my speculation. Sounds weird either way.

bagual posted:

adds rhetorical shock value

Gripweed posted:

change my name posted:

https://twitter.com/DeanBrowningPA/status/1351267937055887360

bagual posted:

It is explicitly calling out that fact. It does sound weird on the mouths of white liberals cargo culting discourse, but afaik it's a term usage coined by black liberation theorists.

change my name posted:

https://twitter.com/DeanBrowningPA/status/1351267937055887360

indigi posted:

I guess I can see the strategy here, but this isn’t what it does to me. it obfuscates the truth behind a layer of euphemistic language. it’s like referring to people as m resources or capital. I sincerely doubt the intended audience is going to be shocked instead of confused by using the word “bodies” to mean “people”

Antonymous posted:

black meat would be much more clearly ironic and impossible to use sincerely

Gripweed posted:

indigi posted:

suspected by who? the oldest source I can find on this is an NPR article that says


which seems to be entirely sinophobic supposition

bagual posted:

that's why in brazil we talk about the state throwing black bones into the grinder, black meat is the cheapest on the market (re: salaries), police just stack up dead black people like thrash, etc. it's a way to denounce society by calling it's relation to black people like it is, dehumanizing and cruel.

black liberation theorists in the 60's were not using it euphemistically, they were drawing attention to the fact that the white supremacist state still sees black people as soulless bodies in a continuity of racism that goes back to colonial enslavement of black africans where priests literally convinced people they had no souls. if it sounds weird to you it's ok, maybe it's a term that stuck around and doesn't carry as much weight as when it was first introduced, i'm just telling you it's grounded in black liberation theory.

Paladinus posted:

See, all those phrases work (at least to my ear), because they paint some pretty vivid and provocative images. 'Oppressing black bodies' sound extremely sterile to me and misses the mark. Although one could reflect on that sterility, too, I suppose.

FAUXTON posted:

Idk if you read my post or the article you linked but like I said, there's another traveling exhibit, which is the one with the sketchy provenance, and the article even points it out:

The Cameo posted:

second and third paragraphs of the actual story:


it’s AP using as poo poo a headline as they could get away with to entice people to click on it

Ok Comboomer posted:

https://twitter.com/RollingStone/status/1350974973544947713

Varkk posted:

I have seen bodies thrown around in a non-racial sense in HR terms. Especially in regards to manual labour. e.g a new building is running behind schedule, throw more bodies at the problem(Hire more labourers). It seems to be another example of capitalism dehumanising the worker and just seeing the person as a resource on a balance sheet.

FacelessVoid posted:

https://twitter.com/ICEgov/status/1351180549449265153

gimme the GOD drat candy posted:

goddamn i am actually angry at a tweet. this must be what liberals feel like all the time.

indigi posted:

I guess I can see the strategy here, but this isn’t what it does to me. it obfuscates the truth behind a layer of euphemistic language. it’s like referring to people as resources or capital. I sincerely doubt the intended audience is going to be shocked instead of confused by using the word “bodies” to mean “people”