I think that's all we wanted to hear! :yesyes: :crowdgrin
artysml::wave:
I hope he eventually got his juice!
The Violence of the Global
- Thread starter Spud Crowley
- Start date
I think that's all we wanted to hear! :yesyes: :crowdgrin
artysml::wave:
I hope he eventually got his juice!
I think that's all we wanted to hear! :yesyes: :crowdgrin
:wave:
I hope he eventually got his juice!
your attempts to match my critique and wit are pathetic.
S
sputnikgirl
Guest
Sweet...at least this time I wasn't the target. :thumbsup:
i'm sticking around just to crash your party. if you read my post clearly you would have seen i will continue to respond to nonsense as i am indulging a certain non-sesnsical side of myself right now. or if someone actually talks about the article, then i'll respond. other then that, i don't intend on posting on this forum anymore seeing how much of a black hole for thinking it is.
shouldn't the u in ummm be capitalized?:thefinger
of course if i'm wrong i'm sure a grammar nazi will come to the rescue and explain why the u in ummm shouldn't be capitalized. all the same, :thefinger
S
sputnikgirl
Guest
u got jeebus? i has pamphlets...
yeah, I think that is pretty much the truth. I don't know about complicated, but I do think that perhaps sputnik girl is not entirely off the mark in her critique. He does seem to have hard time underlining a central theme and from this article all I can really say is "Ok. that's an interesting perspective." But I have a hard time referencing any single particular points to discuss.
fine. at least you read it and gave some type of response. i think baudrillard is somewhat complicated because his perspective has changed over the years and he has written about so many different things that it helps to have read a lot of his stuff in order to be able to engage with anything in particular he wrote. but anyway, his whole point about terrorism and it's relationship to expanding systems of global power seems to be a relatively simple point that could have been addressed by people by either agreeing, disagreeing, expanding upon something, asking for clarification, etc. i was simply curious to see how people would react to this article. i am obviously mildly dissapointed, but i never expected much in the first place. but i thought i'd get a little more substantive response then i did.
oK, from what I gathered he seems to be saying that terrorism is a result of globalization, and that certainly is true. there would be no terrorism without globalization. But all terrorism is not anti-globalization. that is assuming that you are referring to terrorism as a tactic, and not simply as the buzz word for anything that western powers choose to consider threatening.
radical Islam, while in opposition to western power, is not particularly anti-globalization. it's not opposed to the idea of state power, religious authority, capitalism or more precisely economic value system (of which is not rejected by marxism or communism either) and not really all that concerned with industrialized production.
You also have anti-globalization tactics are that are not terrorism, and domestic terrorism that falls somewhere in between.
radical Islam, while in opposition to western power, is not particularly anti-globalization. it's not opposed to the idea of state power, religious authority, capitalism or more precisely economic value system (of which is not rejected by marxism or communism either) and not really all that concerned with industrialized production.
You also have anti-globalization tactics are that are not terrorism, and domestic terrorism that falls somewhere in between.
yes, terrorism results from globalization but more specifically because globalization is a very violent, penetrative process of incorporation of the whole world into an increasingly homogenized system. it's important to remember specific motivations behind terrorist actions, which are usually lost amongst the hysteria of people's knee jerk reactions to violence done against the superpower.
that is a very good point. islamic terrorism has much in common with the west, and baudrillard has pointed out numerous times that there would be terrorist resistance against a globalized world that originated from an islamic position of power instead of western. this starts to break down the dichotomy that's been constructed by people like Samuel Huntington in his Clash of Civilization's thesis that heightens differences while playing down similarities. This "Clash" thesis has infected most discourse about this topic outside of fairly radical circles of discussion. what baudrillard calls the "singularities," or "cultures that died a beautiful death," are the loci of resistance to globalization that potentially could be most effective. baudrillard is big on "primitive" societies as a model of what he calls "symbolic exchange," therefore he is proposing a sort of way out of the global system regardless of who is running it, ie. capitalists, communists, anarchists, etc.
yes, good point about anti-globalization tactics that are not terrorism, but as baudrillard points out in the article i posted, this pacifistic anti-globalization resistance is largely impotent and not really ANTI-globalization but ALTERNATIVE-globalization.
well, for anyone besides calpoon still reading this, hopefully this back and forth exchange with calpoon shows what a real substantive discussion can consist of if a little effort is exerted.
dick van cock
Closed Account
Seems like someone pours old wine in new wineskins.
Get over it, Joe!
Manifesto of the Communist Party; published in 1848 said:
Get over it, Joe!
so we should just bow to the "iron laws of history" and accept the capitalist world system?
that's interesting dick. what you are describing there is the industrial revolution and it only foreshadows the creation of globalization. Why is it you think that the Age of discovery contributed to the era of Industrialization?
Hold your horses there, Spud. I'm about to read through this. Let me read it, digest it, and mull it over a bit (it's been a while since I've read stuff by this guy, or Zizek and the like), and maybe I'll have something to say about it. No need to go all knee-jerk elitist on us. I didn't even know this thread existed until today - I guess that's because I DON'T spend enormous amounts of time here on this porn board.
Also, I don't think it's necessarily true that discussions about who should be the next president are "trivial."
So, gimme - and whoever else is interested - some time to take this in...
I often wonder if complacent tactics just spur from a countenance to action. Although I haven't read it, from the title I can assume that a similar idea is the thesis of ward Churchill's book Pacifism As Pathology.
I think that many people in the first world nations aren't entirely ignorant of the damages of globalization and that is why we have and have had many people that resisted it in part, the largest were the varying groups of the 1960's Hippie and beatnik movement, and more commercial types that consider themselves to be Environmentalist today.
just today a radical politik friend of mine quoted the old idealistic expression, "when the power of love overcomes the love of power, we will have peace." I don't know about you, but it seems to me that it doesn't have much of a chance. the power of positive thinking aka. using your imagination rarely takes effect over the real world.
I think that even though some of them are aware of it (and perhaps some are ignorant as well), the notion of the spread of globalism (as we are calling it here, but it's equally interchangeable with expressions like capitalism, industrialization, civilization, etc.)that is achieved foremost by violent means doesn't really resonate with them. Clearly because they do not experience this violence.
There are groups of people that do experience this violence firsthand, and we've been discussing their violence a bit here lately.
By that I mean gang violence and other typical poor urbanized types of crime.
But thanks to the successful media propaganda machine their rage is almost always misplaced and petty, instead of being revolutionary in nature.
By that I mean gang violence and other typical poor urbanized types of crime.
But thanks to the successful media propaganda machine their rage is almost always misplaced and petty, instead of being revolutionary in nature.
So why be surprised or disappointed when you don't get a great response from a porn forum? By definition, porn, not philosophy, is the primary interest here. That said, I'm open to the philosophy, too. Like I said, lemme read through it and think it over...
Did you also post to a forum for insurance adjusters? They might be equally unreceptive to Baudrillard.
i had six people on the first page alone whose basic sentiment was summed up by the comment "looks like one big long waste of a thread to me" or "look at me, i read two words." i respect those who deserve respect, like calpoon for example.
i didn't expect a great response, i expected a response. as indicated by my last post before this one, i didn't get one. and when i did get it from sputniky, i found it incredibly weak, creating no potential ground for discussion. i'm mildly disappointed as i've already said. don't worry, i'm not going to jump off a bridge.:1orglaugh
Similar threads
