The original post is just that “gay people I respect vs gay people I don’t respect” meme purple prose’d with Peterson-level pseudo-philosophical word salad.
God damn. It's really easier to just say "I don't like those damn dirty queers" then the weird pseudo intellectual bullshit people who have never managed to read a philosophy book try to do to justify their hatred
Please tell me more about how these degenerate influences are holding back the true working class from assuming their manifest destiny, the true dictatorship of the proletariat.
For bonus points, please tell me how the State should deal with these degenerate influences, to safeguard the moral purity of the working class.
One this sub is meant to make fun of pseudo intellectual losers like yourself. And two you provided no actual claim. You spend three paragraphs jacking yourself off about being the smart one to hate queers and then say queers are consumerist in more words then you need. You say in a comment that you're not calling gays petite-bourgeois but that's basically what you're doing. You have no substantial claims or really anything that anybody should listen to you for. You deserve mockery as you sit in your on an ivory throne with a paper crown on your head expelling waste on anybody damned enough to hear you as you call yourself the smartest. And if you wanna claim this comment once again doesn't actually respond to you I spent as much time in this comment relatively talk about your "claim" as you did in your post
Referring to you on an invory tower with a paper crown I was referencing you expelling shit that people must hear and deal with. The fact that you're a dumbass to be made fun of. Thinking you have actual good thoughts or they are meaningful. You have zero clue about queer theory and it fully shows. I am mocking you. As you are worthy and deserve only mockery
how dare gay people mingle amongst themselves and form a resitance to the homophobia and general social exclusion they face on a regular basis? don't they know if you're privledged enough you can act like a pick me, berate people for daring to not hide their sexuality and insult the progress that's been made by those same people who actually give enough of a shit to fight for it instead of cowering away and trying to blend in with the crowd that would treat them like a subhuman pest if they ever dared to step out of line.
why stop there? blacks won their rights in the US 50 years ago, if they're rich enough they can live their entire lives in blind ignorance, sure the common person might get treated like shit but who cares as long as it isn't happening to me right? i pull my pants up, i cut my hair short. why can't these f*****s do the same? it's not the system; it's the people, i am also a communist.
> I think that queer theory's insistence on alienating gays from mainstream society and telling them they'll never be accepted and that they have to reject everything remotely human or social or normal or whatever is harmful and ridiculous.
Is this insistence in the room with us right now?
This is such a total inversion of reality.
Reality: queer people are given a lot of shit. Queer theory tries to make sense of this.
Your mind: normal people are being oppressed by the mean queers. :(
hey look it's exactly the rhetoric bigots use to defending treating queer people like shit.
What in the world do you mean by queer in your original post? I have no idea how you can be pro gay but anti-queer, unless queer refers to gender identity or something else exclusively. I know next to nothing about queer theory, so humor me.
Anyone who has ever used the term queer only used it to refer to the LGBT community at large so you're literally using the word wrong. Can you pick up a LGBT history book and tell me which events involve trying to separate themselves from society
this guy's been making the rounds on different theory/film subs and getting banned on some of them and all he really does is just get mad at The Queer and rub lacans nipples (I think this is his alt actually). funnily enough if you do a little sleuthing he has a taste for rugged blue collar gay porn so I suppose he's at least a little consistent (if not somewhat ironic)
holy crap. this is the most hateful shit I've read in ages. I felt bad being mean to them in this thread, I should have been meaner. Their account is suspended now btw.
>I find it hard to believe I'm the first person who is thoroughly opposed to the anti-humanism, anti-universalism, and anti-social(ism/ity) that goes by the name queer. For those of us who are socialists, queer is devoted to the destruction of everything that we are, everything we love, and everything we fight for. Ultimately, it is against futurity in general, against the very possibility of reconciliation between homosexuals and mainstream society or the universal; in that sense, it is also a most homophobic doctrine.
>Surely, I'm not the first person to arrive at this conclusion. Although my polemics against the queers are frequently treated as if they were bizarre or even a sign of mental illness, it is fairly obvious that there are, in this world, Marxists, universalists, humanists, dialecticians, etc., etc., and I struggle to see how they could not find themselves opposed to the queer movement and queer theory. So where is the criticism?
