Taking sides: Nick Currie vs Edwina Currie

a) to help the holder of them keep a good image of himself.
b) to outflank attacks by always being to the left of the attacker.
c) to avoid engaging with the issues at hand by falling back on a set creed.

People object when 'the female' is characterised as a fixed essence, but not when the male is.

People talk of 'strawmen' when you make an interesting and original characterisation, but not when you make a conformist and dull one.

People accuse you of stereotyping yet allow all sorts of much more blatant stereotyping to pass unchallenged.

In the face of a certain ambient cynicism, someone who shows Romanticism is declared a cynic.

In the face of a certain ambient celibacy, someone who loves, lives and works mainly with women is declared a misogynist.

Violence is apparently much more acceptable than sex.

The idea of unquantifiable vertical differences ('hipsters think they're better!') is thrown out, along with its benefits (ie the occasional brilliance it produces).

People seem more hasty to condemn the positive stereotyping of a distant land (neo-romanticism) than its actual invasion (neo-imperialism).

In the face of what I consider the lameness of tropes like these I've become much less scared of venturing outside the paint lines of the ideological traffic lanes. I think in the past my 'lane shepherds' or 'traffic cops' were people like Edward Said, people who argued persuasively, subtly, with engagement and in good faith. But when I see Said-lite, trickledown Said, Said-as-ego-shield, Said-tics used as a way of actually not thinking about the Other at all, I become much less inhibited, much less pinned. It seems much more possible to, for instance, experiment with the resurrection of Romanticism as a lesser of two evils. It would be appalling to live in a world where there were Jack Straws but no Robert Louis Stevensons.

hmm. don't these ideas hold with any group of a particular consensus, tho? positive reassuring, outflanking any extremes, set creeds, etc.

When was the male ever characterised as a fixed essence, dear sir?

So you distinguish two classes of fetishisation, that which has 'respect' for the fetishised 'human other', and that which doesn't, and then you claim you are not against the former. But what you consider to be 'adding value' is itself a value judgement informed by your own interests, which may not be in synch with those of the fetishised 'human other'. You just have to look at the effect of various well-intentioned actions of Western interests in colonial history (missionaries, 'la mission civilatrice' etc.) to see that. Also do you feel that in taking interest in the Other, the Other is necessarily exoticised, fetishised etc.? Yes, we can only see the Other filtered through our non-Other experience - Kant, things-in-themselves, bla bla bla - but the alternative to solipsistic fetishisation might be a willingness to accept that the confrontation with the Other could change us in ways we can't predict or schematise into a fetishistic response.

The Other, faced with such positive fetishisations, usually has no problem negotiating some mutually profitable common space for encounters with its fetishisers. We call these 'museums', 'hotels' and 'brothels', mostly. Or we call them 'inter-cultural marriages' or 'UNESCO programs' or any number of other negotiated, mutually enriching relationships.

You just have to look at the effect of various well-intentioned actions of Western interests in colonial history (missionaries, 'la mission civilatrice' etc.)

Those do not come under the rubric of 'positive fetishisations', though. They are one-way traffic. They regard the indigenous local culture of the other as a simple 'mistake', rather as USUK regarded Saddam Iraq.

Also do you feel that in taking interest in the Other, the Other is necessarily exoticised, fetishised etc.?

I think all forms of respect tend to fetishisation, just as all forms of disrespect tend to annihilation.

'It is not me, I don't really understand, so I must destroy it.'

I think it's more like 'people talk of "strawmen" when one makes an observational declaration that they [the "people", as vague as that term may be] find to be not entirely based in [a] reality [that they themselves experience]'.

He's had more threads about him than Stevem's hair, and that's just wrong.

I do see Nick's point about respect being a continuum with fetishisation at one end, and disrespect being part of that continuum with annihilation on the other end.

Our friend Flo just says 'respect kills' and I'm willing to go with that.

