So, I made the mistake of picking a performing arts degree, so I spend most of my days pondering how pointless of a degree it is. I did manage to pick a module about performance protest, and while some of it gets a bit bullshitty, there's been other parts like looking at native American performance/protest at the Dakota pipeline and stuff, which have been interesting and useful.

Yesterday there was some group work. It was a bit of a brainstorming exercise but as a group we settled on the idea of spamming the illegal immigrant report line/letterbox with shit so that new reports wont go through. Ok, it's nothing amazing, but it served the purpose of the exercise we were given.

Then this girl speaks up. Previously her contribution to class has been telling everyone about how she culturally enriched herself by going on holiday in places where poor people exist.

On our idea, she says that it might be illegal to do, so we should create a fake website and have people fill that in as a symbolic message.

A FAKE WEBSITE FILLED IN AS A SYMBOLIC MESSAGE

At that moment I realised why the arts seem so useless at changing things. It's jam packed with trust fund kiddies.

that is complete insanity. what could possibly drive someone to have that thought at my young age? To remove all potency from the tiniest little act. Seriously ghoulish.

  • Circra [he/him]
    ·
    3 years ago

    Once had a mate - fallen out of touch with him for very related reasons say that as a communist I should share my girlfriend as a 'gotcha' comment. I've gotta say I was a bit fucking shocked at the sheer stupidity of it but did manage (though not quick enough to be cool) that that'd only really work if you saw women as objects and not people.

    • nohaybanda [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Anyone give you this shit, hit them with Marc's absolute zinger on the topic:

      The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women. He has not even a suspicion that the real point is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production. For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce the community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial. Our bourgeois, not content with having the wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives. Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with, is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

      • Circra [he/him]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Lol yeah I don't think I'd read up and absorbed as much theory stuff back then but yeah this is spot on. The reason he thought that was because that was exactly how he saw women. I have never before or since seen someone go through so many girlfriends and cheat on every single one of em. Odd guy to be honest.