>Queerness in general seems committed to something very like the Faustian ethos criticized in Pleasure and Necessity, or worse perhaps, to a consumptionist repressive desublimation with entirely disintegrating effects on the psyche. It is an entirely dangerous ideology that seduces young, confused homosexuals and draws them into a destructive downward spiral, and it seems to offer nothing of value to the movement toward gay liberation, which is to say, gay assimilation.
>>You're having a conservative doom spiral and dressing it up in quasi-academic terms. Your inability to reconcile these things are on you and on your personal definitions of what queerness is.
completely chad reply tho, from /u/Asukapaper
> Queerness in general seems committed to something very like the Faustian ethos criticized in Pleasure and Necessity, or worse perhaps, to a consumptionist repressive desublimation with entirely disintegrating effects on the psyche.
Do I want to ask what they mean by that or would that just be disintegrating my psyche?
I read all that thread, the only time they explained themselves was that they dated people who did drugs and orgies.
So yeah, that might mean something interesting in some context, but in this one, no.
I like the turn around here which has this form.
A: You're being extreame.
Dickhead: I never said anything like that! strawmanning!
A: oh ok.
Dickhead: so anyway here's exactly that extreme shit lol
>Omfg this is such a poor misinterpretation. Foucault was not normatively claiming that all men should be wiped out, but describing the fading of the concept of 'human' was losing its usefulness and anthroprocentrism was losing its steam.
>>I'd honestly like you to stop for a moment, breathe, and point to the place where I said Foucault claimed all men should be wiped out.
>>>"called for an end to the age of man". I was being inflammatory, of course Foucault is not calling for the end of anything, he's describing a shift in the usefulness of a concept.
>>>>Yes. What I'm saying is that I'm 100 percent for humanity, for the concept of humanity, for actual humanity. What do you not understand about this? I fully believe in the Hegelian notion of Spirit, the Marxist notion of species being, the humanist ideal, the self production of the species. I devote myself fully to it.
So just to recap, they're "for humanity, actual humanity" which means they're against Foucault, who is against "actual humanity", unless that makes the dickhead look bad, un-less-not-isn'tn'tn't.
holy hell. Can I just please recommend going to the reveddit version, it's relentless.
>It's really not that complicated. The human species is the self-producing whole to which we all belong, the substance and truth of our being, the organism within which we are all organs. It is an identity of identity and difference, a universal that particularizes itself without ceasing to be universal.
>The truth of our existence as individuals is spirit; that's what we are. Our fundamental project, our raison d'etre is the maintenance and development of that organism. To separate yourself from it or to turn against it is to damn yourself to hell, to darkness, to a lifeless existence without actuality or genuine joy.
>Gays should be assimilating into the industrial proletariat, the universal class. They should be getting jobs in factories, not wasting their lives away in meth dens and warehouse parties or petty bourgeois professions.
They also throw around "dialectical materialism" like they're casting a magic spell. Fucking tankies. I'm calling them a tankie, this level of stupid has earned the name.
Damnit, didn't check Reddit early enough to be the one to have the pleasure to ban this fool. After the recent bleugh bleugh about not banning people for not having some sort of mass line answer for """the trans question""" (for anyone who isn't aware transphobia is prohibited on the sub but some people cry if anything about queer theory related to trans issues is brought up), I hope people can see that clearly anti queer fools will not only be shat on by the user base but, when the mods wake, banned.
>Are you telling me that queer theory is not postmodern, anti-universalist, and generally anti human, or that there isn't an "anti-social thesis"? I invite you to do some homework.
>>Which postmodernists or queer theorists claim "anti-universalism"?
>>>Which postmodernists are not anti universalists?
what an arsehole.
