- cross-posted to:
- chat
You must log in or register to comment.
Horizontal family model when?? :angery:
You're not my real dad, you weren't even democratically selected :angry-hex:
I'm anti-authoritarian which is why I reject this concept you call a "bed time" :galaxy-brain:
Tbh a more communal form of raising children even if the parents still are and act like the parents would reduce some of the harm caused by the nuclear family
I agree wholeheartedly, but at the end of the day there will always be an adult/child hierarchy and comparing that dynamic to systemic racism or capitalism is quite the stretch. There's better ways to critique family dynamics
The heirarchy of childhood is not unjust, unlike racism, capitalism etc. but it is still a worthwile part of growing up to allow a child to question, push the boundries of, and subvert the heirarchy, if for no onther reason than to learn how to do it when the heirarchy is unjust.
Sorry you had bad experiences with teachers. But I grew up with a emotionally abusive mom and had mostly good experiences with adults who weren't my family. I strongly think that children having a variety of close relationships with adults outside their family can help mitigate abuse, by increasing the likelihood of disclosure and showing a child what a healthy relationship with an adult looks like. I've talked with plenty of other people with parental trauma who agree that some degree of lessening parental domination of children by increasing the number of non-relative adults in their life is good and healthy for kids.
That said, the kind of absolute power that teachers have in classrooms to do that kind of thing that you experience does need to be changed as well. For one thing, I don't think a single adult should be in charge of classrooms.
There's still power exercised towards the children. I don't think even foucault put into question the utility of authority, since it's clearly identified as the only means to ensure discipline and transmit knowledge. This is a woke salad, a dumb regurgitation of something genuinely insightful, the very structure of the traditional family structure has been plenty questioned before and for good reason, but nobody has framed it in such stupid terms, until now.
Whoever hears "Imagine, walking down the street and every single person is a stranger" and thinks this is a good thing legitimately needs to be processed in a reeducation facility.
A lot of people have worked hard to leave their small reactionary communities where everyone knows each other for cities full of strangers.
:amber: "Communities are reactionary."
Noah fucking Berlatsky, who tried to smear Chapo Trap House as "regularly saying the N-word", then subsequently deleted the tweet like the sniveling coward he is
Love or hate Chapo, you cannot deny that anti-Chapo posters on Twitter are some of the most insane people on there.
I miss when more blue check libs used to try to debate or gotcha them on twitter only to get thoroughly destroyed, ratio'd, and memed to oblivion. Sadly they seem to have learned their lessons, for once
The two kinds of people who are most obsessed with the pod are radlibs convinced it’s the kernel of a growing red-brown alliance and guys who turned into anti-Chapo Nazbols because Felix didn’t like their epic replies on Twitter.
Most of the bitching about cancel culture is stupid, but it's amazing how fast everyone on twitter turns on someone like an inch from them politically and tries to prove they are a nazi on a barest shred of evidence.
I still at disbelief at the Antisemitic Christman Reptiles thing. It's kinda affected my attitude to what can probably be described as "standpoint epistemology" popular on twitter.
I never really understood the Mattstream stuff about people obsessively jockeying for position in online spaces by trying to separate the virtuous from the damned, but then I started reading Twitter threads and bios instead of just screenshots and everything sort of clicked.
Antisemitic Christman Reptiles
Not sure I remember this one.
Seems like I'm bad at searching shit on twitter, but Matt posted a photo of Alex Acosta (who's not jewish) and made a joke about conspiracy theories being onto something considering how reptilian he looks. Immediately a couple of prominent jewish leftist accounts cancelled him and the whole pod by association for doing antisemitic tropes.
Same shit happened to Contrapoints at points when she made a video where she discussed capitalism using the reptilian metaphor.
Edit: Found the screenshot of the original tweet.
A seemingly sane person wrote "using antisemitic tropes against gentiles normalises antisemitsm", followed it with "this is why no one takes you brocialists seriously" and it has permenantly fried my brain.
We should speak about the fact that children are treated like property but this is just cringe
The real version of this is that nuclear families are isolating and put most of society's care responsibilities onto mothers.
Some parents do a good job of withering of their authority. Most do not.
This is synthetic left shit by that Aquarian Conspiracy group seeking to make the """left""" as unappealing to the low income worker as possible. Anyone that doesn't think this is injected into the discourse by the CIA is not keeping up with what they're up to.
I know it's a joke, but I still feel obligated to point out that this is a terrible anti-poor attitude, and should be stamped out if encountered in real life.
I wasn't really thinking about actual toxic relationships, although I agree with you - my point just was that 'being poor means being a bad parent' is an ugly assumption that could be drawn from that.
We shouldn't treat abusive/toxic relationships like they're "normal". We do a huge disservice to children/people if we convince them that they're not entitled to love and respect from their family/caregivers.
Being a victim is not shameful but we shouldn't encourage these jokes (but I understand this is just chapo dot chat, meme away)
IRL anarchists: I just beat up a cop
Online anarchists: Bedtimes are authoritarian
Ok but some people don't like their mom and dad and have a very good reason for that.
