Comments for Wear Clean Draws

Comment on life’s too short by ravi

ravi — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 01:27:14 +0000

Christopher Hitchins is soooo dead.

I have often wondered about the pecking order of attention. One thing I have noticed that if you are so low in the totem pole as to not be a threat, academic majordomos will often treat you (me, in this case) quite generously. :-) Not sure how that works if the individual is not an academic star.

I do not also understand the obsession with proving OWS or “anarchists” or pet demon wrong. The academy is a strange place.

(please add a comment subscription plugin, so I can be notified of replies!)

Comment on obscene by Duran

Duran — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:54:11 +0000

Dude. The reason ndbooy is bothering to pick apart your illogical rantings on the failings of feminism is that illogical rantings on the failings of feminism are irritating, jarrings in their lack of logic, and jam packed with annoying things to rebut that would take all effing day to tease out: they’re jumbles, mish mashes of arrogance, false arguments, A Current Affair style critical thinking’ and a liberal helping of aggressive rude assertions. So you know, we could rebut’ your arguments’ but you might need to actually want to engage in a conversation for that to happen rather than spewing an angry screed AT people and going THERE! Clean up THAT mess! OHO!!! You can’t??? [note diferences in meaning of can't/won't/could not be bothered/bored now] WELL THEN! You must acknowledge that this is because I am right!’.No. Never wrestle with a pig in mud, never argue with idiots, don’t bother he’s not worth it these things (though surprisingly not Official Feminist Ideology) have stood feminists long used to angry ranting visitors who have no desire to have an actual conversation about different opinions in good stead (and if you had desired a good conversation you really went about it the wrong way picture coming into the home of a religious relative you would like to assert your opinion when you disagree but rather than a calm rational conversation you walk in and immediately upon them opening the door you begin mocking god/the bible/idiots who believe in it not very conducive to a proper conversation is it.So wandering in and just stringing together multiple accusatory questions (which go to your massive misunderstandings of feminism, or indeed that there are differences in feminisms and within each strand) getting more and more insulting and wild (oh and I really liked both your dismissal of your Straw Feminists and your slagging off of Paris Hilton et al classy, note how FEMINISTS are not all Paris Hilton what a vapid whore ?) just because I have a dick’ etc? Come on, the whole thing was a set up. You didn’t want to engage respectfully in a conversation to discuss differences, you wanted to assert your intellectual superiority and insult everyone on a site, and you chose to do it by screaming and wailing on a long dead topic thread you showed no interest in reading what people actually DO say here, it was nothing other than a stock standard drive-by by a feminist hating twit with a keyboard.

Comment on screeeeeeeeam! by Wanny

Wanny — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:59:51 +0000

SCB – I’m really sorry you are going through this. My sister was diagnosed with low-thyroid and it took her a long time to get her meds straightened out. You may have to fight your doctor who will try to steer you toward certain medications. I’ll write and ask her if she wants to give you any tips at all.

Comment on corey robin: the gender fuck edition by Nathan

Nathan — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:32:41 +0000

I’m looking forward to the chapter by chapter reading. I read the book last fall and came away disappointed as well. It’s a confused book. Robin is learned and a good writer, but there is no there there. It’s a collection of essays that aren’t very well put together. His failure to update his analysis to account for contemporary gender relations is astonishing given that he is supposedly dealing with today’s conservatives and reactionaries. He seems to think that digging back a few decades to address rape laws is adequate to understanding gender relations and conservatism in the contemporary U.S.

Additionally, he seems content to examine only the United States. Why write a book about conservatism, making claims about general human responses, without addressing how these issues play out in other countries? If I wasn’t so jaded about the academic star system, I’d be shocked that Robin got his material published at all.

