Michael Brown

[paulgiamatti]

Not to the likes of you I won't. And especially not to Patriam, who you simply cannot argue against without him invoking a straw man. I hate the straw man argument. I really do, but he forces you into it. It's almost like he just imagines things that you might say, and then in his own mind passes them off as things that you already said, and then proceeds to argue against that. It's so fucking irritating.

[Glenzig]

Still haven't told us which book we should start with. I'm pretty disappointed.

[Whirled]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Still haven't told us which book we should start with. I'm pretty disappointed.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

An all time favorite for all ages ^

As far as all the other stuff in this thread...

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[paulgiamatti]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Still haven't told us which book we should start with. I'm pretty disappointed.

I'm always happy to recommend literature, but I feel like I'd be overreaching to say which books anyone should read. One thing I realized about myself when concerning the consumption of literature is I pretty much only read things written by people I'm familiarized with in some way. I have to be interested in their ethos or their logos before I can really get comfortable turning the pages of something they've written. That's not to say that I only read things that I agree with - quite to the contrary, I like getting inside the mind of people who can procure compelling arguments against something that I'm morally or ethically invested in.

In any case, here are a couple I've finished recently:

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'd imagine one of the things that makes Jefferson hard to write about, especially in a short form, is that he takes part in the enlightenment moment. In the American presidential election of 1796, the election had its choice between two candidates: one was the president of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the other was the founder of the American Academy of Arts and Letters. The candidacy seems to have shriveled a bit since then. Not only that, but under the 1796 rules you could vote for both of them, because the runner-up would be your vice president, and that's what the electorate did. Some might say it was a looted electorate, but it had a rather handsome choice.

Not only taking part in this extraordinary moment of the enlightenment, not only rewriting John Locke's words when he came to compose the Declaration of Independence, changing "life, liberty, and property" - Locke's trivium, or triad, or triaca of ideas - into a formulation I know you don't need me to tell you about. Not only after that leading Virginia through a very perilous period of revolutionary war, and then becoming minister to France, but he's almost continuously in power afterwards for 25 years. And that's before he helped provide us with a vaccination for cholera, and before he founded the University of Virginia, and before he takes a razor to the New Testament to produce the Jefferson Bible, cutting out everything mythical or stupid, leaving himself with a very short edition.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A brilliant evocation of a pre-First World War Britain when the old system, which was basically a liberal system, came under tremendous shocks from the movement for women's suffrage, the movement to disengage from Ireland and the rise of organized labor. In the chapter on the rise of women's suffrage he describes beautifully all the morbid symptoms that appear when the long-repressed - especially sexually repressed - group begin to take their own measures.

The suffragette movement simply for women's franchise, for the right of women to vote, was attacked by all kinds of people for its weirdness. For the way the women started to dress as men, to neglect their families and to behave promiscuously. Many of these symptoms, up to and including suicide on some occasions, were indeed present but when the air cleared it was obviously the result of the original repression. It was a phase through which the movement had to pass.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm always happy to recommend literature, but I feel like I'd be overreaching to say which books anyone should read. One thing I realized about myself when concerning the consumption of literature is I pretty much only read things written by people I'm familiarized with in some way. I have to be interested in their ethos or their logos before I can really get comfortable turning the pages of something they've written. That's not to say that I only read things that I agree with - quite to the contrary, I like getting inside the mind of people who can procure compelling arguments against something that I'm morally or ethically invested in.

In any case, here are a couple I've finished recently:

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'd imagine one of the things that makes Jefferson hard to write about, especially in a short form, is that he takes part in the enlightenment moment. In the American presidential election of 1796, the election had its choice between two candidates: one was the president of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the other was the founder of the American Academy of Arts and Letters. The candidacy seems to have shriveled a bit since then. Not only that, but under the 1796 rules you could vote for both of them, because the runner-up would be your vice president, and that's what the electorate did. Some might say it was a looted electorate, but it had a rather handsome choice.