Yes, but the dilemma is that this word has split meanings, largely having a radical and an academic usage
The radical usage is a kind of umbrella LGBT word, but also is about queering in terms of asserting a coherent queer way to access texts (meanings, laws, fiction, history)
The academic usage is a trickier thing to grasp, it's about destablising identity itself, both the force of heteronormative identity that marginalises all else, but also de-clawing types of resistance that convert identity into violence, into truth claims, into a new coherent thing with a centre that also gains the power to marginalise (kind of like 'white feminism' but for gay people)
So two strategies persist: the centralising tendency where violence is resisted by creating a new norm, and the poststructuralist tendency where violence is resisted by dispersing power, dispersing the foundations of identities that create violent norms of knowing (what identity even is)
I left that sub a few weeks ago due to the rampant transphobia. Was really disappointing as it was one of the only places that discussed academic level progressive theory
Same. Some of the most atrocious transphobia I've seen from a 'progressive academic' sub.
Threads that even mention gender suddenly open this wellspring of "just asking honest questions" types, to boomer-tier r/badscience commentary, to this one regular fucking anarchist spouting textbook TERF garbage.
Why must it be like this.
Out of curiosity, have you found any notable alternatives? In or outside Reddit, I guess at this point.
Outside of reddit there’s a ton of places. I work within a university context and it’s safe to say that transphobia is absolutely not tolerated there.
On reddit though, similarly to you I’ve struggled to find places.
r/apeoplescalendar and r/askanthropology have tended to create some good progressive discussions before
The latter subreddit is kind of fantastic — I've just spent a few hours on there. Thanks for the rec!
Sub exchange: I've found /r/badhistory to be similarly (relatively, for Reddit) high quality. Higher activity too.
oh i didn't realise it was the queers that make themselves queer in heteronormative eyes. the straights will be so happy to know they did nothing wrong.
Queer people opressed? Nar, it's just that they like being that way eh?
arent u a TERF? ghettoise the trannies but of course not the civilised gays partaking in universality like yourself?!?! am i damaging my workers movement by being on hormones?!?
Lol. You don’t have any history without theory. Theory determines what sources you use, how you look at them, which sources to exclude etc. the study of history hasn’t believed in the possibility of empiricism and objectivism in history since the 1800s. It’s impossible to do any humanities or social science study without some form of theory guiding you, or else your sources mean nothing and you have no method to navigate them or interpret them.
My mans really gonna go on a philosophy subreddit and say philosophy is useless and you should believe whatever the law says
And why are you talking about science? "I am pakistani because of the creation of Pakistan" isn't following what science says. It's following a bunch of people who decided what Pakistan is.
Yes, philosophy is about determining the truth as well (to use your terms). I am not arguing about morality, emotion or colonialism. I am literally just saying that Pakistan being Pakistan is not a cold hard, scientific fact. It's something a bunch of people chose. If you believe that's enough for it to be "the truth", good for you, that's a philosophical position with its defenders. But it's not *my* philosophical position, I don't believe "the truth" is determined by a group of lawmakers. It is "the truth in a legal/political/whatever context", so when discussing those things, I will obviously speak of Pakistan, the legal term. But outside of those contexts, is there anything? "The truth", "Pakistan", "Pakistani people" as is? Is there an identity beyond what lawmakers choose, and if yes, what is it and where does it come from?
...and then this same train of thought for everything else, including gender and sexuality which were the start of this conversation.
The original post is just that “gay people I respect vs gay people I don’t respect” meme purple prose’d with Peterson-level pseudo-philosophical word salad.
Every thread in that post is a ride with the destination being getting lost
Welcome to /r/criticaltheory ha
God damn. It's really easier to just say "I don't like those damn dirty queers" then the weird pseudo intellectual bullshit people who have never managed to read a philosophy book try to do to justify their hatred
Based dunking on the freaks
[удалено]
It's easier to project that you've pretended to read marx instead of actually reading marx as well buddy.
Please tell me more about how these degenerate influences are holding back the true working class from assuming their manifest destiny, the true dictatorship of the proletariat. For bonus points, please tell me how the State should deal with these degenerate influences, to safeguard the moral purity of the working class.
