deadken posted:

i like irigaray's argument that relations between men and women are ultimately relations between men mediated by women, i'm not so sure that homosexuality is necessarily a kind of short circuit in this relation... you have to have some kind of mediation in relations between people; isn't it possible that homosexuality allows for people to experience this role as something performative rather than intrinsic, etc

actually its nonsense men opress women cause they want to fuck them and personally benefit economically from opression as well.

babyhueypnewton posted:

roseweird posted:

babyhueypnewton posted:

it's extreme effectiveness on dividing the left forces

maybe if you werent such a gay hating freak it would be less effective

if only those muslims/russians/koreans/cubans/africans/afro-americans werent such gay hating freaks we wouldnt need to bomb them!

bhpn: victim of the Gay Imperial Agenda

babyhueypnewton posted:

eccentricdeathmongrel you're correct and phrased it way better than i could. however we need to re-evaluate your conclusion with the elevation of gay male rights as directly oppressive in the last 10 years or so and especially today with the use of propaganda against Russia, Syria, North Korea, etc.

DM: In much of the work now being done on the subject of race and sexuality, there is the suggestion that the very practice of institutionalizing or mainstreaming queer itself functions in such a way as to occult the nationalistic/civilizational (racist) components of queer practice: it is as if non-heteronormative positions are somehow so dazzling that they can blind us to their divisive tendencies. Can you comment on this sense in which the queering of dominant formations appears to go hand in hand with a racial myopia?

JP: The ascendancy of queer is not just coincidentally occurring in relation to certain racial politics but is contingent upon them. We also know that any single-axis identity politics is invariably going to coagulate around the most conservative, normative construction of that identity, foreclosing the complexities of class, citizenship status, gender, nation, and perhaps most importantly in the context of very recent events, religion. One example is the implications of the 2003 Lawrence decision that decriminalized sodomy between consenting adults on the federal level in the U.S. While a plethora of queer and feminist scholars deftly and cogently critique the limits of the ruling in terms of its protection of privacy, intimacy, normative kinship forms, and property over queer sex — in other words, the domestication of queer sex — they predominantly do so by assessing the impact of the decision on LGBTIQ subjects. But the implications of Lawrence extend far beyond its obvious sexual referents. I reread the case through its import for surveillance, racial profiling, detention, and deportation, looking at its impact on terrorist populations and the reorganization of Muslim sexualities and kinship patterns. I think this kind of rereading, what Siobhan Somerville calls a ’sideways reading’, is a potent tactic for destabilizing a homophobia vs. racism binary.

-Q&A with Jasbir Puar

This is another quote that directly contradicts everything you're saying lmao

Themselves posted:

poo poo pee pee i missed out on the "dialectical materialism" major at Chico State

after making this post i did some googling around and found a beginners guide to dialectics

http://home.igc.org/~venceremos/index.htm

dont let deadken convince you he actually knows anything about marxism or philosophy, im just trying to be nice since i just want him to go away. an actual discussion of interpellation and the differences between foucault and althusser would be interesting but isnt for this thread.

babyhueypnewton posted:

eccentricdeathmongrel you're correct and phrased it way better than i could. however we need to re-evaluate your conclusion with the elevation of gay male rights as directly oppressive in the last 10 years or so and especially today with the use of propaganda against Russia, Syria, North Korea, etc.

DM: In much of the work now being done on the subject of race and sexuality, there is the suggestion that the very practice of institutionalizing or mainstreaming queer itself functions in such a way as to occult the nationalistic/civilizational (racist) components of queer practice: it is as if non-heteronormative positions are somehow so dazzling that they can blind us to their divisive tendencies. Can you comment on this sense in which the queering of dominant formations appears to go hand in hand with a racial myopia?

JP: The ascendancy of queer is not just coincidentally occurring in relation to certain racial politics but is contingent upon them. We also know that any single-axis identity politics is invariably going to coagulate around the most conservative, normative construction of that identity, foreclosing the complexities of class, citizenship status, gender, nation, and perhaps most importantly in the context of very recent events, religion. One example is the implications of the 2003 Lawrence decision that decriminalized sodomy between consenting adults on the federal level in the U.S. While a plethora of queer and feminist scholars deftly and cogently critique the limits of the ruling in terms of its protection of privacy, intimacy, normative kinship forms, and property over queer sex — in other words, the domestication of queer sex — they predominantly do so by assessing the impact of the decision on LGBTIQ subjects. But the implications of Lawrence extend far beyond its obvious sexual referents. I reread the case through its import for surveillance, racial profiling, detention, and deportation, looking at its impact on terrorist populations and the reorganization of Muslim sexualities and kinship patterns. I think this kind of rereading, what Siobhan Somerville calls a ’sideways reading’, is a potent tactic for destabilizing a homophobia vs. racism binary.