Noah's argument that parenthood is innately abusive reminds me of an ex-girlfriend I had who would say "all communication is manipulation" to argue that manipulation is not inherently bad, without realizing that such a statement undercut her own profundity, because logically, if all communication is manipulation, then the argument is still what threshold of manipulativeness constitutes abuse & nothing has changed. And yes, she was a miserable bitch to be with.
He shows from his first tweets that he is ignorant of Marxism (even as he later suckles at its teat in hopes of supplementing his argument), and ignorant of the relationship of property to class, by declaring that race or sex constitute a class - neither do, but there has developed an industry around distorting what Marx did & thought that puts out such falsehoods quite cleanly. (Ever wonder why Marxism concerns the proletariat, yet it is always a middle-class 'Marxist professor' and never a proletariat 'Marxist cashier'?) That Noah attempts to soak his initial outlandish claim in a veneer of Marxism shows that he has so little respect for his audience that he truly believes they could be fooled by this rhetorical trick, even while his initial point, taken seriously, would lead anyone of intelligence to conclude that just as communism abolishes the bourgeoisie (& all classes with it), that we should also abolish parenthood while we're at it.
Of course, Mr. Berlatsky has likely never read a version of Marx not distorted in such a manner. Parenthood is a biological fact, obviously; only under certain relations does it become abusive. Similarly to the manipulation anecdote mentioned earlier, were parenthood innately abusive, this would not require stating & would thus not allow Noah to pompously proclaim it as such as if he is the Onion article about Marilyn Manson now roaming door-to-door attempting to shock people. Marx's analogy of black slavery to capital ("a black man is a black man; only under certain relations does he become capital") fits quite nicely here.
Later in the thread and beset on all corners by Twitter hordes, Noah swiftly pulls up the drawbridge, retreating, stating that he's merely following Marx/Engels by "critiquing the nuclear family." A more defensible point -- one wonders why he didn't make it first! Note the rhetorical trick he pulls where, unable to substantiate his own claim that parenthood constitutes an oppressive class (certainly not a claim to be found in Marx; perhaps teenage Marx?), he instead attacks his opponents for "not recognizing" that it is bad for parents to hit their children. Truly, this is not the workings of a great mind, but of someone who has marinated so long in Twitter juices & academia-induced superiority complexes that he feels quite uneasy agreeing with 'the masses' on any subject of merit, and must instead say something outlandish, something that will temporarily shock them for attention, as his written words are unable to hook deeply enough in to intelligent minds to make long-term readers. (Fortunately, I'm sure "Wonder Woman: Bondage and Feminism" will receive more than 1 review once the new film comes out!)
It must surely irk him that outside of university halls & other gathering spots for eunuchs of bourgeoisie culture, most of this pompous cultural analysis puts off the working-class it is ostensibly meant to speak to. Then, unable to appease these non-Patreon-having savages in his mentions, he attempts again to supplement his argument with similar middle-class names (Marxist feminists! Firestone! Foucault!) and throws their names out to the crowd to stave them off. This, of course, occurs shortly after the time-tried trick for when one is doing well in an argument; proclaim they are logging off, perhaps check in every 10~15 minutes with "lol, are you losers still mad at me? I'm actually at a party right now", then learn nothing. Thus Noah becomes doubly pathetic: one thinks more of a man who argues stupidly because he truly believes in it, even with no support, than one who cannot even stupidly believe without invoking the names of others.
Sorry, I've been reading way too much Marx recently, he's so funny when he's going off on somebody.
agree, but also
all communication is manipulation; manipulation is not inherently bad
this is correct tho. in example:
reeducation of the petty bourgeois is a manipulation, but it is good.
manipulation has many bad connotations, and im not saying your miserable ex was using this point ingo od faith, but the act of manipulating someone to make the world better for everyone is obviously not bad.
race or sex [do not] constitute a class
youre not wrong, but it is important to acknowledge that capital often treats minorities and women both as classes.
that black people being treated as capital, a human commodity, made them in effect, a class below that of the worker in the heirarchy of relation to capital, is pretty indisputible.
[marx is] so funny when he’s going off on somebody
ugh, i wish marx would go off all over me :panting:
this is correct tho
The point, I think, is that "all communication is manipulation" is only true for such a uselessly broad definition of manipulation that it becomes only useful for disguising actual manipulation. Such a broad and mild meaning for manipulation is better described as "communication", and leave the word manipulation for meaningful uses of it.
either you dont think reeducation involves serious manipulation, or you think reeducation, and therefor rehabilitation of any kind is bad.
either way youre wrong.
really dont know what else to say to this
edit: point being, the direct purpose of communication is to express ideas such that other people adopt them, enabling them to be more helpful and productive. communication therefor is a tool with the explicit purpose of reeducation.
literally any attempt to convince someone of something is in effect a form of reeducation. it is manipulation. and it is not inherently bad.
the "definition" you want to use ignores the actual denotative meaning of the word manipulate in favour of the colloquial meaning of manipulation.
obviously in day to day speech, communication and manipulation are not usable interchangeably, that is not the fucking point
It always infuriates me when people conflate specific definitions and common meanings of words to sound more profound or to be provocative. When "all communication is manipulation" is true, manipulation has a meaning that makes this statement almost a banal truism.
In this household, we practice parental centralism! Now Mao ze lawn!