Not only taking part in this extraordinary moment of the enlightenment, not only rewriting John Locke's words when he came to compose the Declaration of Independence, changing "life, liberty, and property" - Locke's trivium, or triad, or triaca of ideas - into a formulation I know you don't need me to tell you about. Not only after that leading Virginia through a very perilous period of revolutionary war, and then becoming minister to France, but he's almost continuously in power afterwards for 25 years. And that's before he helped provide us with a vaccination for cholera, and before he founded the University of Virginia, and before he takes a razor to the New Testament to produce the Jefferson Bible, cutting out everything mythical or stupid, leaving himself with a very short edition.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A brilliant evocation of a pre-First World War Britain when the old system, which was basically a liberal system, came under tremendous shocks from the movement for women's suffrage, the movement to disengage from Ireland and the rise of organized labor. In the chapter on the rise of women's suffrage he describes beautifully all the morbid symptoms that appear when the long-repressed - especially sexually repressed - group begin to take their own measures.

The suffragette movement simply for women's franchise, for the right of women to vote, was attacked by all kinds of people for its weirdness. For the way the women started to dress as men, to neglect their families and to behave promiscuously. Many of these symptoms, up to and including suicide on some occasions, were indeed present but when the air cleared it was obviously the result of the original repression. It was a phase through which the movement had to pass.

Probably both good reads in their own right. Thanks for the suggestions.

[Patriam1066]

I've read that first one, will check out the second.

I'd suggest you read The Origins of Political Order by Francis Fukayama.

[LulzSect]

not much readin goin on in sidelle's part o town

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[paulgiamatti]

I'm not going to respond for the straw man, I'm sorry. He doesn't represent me. Your straw man version of me is not something I'm interested in. None of your arguments are attacking any positions that I take.

Me saying white people are and have been oppressive is not trivializing the cases of oppression that are happening or have happened across the globe. If you want to have an honest accounting of these things - then by all means, go right ahead. I was simply offering my opinion within the context of the Michael Brown case. I wanted to stay on topic - and for the millionth god damn time, focusing on white America's oppressive nature is right on target.

That's not a narrative. If you want to speak out against false narratives, then go fucking speak out against false narratives. Don't invent an imaginary position that you think I might take based on nothing more than speculation and then tell me that I'm wrong for holding that position. That's not my position. Go shove your garbage down someone else's throat.

[paulgiamatti]

If we want to talk about how to define oppression and subjugation, I'm all for that too. I'll be the first to admit that they're elastic words, and we're obviously not all going to agree with what constitutes oppression. For instance, I firmly believe that a law that requires all women to cover themselves in burqas is oppressive. Throwing battery acid on women's faces for laying with another man is oppressive. Denying women the right to education and the right to be autonomous human beings is oppressive. Excluding women from being able to vote in a "democracy" is oppressive. Using words like "gay" and "fag" as a catch-call derogatory remark is oppressive.

I could go on, but I feel like that will be enough to fan the flames for a bit.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If we want to talk about how to define oppression and subjugation, I'm all for that too. I'll be the first to admit that they're elastic words, and we're obviously not all going to agree with what constitutes oppression. For instance, I firmly believe that a law that requires all women to cover themselves in burqas is oppressive. Throwing battery acid on women's faces for laying with another man is oppressive. Denying women the right to education and the right to be autonomous human beings is oppressive. Excluding women from being able to vote in a "democracy" is oppressive. Using words like "gay" and "fag" as a catch-call derogatory remark is oppressive.

I could go on, but I feel like that will be enough to fan the flames for a bit.

You are such a massive hypocrite and you don't even realize it. You don't like "fag" being used, but you have no problem with blacks using ****** in every sentence.

Nothing isn't considered oppressive to you Cultural Marxists, that's the whole goddamn point. It's attitudes like yours that just got female ejaculation, fisting, face sitting and consensual verbal abuse banned in the U.K.

Am I the only one who remembers when it was the far right conservatives who wanted to censor everything? All you've done is pick up their mantra and replace "family values" with "oppression".

You've become what you hate and you refuse to see it.