-Q&A with Jasbir Puar

no no, i completely agree with Puar's analysis of pinkwashing, especially with regard to her understanding of the exaltation of specified, reified, "clean", "non-terroristic", "normative-not-normative" queer identities and assemblages in order not only to further carry out the objectives of the Nation-State's Imperium thru "human"-rights"-oriented discursive strategy, but to further mandate the oppression of queer identities and bodies non-aligned and perhaps (thusly?) antagonistic towards these aforementioned imperialist goals. what i was stating was simply that this mode of analysis does not necessitate the critique and judgment of male homosexuality as a particularly chauvinist/anti-feminist tendency towards the social exclusion of womyn, which is a critique actually adopted as an avowedly feminist and revolutionary position by certain organizations, e.g. Redstockings; the RCP-USA as well, although the Avakian Thought pertaining to this matter was a little murkier iirc. i find this line to be a mostly first-worldist and basically despicable form of posturing and erasure, though it is understandable how such ideas can coalesce in the context of the Movement (you know damn well the one to which i refer). for good reason, it certainly wasn't the dominant second-wave understanding for too longtemps... Or was it?

hmm

Edited by eccentricdeathmongrel (May 13, 2014 03:23:43)

Lessons posted:

The last sentence, which you didn't bold and I'm honestly surprised you didn't outright delete, (the problem is that your too stupid, not that your not deceptive enough), talks about Puar's desire to "destabilize the homophobia vs. racism binary" which says to me that she sees homophobia and racism and indeed all forms of bigotry as part of an interconnected societal system with mutually reinforcing mechanisms that are mediated through the state and societal institutions. In other words homophobia including your 'constructive homophobia' is actually part of, and plays into the interest of, larger systems of colonial-racial and imperial oppression. She also speaks out against "any single-axis identity politics" which would presumably include you & crow's homespun garbage about how we need a new Holocaust for gay men because really patriarchy is all that's important. There are important conversations to have about 'homonationalism' in the sense of rich gay dudes boycotting vodka for Obama's wars but those conversations can't possibly be productive if they involve literal bigots. Go fuck yourself.

why would we include you in this conversation, do you smell a CIA racewar or something you could uphold?

Lessons posted:

The last sentence, which you didn't bold and I'm honestly surprised you didn't outright delete, (the problem is that your too stupid, not that your not deceptive enough), talks about Puar's desire to "destabilize the homophobia vs. racism binary" which says to me that she sees homophobia and racism and indeed all forms of bigotry as part of an interconnected societal system with mutually reinforcing mechanisms that are mediated through the state and societal institutions. In other words homophobia including your 'constructive homophobia' is actually part of, and plays into the interest of, larger systems of colonial-racial and imperial oppression. She also speaks out against "any single-axis identity politics" which would presumably include you & crow's homespun garbage about how we need a new Holocaust for gay men because really patriarchy is all that's important. There are important conversations to have about 'homonationalism' in the sense of rich gay dudes boycotting vodka for Obama's wars but those conversations can't possibly be productive if they involve literal bigots. Go fuck yourself.

if you'll notice here what thug lessons did is replace 'queering' which is a positive construction of power with 'homophobia' which is purely negative, even though Puar never uses the word. he replaced Puar's interesting analysis of the "ascendency of queer" as contingent on a certain racial politics(notice again the word racism which is purely negative is not used) with an easy analysis of pink-washing that disrupts an idealist 'pure' homosexual rights movement which has been corrupted by the state, which removes us from having to do any analysis of the real movement of human beings. he then accuses others of being dishonest

babyhueypnewton posted:

Lessons posted:

The last sentence, which you didn't bold and I'm honestly surprised you didn't outright delete, (the problem is that your too stupid, not that your not deceptive enough), talks about Puar's desire to "destabilize the homophobia vs. racism binary" which says to me that she sees homophobia and racism and indeed all forms of bigotry as part of an interconnected societal system with mutually reinforcing mechanisms that are mediated through the state and societal institutions. In other words homophobia including your 'constructive homophobia' is actually part of, and plays into the interest of, larger systems of colonial-racial and imperial oppression. She also speaks out against "any single-axis identity politics" which would presumably include you & crow's homespun garbage about how we need a new Holocaust for gay men because really patriarchy is all that's important. There are important conversations to have about 'homonationalism' in the sense of rich gay dudes boycotting vodka for Obama's wars but those conversations can't possibly be productive if they involve literal bigots. Go fuck yourself.

if you'll notice here what thug lessons did is replace 'queering' which is a positive construction of power with 'homophobia' which is purely negative, even though Puar never uses the word. he replaced Puar's interesting analysis of the "ascendency of queer" as contingent on a certain racial politics(notice again the word racism which is purely negative is not used) with an easy analysis of pink-washing that disrupts an idealist 'pure' homosexual rights movement which has been corrupted by the state, which removes us from having to do any analysis of the real movement of human beings. he then accuses others of being dishonest

I think this kind of rereading, what Siobhan Somerville calls a ’sideways reading’, is a potent tactic for destabilizing a homophobia vs. racism binary.