bin laden | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
(nobody)
...and 270 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2613460
Today 3
Topics 127500
  
 
Messageboard index
bin laden
 

offline mohamed from the turtle business on 2011-05-07 13:26 [#02413545]
Points: 31145 Status: Regular | Show recordbag



101


 

offline welt on 2011-05-07 13:30 [#02413548]
Points: 2036 Status: Lurker



kittens, abstract talk about politics. there's not such a
great difference.


 

offline Torture Garden from Feelin' 2Pacish on 2011-05-07 14:53 [#02413558]
Points: 974 Status: Lurker | Followup to welt: #02413539



I don't think there is much debate over whether the act of
blowing a hole in a wall built by an aggressive western
backed regional superpower in order to bypass food sanctions
is progressive, it quite clearly is, you'd have to make a
case that insurrection isn't radical. Striving for a "just
and free society" is a v. rigid definition of progressive
left actions and sounds a liitle too much like descriptions
of western democracy to be really taken seriously.

deleuze is totally against generalisations, yes
generalisations are unfair and the language we use is
unfair. deleuze and guattari suggest that a new mode of
thought (and obviously a new language) is necessary in
accompanying a radical movement. This extends beyond the
obvious battlefield into everyday movement, the mundane
everyday is an expression of the connections that make up a
subject. You can't play strictly within the bounds of the
system which you are fighting and I think this thought quite
neatly relates to the idea that blowing a hole in a wall is
progressive especially when it has such an obvious practical
benefit allowing people to feed themselves DIY style.


 

offline Monoid from one source all things depend on 2011-05-07 17:57 [#02413565]
Points: 11005 Status: Regular | Followup to Torture Garden: #02413558



Somehow i have the impression that you don't understand,
that blowing holes in walls wouldn't be neccesary if the
hamas would just stop to destroy Israel.
Not everything would be perfect, it only could be a
beginning of a better relationship.

Also, there are a lot more of countries in the middle east,
that are or were 'western backed'. You never mention that,
why is that?
And what does it mean exactly? Who or what group is backing
up Israel and why?


 

offline taking_the_piz on 2011-05-07 18:18 [#02413567]
Points: 795 Status: Lurker



At the subject of Israel my only hope is that an acceptance
of the Palestinian state by the UN in september will create
a more level playingfield in the negotiations between Israel
and the Palestinians.


 

offline welt on 2011-05-10 16:14 [#02413745]
Points: 2036 Status: Lurker | Followup to Torture Garden: #02413558



i put the words "free and just" society in quotes, because
it's clear that judith butler wouldn't use such an
expression. however, it seems rather clear that butler aims
for a social situation which she considers somehow "good".
butler is driven by ethical concerns. in the introduction to
a later edition of gender trouble - i think i remember it
correctly, but i don't have my copy of gender trouble ready
at hand to look it up - she says that a central part of the
motivation for her writing this book is the violence
directed against people who don't fit into gender norms. so
she is driven to a large extent by the desire to create a
social situation, which conforms to her ethical ideals. and
she herself labels her ideals as somehow left.

but the desire that hamas and hezbollah are driven by is
very different from that of butler; the desire of hamas is
not a political or social situation which could be called
left. they want to establish an islamic theocracy. being an
underdog and fighting against a superpower doesn't make you
left. an islamic theocracy has nothing to do with left
ideals.

i think that if you want to judge a person, you need to
judge their aims/desires/will. and the will/aim/desire of
hamas is not left, therefore i hold that it's deeply
false to say hamas or hezbollah are part of the left.
[that's my central point.]

i'm echoing here kant's great remark: "Nothing can possibly
be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be
called good, without qualification, except a good will."
(Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals, first section)
… i'm not a kantian, but i think he got it right that you
need to look at a person's intention to judge their ethical
status. and the intention of hamas is vile and not ethical
or left at all.


 


Messageboard index