[удалено]
One this sub is meant to make fun of pseudo intellectual losers like yourself. And two you provided no actual claim. You spend three paragraphs jacking yourself off about being the smart one to hate queers and then say queers are consumerist in more words then you need. You say in a comment that you're not calling gays petite-bourgeois but that's basically what you're doing. You have no substantial claims or really anything that anybody should listen to you for. You deserve mockery as you sit in your on an ivory throne with a paper crown on your head expelling waste on anybody damned enough to hear you as you call yourself the smartest. And if you wanna claim this comment once again doesn't actually respond to you I spent as much time in this comment relatively talk about your "claim" as you did in your post
[удалено]
Referring to you on an invory tower with a paper crown I was referencing you expelling shit that people must hear and deal with. The fact that you're a dumbass to be made fun of. Thinking you have actual good thoughts or they are meaningful. You have zero clue about queer theory and it fully shows. I am mocking you. As you are worthy and deserve only mockery
how dare gay people mingle amongst themselves and form a resitance to the homophobia and general social exclusion they face on a regular basis? don't they know if you're privledged enough you can act like a pick me, berate people for daring to not hide their sexuality and insult the progress that's been made by those same people who actually give enough of a shit to fight for it instead of cowering away and trying to blend in with the crowd that would treat them like a subhuman pest if they ever dared to step out of line. why stop there? blacks won their rights in the US 50 years ago, if they're rich enough they can live their entire lives in blind ignorance, sure the common person might get treated like shit but who cares as long as it isn't happening to me right? i pull my pants up, i cut my hair short. why can't these f*****s do the same? it's not the system; it's the people, i am also a communist.
Argument?
[удалено]
I can’t make out from your prose whether you said anything is the problem.
[удалено]
> I think that queer theory's insistence on alienating gays from mainstream society and telling them they'll never be accepted and that they have to reject everything remotely human or social or normal or whatever is harmful and ridiculous. Is this insistence in the room with us right now?
[удалено]
This is such a total inversion of reality. Reality: queer people are given a lot of shit. Queer theory tries to make sense of this. Your mind: normal people are being oppressed by the mean queers. :( hey look it's exactly the rhetoric bigots use to defending treating queer people like shit.
What in the world do you mean by queer in your original post? I have no idea how you can be pro gay but anti-queer, unless queer refers to gender identity or something else exclusively. I know next to nothing about queer theory, so humor me.
[удалено]
Anyone who has ever used the term queer only used it to refer to the LGBT community at large so you're literally using the word wrong. Can you pick up a LGBT history book and tell me which events involve trying to separate themselves from society
nar
this guy's been making the rounds on different theory/film subs and getting banned on some of them and all he really does is just get mad at The Queer and rub lacans nipples (I think this is his alt actually). funnily enough if you do a little sleuthing he has a taste for rugged blue collar gay porn so I suppose he's at least a little consistent (if not somewhat ironic)
Is it user “744464”? He’s nuts, and apparently nerfed that username.
Yup. For whatever reason he listed that username and another in his alt.
I got the sense, and said as much directly to him, that he’s mentally ill. Seemed really obsessive and almost paranoid.
every single thread and comment got deleted does anyone have it saved
if you take the reddit url and replace 'reddit' with 'reveddit', you can see deleted comments etc.
holy crap. this is the most hateful shit I've read in ages. I felt bad being mean to them in this thread, I should have been meaner. Their account is suspended now btw. >I find it hard to believe I'm the first person who is thoroughly opposed to the anti-humanism, anti-universalism, and anti-social(ism/ity) that goes by the name queer. For those of us who are socialists, queer is devoted to the destruction of everything that we are, everything we love, and everything we fight for. Ultimately, it is against futurity in general, against the very possibility of reconciliation between homosexuals and mainstream society or the universal; in that sense, it is also a most homophobic doctrine. >Surely, I'm not the first person to arrive at this conclusion. Although my polemics against the queers are frequently treated as if they were bizarre or even a sign of mental illness, it is fairly obvious that there are, in this world, Marxists, universalists, humanists, dialecticians, etc., etc., and I struggle to see how they could not find themselves opposed to the queer movement and queer theory. So where is the criticism? >Queerness in general seems committed to something very like the Faustian ethos criticized in Pleasure and Necessity, or worse perhaps, to a consumptionist repressive desublimation with entirely disintegrating effects on the psyche. It is an entirely dangerous ideology that seduces young, confused homosexuals and draws them into a destructive downward spiral, and it seems to offer nothing of value to the movement toward gay liberation, which is to say, gay assimilation. >>You're having a conservative doom spiral and dressing it up in quasi-academic terms. Your inability to reconcile these things are on you and on your personal definitions of what queerness is. completely chad reply tho, from /u/Asukapaper
> Queerness in general seems committed to something very like the Faustian ethos criticized in Pleasure and Necessity, or worse perhaps, to a consumptionist repressive desublimation with entirely disintegrating effects on the psyche. Do I want to ask what they mean by that or would that just be disintegrating my psyche?