Comment on breast is best by spil spil and vinde

spil spil and vinde — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 03:17:11 +0000

At first I thought this was going to be some sort of a glory-hole story…

Comment on upper middle class mores, alpha male behavior, etc. by Mike B)

Mike B) — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 21:56:11 +0000

Boy…you got a blast on this one. I got similar reactions from some of my fellow workers to a satire I did the other day on Wobbly times. I’ve gone from all nicey, nice FW to ‘pontificating sexist, moron, ‘white’ male’ privileged…blah, blah all that stuff I first heard coming out of Weatherman types who were aping the black power advocates like Stokeley Carmichael and the earlier version of Malcolm X trying to differentiate themselves from MLK i.e. the beginnings of ‘identity politics’ which was a reaction to the dominant paradigm couched within the rhetoric of WASP oppression-male.

Comment on reactionary mind by Muselix

Muselix — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 14:48:45 +0000

Lovin’ it, Wear Clean Draws! Apparently a conservative is everything that CR is not, while CR of course is everything good. (Why does he have to pretend that anarchists are secret libertarians? Why cannot he just say that, in some cases, some hierarchies are justifiable, even if this limits democratic equality? Like you said.) But wait? Was there not a old white male political philosopher who once said something about the unexamined life not being worth living?

Comment on daivd graeber by Mike B)

Mike B) — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 12:04:55 +0000

Hedges is a liberal, always was and most likely, always will be. Graeber, on the other hand, seems committed to something more than mere radical liberal reform. He’s looking for roots in all the dark places which haven’t been explored as much as they should have been.

IMO, violence is something you use when you can win–par example: Mao tse-tung used violence when his troops could encircle and win, otherwise it was all slip away to avoid defeat. It’s a tactical question, not a strategic one. The class war is a lot like a guerilla war. If violence becomes the general public’s focus of a demonstration against a particular war or a strike for better working conditions and so on and, the protesters/strikers are beaten by the forces of the political State, the media does a beat up of the protesters/strikers and the ’cause’ is lost in the haze of reportage on ‘violence’ and many of the protesters/strikers end up in seemingly endless court battles in the aftermath. IOW, the issue is changed from the ’cause’ to the ‘tactic’ and the public, in its already existing conservative mind set turns on the perceived weakness of e.g. ‘the hippies’, ‘the anarchists’ and so on. This happened in Seattle where the BB stole the show (aka battle for hearts and minds), so to speak and instead of the public mind focusing on the matters at hand (our rulers plotting how to get higher rates of profit through ‘free’ trade agreements and destroying Earth in the process), the issue became the tactics of BB McDonalds trashing etc.

Comment on corey robin: the gender fuck edition by shag

shag — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 03:23:15 +0000

ravi – that is an excellent point! i hadn’t thought about that way at all. but it is really the most excellent analogy. if i’m not mistaken, i seem to recall that the red orange marxist collective used to call it a “symptomatic reading”. but i like your point better.

and perhaps this explains my thought better which is that it feels like he deals in platitudes. i mean, because the underlying assumption is this: it is so odious for someone to oppose others freedoms – so unusual? — that those who do so much be explained.

well, that’s not it exactly. but when i revisit this book, to do a more careful chap by chap reading, i’m going to keep this at the forefront. tomorrow, i have a horn dog to conquer! i need my beauty sleep!

Comment on corey robin: the gender fuck edition by ravi

ravi — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 16:48:39 +0000

I do not understand the phobia of a plurality of theories/ideas encompassing overlapping domains of human/power relationships, societal/political structures, etc. Is this the modern version of physics envy? I suspect so, given all the hand-wringing elsewhere about the alleged political emptiness of the concept of “racism”.

Not having read the book :-), I wonder if Robin’s project is (unintentionally?!) something akin to Derrida’s? To stand words or inference on it’s head to reveal some inner working? :-) I cannot otherwise fathom the flow of reasoning that starts with a symptom (some people oppose the freedoms of others) and rejecting hypotheses that explain this symptom (in poor or good light, e.g “wariness of change”) by positing the very symptom as the underlying cause… without snark, I can honestly say that I am lost.