|
To put things even more simply: why, when you can imagine doing literally anything, do you imagine killing people for money? Like, that's the best you can come up with?
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 09:30 |
|
|
LividLiquid posted:Because machismo isn't usually seen as negative, or having negative effects on men, and toxic masculinity speaks both to the damage it can do to others, as well as the damage it does to men. Real stupid, perhaps. Instead of speaking and thinking in terms of patriarchal ideology (terms that have been around for decades at the least), you've taken the language of pop psychology and cultivated a fantasy about infectious toxins. And now you're living in a zombie movie. You engage in 'linguistic battle' by dispensing with truth and accuracy in favour of expediency. Your goal is to 'win' the political argument as quickly and easily as possible, ends justifying the means, by depoliticizing it - by simply labelling the troublesome threat a biohazard.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:Edit: Also, a large percentage of the population thinking I should be dead for what I am is not a "political argument," and neither is talking about one of the causes of that viewpoint. Well right; exactly. You don't perceive what you are doing as political. That is why you are appropriating progressive language - 'I'm for civil rights, not identity politics' - and then straightforwardly indulging in identity politics. The 'toxin' is a form of masculine gender identity, is it not?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:I said none of those things, so I'm not sure how to respond. I remarked that identity politics as a term is an attempt to make civil rights sound worse. They're literally the same thing. Well, again: exactly. You consider identity politics and civil rights the same thing, when the latter is a term for the appropriation and 'decaffeination' of what are typically left-wing, radical, egalitarian politics by liberal centrists. 'Civil Rights' implies the progressive struggle for social and economic equality, whereas identity politics largely/entirely omits the economic aspect. What you've voiced in your posts is exactly the definition of postpolitical biopolitics, which basically means maximizing security under liberalism. In the pop-culture sphere, the difference was dramatized in Rogue One - a film very similar to Guardians Of The Galaxy, but with an opposite message. The political radicals in the Rogue One crew have their work and sacrifice appropriated by liberals, then are erased from history. As a contrast, the self-pitying (and stridently apolitical) mercenaries of the Milano help the liberals to kill all the terrorists, then win a new car.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
Super Fan posted:Here ya go folks. Nothing interesting to say but if you just bury your opponent with enough buzz words they'll just give up in frustration. Egalitarianism is a term from the 1800s. Ideology is 1800s, popularized early 1900s. Biopolitics is from 1905. Etc. 'Toxic Masculinity' is a recent perjorative rewording of 'hegemonic masculinity' (a term from 1987), that omits/erases the concept of hegemony for some reason. The first hit on Google is the Geek Feminism Wiki, discussing videogame protagonists. Google Trends says it exploded in popularity around 2015. I haven't been able to find a source from earlier than 2014.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:Ok, so new, better descriptors of existing phenomena are only valid if they're old. Got it. 1) SuperFan was complaining about buzzwords. Concepts that have been in use for over a hundred years are not buzzwords, by definition. 2) When you modify political terms to render them vague and apolitical (so that you are no longer talking about hegemony but instead about videogame trope, for example) that does make the terms less valid. The basic implication of using 'toxic masculinity' instead of 'hegemonic masculinity' is that you no longer believe patriarchy is hegemonic.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 09:30 |
|
|
LividLiquid posted:Because when I say I shouldn't be murdered for being queer, people tell me to stop talking about identity politics. We understand that you are living in fear, but that does not make what you are saying correct. This biopolitics, an apolitical 'politics of fear', is perfectly in line with the liberal status quo.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2017 01:12
|
|