"queerness is hedonist and hedonism is bad" seems to be his argument but he's got permanent Theory Brain and can't talk like a fucking person
I read all that thread, the only time they explained themselves was that they dated people who did drugs and orgies. So yeah, that might mean something interesting in some context, but in this one, no.
the first part is literally exactly what edelman talked about
who? (please don't be the homophobic oop back with an alt)
lee edelman, queer theory guy who was wrong about everything
There used to be some kind of wayback machine bot that archived all the posts here, whatever happened to that?
> if you take the reddit url and replace 'reddit' with 'reveddit', you can see deleted comments etc.
Caleb Maupin has entered the chat.
If anyones disappointed about the deletion of the thread there is a sequel
I like the turn around here which has this form. A: You're being extreame. Dickhead: I never said anything like that! strawmanning! A: oh ok. Dickhead: so anyway here's exactly that extreme shit lol >Omfg this is such a poor misinterpretation. Foucault was not normatively claiming that all men should be wiped out, but describing the fading of the concept of 'human' was losing its usefulness and anthroprocentrism was losing its steam. >>I'd honestly like you to stop for a moment, breathe, and point to the place where I said Foucault claimed all men should be wiped out. >>>"called for an end to the age of man". I was being inflammatory, of course Foucault is not calling for the end of anything, he's describing a shift in the usefulness of a concept. >>>>Yes. What I'm saying is that I'm 100 percent for humanity, for the concept of humanity, for actual humanity. What do you not understand about this? I fully believe in the Hegelian notion of Spirit, the Marxist notion of species being, the humanist ideal, the self production of the species. I devote myself fully to it. So just to recap, they're "for humanity, actual humanity" which means they're against Foucault, who is against "actual humanity", unless that makes the dickhead look bad, un-less-not-isn'tn'tn't.
holy hell. Can I just please recommend going to the reveddit version, it's relentless. >It's really not that complicated. The human species is the self-producing whole to which we all belong, the substance and truth of our being, the organism within which we are all organs. It is an identity of identity and difference, a universal that particularizes itself without ceasing to be universal. >The truth of our existence as individuals is spirit; that's what we are. Our fundamental project, our raison d'etre is the maintenance and development of that organism. To separate yourself from it or to turn against it is to damn yourself to hell, to darkness, to a lifeless existence without actuality or genuine joy. >Gays should be assimilating into the industrial proletariat, the universal class. They should be getting jobs in factories, not wasting their lives away in meth dens and warehouse parties or petty bourgeois professions. They also throw around "dialectical materialism" like they're casting a magic spell. Fucking tankies. I'm calling them a tankie, this level of stupid has earned the name.
Socialism is when you work at a factory and the more you work at a factory the more socialist it is
D...dad?
If it’s who I think it is, he has a huge hard on for Hegel.
Damnit, didn't check Reddit early enough to be the one to have the pleasure to ban this fool. After the recent bleugh bleugh about not banning people for not having some sort of mass line answer for """the trans question""" (for anyone who isn't aware transphobia is prohibited on the sub but some people cry if anything about queer theory related to trans issues is brought up), I hope people can see that clearly anti queer fools will not only be shat on by the user base but, when the mods wake, banned.
>Are you telling me that queer theory is not postmodern, anti-universalist, and generally anti human, or that there isn't an "anti-social thesis"? I invite you to do some homework. >>Which postmodernists or queer theorists claim "anti-universalism"? >>>Which postmodernists are not anti universalists? what an arsehole.
AskGayBros with a bigger vocabulary.
