Chapo Trap House and the rise of the dirtbag left

that is very good and makes me not want to read the book tbh

keep judith butler's name out your mouth nagle!

zzz theory beefs

pfft whatevs flopson!

seems 2 me a talented theorist can always make one of those critiques so i discount them basically to zero. i imagine the interesting part of nagle is source material not the theory anyways

How do you interrogate 'source material'?

Of course theory doesn't have a stranglehold on it but its on zero books, its going to have theory. And non-existent editing.

i read the gabriella coleman book about Anonymous and her attempts to theorize the fascinating source material (a decade-long ethnography of Anonymous IRC chat rooms) just killed it for me. not saying zero theory is optimal or even possible, but when you've done interesting anthropological investigation it should for the most part speak for itself (imo)

Understand. It can often -- probably most of the time -- fall flat. But Ash doesn't do a ton of theory - I think this is one of twitter's strengths where that stuff can move about in more concentrated form.

https://www.vice.com/en_nz/article/d338qj/corncob-donut-binch-a-guide-to-weird-leftist-internet-slang

― gbx, Thursday, 24 August 2017 21:25 (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Ahaha, I'd forgotten about the 'milkshake duck' tweet. So good.

I read that url just now and was like 'wtf does donut bitch have to do with the leftist twittersphere'

[Perhaps more apt for the alt-right thread, but as the conversation seems on it seems to have drifted here] I had a quick read of the Kindle version of Kill All Normies today, more than anything just to get myself back into the habit of reading and responding to political writing of greater length than a forum post.
I'm sure I'm not the only one to have had this kind of response, but - having gone into it partly looking just for a summary of things which are obv. important to know about but that I don't particularly want to have to dredge through the sewer-of-the-human-mind parts of the web to encounter first-hand, I was surprised by how much of the stuff described I was already super-familiar with (ILX discussions probably a big reason for this).

(On a minor note, the Harambe stuff, which I had no idea of the scale of previously, raised a chuckle tbh).

(5 levels of MGTOW also fun).

I would say that overall I'm inclined to give the book a sympathetic reading because I'm favourable to the 2 main argumentative thrusts as I took them to be, i.e. (1) critique of transgression as being inherently positive & politically progressive, regardless of the specifics of what is being transgressed and to what end & (2) trying to work towards a way of doing politics that's broader than just a 'culture wars' approach, where everyone is stuck in this tit-for-tat of defining themselves negatively against how they perceive their opponents to be.

It IS a very condensed work though - and I get that this is part of the Zero Books format, that the books are often intended as 'primers', snappy introductions to subject areas that people can pick up & read quickly & without a lot of background knowledge.
But I think a lot of the responses saying that Nagle's unfair in her treatment of the online left (or parts thereof) are because in the sections on this in particular she's summarising by relying a lot on these broad shorthand phrases - 'identity politics', 'the liberal left', 'Tumblr-liberalism' etc - that are quite often contested in meaning and/or cover a wide range of political positions & approaches, and there's maybe not enough time spent on pinning down what exactly does she mean by those terms, what political currents under those headings does she find particularly objectionable & why, are their any currents she thinks worth saving, etc.

how does nagle stack up to the gabriella coleman book?

― flopson, Friday, August 25, 2017 1:48 PM (three days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

kind of a tangential response but i'm going to be extremely suspicious of anyone who treated "weave" with kid gloves (crabapple, some of the new inquiry people) forever

sry it's been 2 years since i read Hacker, Hoaxer... was weave one of colemans sources? i definitely felt that she excused some of their behaviour more than necessary

like i said idk. the 'stateless hacker' types are all sus to me frankly

I died at the description of Kasparov as "the brain genius of the horse game" in the Joe Prince ep

did we all see assange crying for the race scientists getting their youtube click money taken away

good ep, does Joe Prince always sound that... uh... peppy?

no I only saw the awful "black power" vs "white power" one he took down xp

twitter not verifying assange was petty. why not at this point.

prob just to fuck w him

turns out DSA Veterans is the best DSA account

We did but it turns out the military is pretty fashy too and instead of fighting Nazis you just do imperialism 🙄 https://t.co/loK3Y8hQUa

— DSA Veterans 🌹 (@DSAVeterans) August 29, 2017

Felix B interview in ChiReader

In a lot of places in Chicago, the fix is in. There are a lot of factors beyond our control. It seems like Rahm Emanuel became mayor without anyone voting. The mayor and City Council constantly kowtow to building developers. Rahm and Obama are part of our political DNA, but I think Chicago's true political character is defined by its people—and that's radical in many ways.

I think about last year when Trump tried to do a rally in Chicago and thousands and thousands of young people scared the shit out of him and kept him out. I remember national liberals and centrists responded by scolding the protesters saying, "This is exactly what Trump wants!" I thought that was so condescending. These people came out and risked it all to embarrass this guy who was demonizing them in every way. He wanted to deport them and take away their fucking health care and institute austerity in every part of their lives. I thought it showed the true character of the people who live here.

https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/chapo-trap-house-interview-felix-biederman-dirtbag-left-podcast/Content?oid=29354373

Respect to Amber for not being mad that her stripper step-sister uses her name on stage.

that was a fun episode, they've been on a good run recently

also amber was married? themoreyouknow.jpg

Rahm and Obama are part of our political DNA, but I think Chicago's true political character is defined by its people—and that's radical in many ways. I think about last year when Trump tried to do a rally in Chicago and thousands and thousands of young people scared the shit out of him and kept him out... I thought it showed the true character of the people who live here.

The saddest aspect of this politics is its insistence that "the people" truly share their ideology -- but this is a failing the chapo crew shares with mainstream liberalism, mainstream Republicanism, Trumpism, third-wayism, etc. so they can hardly be uniquely faulted for it.

It depends on what "people" you mean, of course, but there's plenty of data backing up that Americans of their generation take an increasingly dim view of capitalism.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/16/why-young-americans-are-giving-up-on-capitalism/

Which political ideologies don't believe that the people are fundamentally with them or would be under the right conditions?

It seems like a necessity to be politically active - if you just think you're going to be forever unpopular and unsupported, why bother?

free coffee at the meetings

Chance to act self righteous on social media

Quite a lot of ideologies has a notion that the people can't be trusted.

what is my people saying

it's not a question of ideology, it's a question of knowing when you're getting royally screwed.

Which political ideologies don't believe that the people are fundamentally with them or would be under the right conditions?

Hardly any.

Which political ideologies don't believe that the people are fundamentally with them or would be under the right conditions?

straussian neoconservatism

i disagree- just the right conditions for straussians are "we trick them into doing what we want"

The GOP is literally doing as much as it can to take decision making out of the hands of "the people" as we speak.

The GOP broadly seems dead set in their belief in a silent majority that agrees with them and their vision of the world - part of that worldview is anti-democratic.

The GOP is literally doing as much as it can to take decision making out of the hands of "the people" as we speak.

― the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Thursday, August 31, 2017 9:30 AM (six minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

otoh you could say they are basically narrowly defining who "the people" are and doing their best to disenfranchise all the volksfremde

_Democracy for Realists_ does a nice summary of what the "people" really think vs what the pollsters/others think they think. I'm sure that book got plenty of good, more informed commentary from ilx but I dint visit that thread/s.

going to guess here: people are dumb and don't vote based on policies/ideology, instead they vote according to their feelings and grievances, even if the things they object to aren't within the purview of the politician they are electing

but like backed up with data

Write books man- depends who asks and how too.

Write books man- depends who asks and how too.

Write books man- depends who asks and how too. xp

Ok I'm on a plane and uh ?

so matt is in nyc now? not sure how i feel about this.