/mwahahaha

The tragedy of communication is that we think we know what the other is talking about, because he is using words, and we know words. The advantage of love (and what is fetishisation but a slightly sickly form of love?) is that we can love the other without this illusion that we know the other.

DNFTT, people.

This term 'troll' has to go. It is petty, passe, discriminatory, and implies that saying or doing something to get a reaction is a crime. Tell it to Oscar Wilde! Tell it Evil Knievel!

xpost --

If you don't like the look of a thread, don't click on it, don't post to it. This catty attack on one successful artist by one unsuccessful one does not make you look good.

Momus loves transgression, and poking people to get a reaction/rise out of them. Yet, when I do the same back to him, I get all sorts of catty comments from his fanbase about his "success" and my "lack" thereof. Maybe those complaining about my cattiness should readjust their overawe at the concept of celebrity. I never said I wasn't trolling, either.

The man comes out with all sorts of ridiculous (and some not so ridiculous) assertions on this board, sometimes to work through his own thoughts, and sometimes to provoke people into examining their own philosophies and intellectual boundaries. Really, what is the difference between this, and what Calum claims that he is doing? Momus is more intelligent, better spoken, has a wider vocabulary, and *usually* is more polite. But fundamentally, what is the difference? I'd say Momus generally has a better concept of personal boundaries and better impulse control, but conceptually, they're very similar.

Anyway, I need to get off the internet. I have diamonds to look for.

What did I say?

What's more, I predict that within 6 months C-Man will be a loved and valued member of the community. He is not without talents which could be useful should the Orcmen attack us in gremlin-chariots.

I have sold less than you(se). It doesn't make my opinions less valid...

You sorta answered your own question there -- anyway, I thought you were chief in the Hardline Delete The Fucker Kru?

At the gates of the city a foolish Ogre guard tried to bar his way until he paid the "Entrance fee". Forckum lifted his hood slightly and the Ogre, one Knatbiter, shrank back and fled into his barracks....'

Northern Uproar - Most Under-rated Band Ever?

(plus, Messaien rocks harder anyway.)

Nick, I'm shocked you haven't taken issue with this 'defense'.

anyways.

'nuff said. sigh. troll = if you annoyed a group of posters with streams of thought OR being arseholish you are thus labelled a troll. media tags are good.

i could say - 'Why look at the sky today - isnt it beautiful'. someone would say 'why yes doomie i think the sky is beautiful - like a big ocean one could deep yer feet into'. on ilx it would be: WHY DON'T YOU FUCK OFF YOU DUMB TROLL I REMEMBER WHAT YOU DID THREE YEARS AGOO YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE FUCK FUCK FUCK CUNT YER BORING 'TROLL'. CUNTING TROLL. WHY DON'T YOU FUCK OFF AND DIE.

i come onto ilx occassionally to remind myself of why i am a misanthrope. and suzy - wrong call ... but wtf? who cares?

i blame pashimina. he keeps me around here. YOU MUST KILL THE TROLL KEEPER. I KNOW WHERE HE LIVES. I SAW A YELLOW BIRD ON HIS SHOULDER AND IT SPEAKS THE WORDS OF THE DEVIL TO HIM.

(sufjan stevens new one and oneida are my new GODZ...)

i get all my agression out on the london transit system now.

(blade runner quote! 'natch)

just to let you know i've participated in rational discussion here without the doomie superhero name and no one was none the wiser. i just like to bring out doomie occassionally fer LAFFS. or when i'm drunk or stoned.

You should be drunk and stoned all the time, best way to be

i will hide for rationalism. be drunk for reality!

Vomiting is good, especially on cunts, if you are fucked up enough, you don't get blamed. Its good when its sneaky as well as when its upfront

fear not, my friend. the vomit shall be mine if i drink anymore absinthe argh argh spellnig. bye!

http://www.gordonrainsford.btinternet.co.uk/currie.jpg

Because she's cute! Nick isn't.