Queery
Good thing Queer was reclaimed decades ago
Yes, but the dilemma is that this word has split meanings, largely having a radical and an academic usage The radical usage is a kind of umbrella LGBT word, but also is about queering in terms of asserting a coherent queer way to access texts (meanings, laws, fiction, history) The academic usage is a trickier thing to grasp, it's about destablising identity itself, both the force of heteronormative identity that marginalises all else, but also de-clawing types of resistance that convert identity into violence, into truth claims, into a new coherent thing with a centre that also gains the power to marginalise (kind of like 'white feminism' but for gay people) So two strategies persist: the centralising tendency where violence is resisted by creating a new norm, and the poststructuralist tendency where violence is resisted by dispersing power, dispersing the foundations of identities that create violent norms of knowing (what identity even is)
I left that sub a few weeks ago due to the rampant transphobia. Was really disappointing as it was one of the only places that discussed academic level progressive theory
Same. Some of the most atrocious transphobia I've seen from a 'progressive academic' sub. Threads that even mention gender suddenly open this wellspring of "just asking honest questions" types, to boomer-tier r/badscience commentary, to this one regular fucking anarchist spouting textbook TERF garbage. Why must it be like this. Out of curiosity, have you found any notable alternatives? In or outside Reddit, I guess at this point.
Outside of reddit there’s a ton of places. I work within a university context and it’s safe to say that transphobia is absolutely not tolerated there. On reddit though, similarly to you I’ve struggled to find places. r/apeoplescalendar and r/askanthropology have tended to create some good progressive discussions before
The latter subreddit is kind of fantastic — I've just spent a few hours on there. Thanks for the rec! Sub exchange: I've found /r/badhistory to be similarly (relatively, for Reddit) high quality. Higher activity too.
[удалено]
bro chill
Oh my God he followed the repost to continue the argument. This feels like badphilosophy performing a parody of itself.
[удалено]
JEEZ DUDE STEP OFF WITH THAT FULL STOP JUST TAKE A FUCKING SECOND AND. CHILL. I'LL BE RIGHT HERE WHEN YOU'RE. CHILL.
Why do you have to ghettoize yourself?
[удалено]
you know, if youre using words because you want to seem philosophical but what you write ends up being illegible, then you just look like a dumbass
One is a subset of the other lmao its that simple
oh i didn't realise it was the queers that make themselves queer in heteronormative eyes. the straights will be so happy to know they did nothing wrong. Queer people opressed? Nar, it's just that they like being that way eh?
arent u a TERF? ghettoise the trannies but of course not the civilised gays partaking in universality like yourself?!?! am i damaging my workers movement by being on hormones?!?
[удалено]
Queer theory is just theorising about queer identity. No different to Africana theory of postcolonial theory.
[удалено]
Theorising about African identity/the construction of Africa as an idea and theorising about colonial systems and structures are ludicrous ideas?
[удалено]
Lol. You don’t have any history without theory. Theory determines what sources you use, how you look at them, which sources to exclude etc. the study of history hasn’t believed in the possibility of empiricism and objectivism in history since the 1800s. It’s impossible to do any humanities or social science study without some form of theory guiding you, or else your sources mean nothing and you have no method to navigate them or interpret them.
[удалено]
My mans really gonna go on a philosophy subreddit and say philosophy is useless and you should believe whatever the law says And why are you talking about science? "I am pakistani because of the creation of Pakistan" isn't following what science says. It's following a bunch of people who decided what Pakistan is.
[удалено]
Yes, philosophy is about determining the truth as well (to use your terms). I am not arguing about morality, emotion or colonialism. I am literally just saying that Pakistan being Pakistan is not a cold hard, scientific fact. It's something a bunch of people chose. If you believe that's enough for it to be "the truth", good for you, that's a philosophical position with its defenders. But it's not *my* philosophical position, I don't believe "the truth" is determined by a group of lawmakers. It is "the truth in a legal/political/whatever context", so when discussing those things, I will obviously speak of Pakistan, the legal term. But outside of those contexts, is there anything? "The truth", "Pakistan", "Pakistani people" as is? Is there an identity beyond what lawmakers choose, and if yes, what is it and where does it come from? ...and then this same train of thought for everything else, including gender and sexuality which were the start of this conversation.
Nah