Discussion in 'Current Events' started by RadiomanATL, Dec 26, 2009.
Best lead in sentence EVAH!!
SQUNDLE | Daily Telegraph Tim Blair Blog
That is one sweet Burn.
Now who the fuck is guy rundle?
But I agree, the parts that were quoted in the blog were generally an incoherent mess.
Who was the guy that was so good at double-speak and would do skits on variety shows talking first about one thing then another and ending up asking a question that had no possible logical answer?
I think such language structure is intended to confuse intelligent listeners just so sufficiently that they fear not nodding in agreement lest they be wrong.
Sounds a lot like mascale.
All I know is he misspelled 'judgment' and the word 'albeit' has no business in the last sentence, as something 'concrete and particular' would necessarily be in contrast to something' 'fragmented'.
Let's see if I can decipher this shit using my decent language skills-
Basically, saying that communism increases along with (is positively corrolated with) a 'brilliant and constantly challenging critical reading of the current world',
Of course, I'm not sure 'challenging' has any business being in that sentence.
makes you wonder what, if anything, is good about communism.
'– indeed one of the routines at the Idea of Communism conference became a sort of peek-a-boo, whereby a member of the audience would get up and ask whether Nepal/Chiapas/Bolivia constituted a new communism-in-embryo'
-in fact, since none of knew what communism is, we kept asking eachother whether countries rules by a military Junta or a single-party oligarchy were communist.
So basically he's saying the idiots as the 'Idea of Communism Conference' have no idea what communism is and kept asking eachother.
'only to have Badiou or Žižek shake their heads slowly, as if to say, ‘you still haven’t got this “idea” thing, have you?’'
So these Zi kept shaking their heads at stupid querstions and wondering when the other idiots would get a clue.
'What positive content there is seems to rely heavily on the Negri/Hardt – and more Hardt than Negri – notions of the common, as neither public nor private.'
I think hes referring to these two people, but the sentence still doesn't make any real sense to me and I don't feel like readiong about these people to figure it out.
Michael Hardt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Antonio Negri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
'That’s useful in analysing the process of increasingly abstract enclosures – of given genetic material, language, etc – into intellectual property regimes, '
I know what all the words mean, but I have no idea what he's talking about. The sentence is literally nonsense, as it speaks of a process of (nothing doing anything) and analyzing this process of (nothing doing anything). If the word 'organizing' or something were inserted after 'process of',, it could be a very poorly written sentence, but as is, it literally says nothing meaningful. I'm pretty sure it's not a linguistically valid sentence. Also, he fails to make clear what 'it' refers to. Is 'it' the idea of communism? Is 'it' the unspecified process in the last sentence?
'ut it also simply and unreflectively replicates the US humanities post-doctoral world – a realm of open source, cultural flows and radical personal equality sustained by invisible old property: the massive endowments of the Ivy League.'
I think he means to say that commuism is a condition in which all information is available to all persons, much like the 'open source' community which freely shares programming code, and that communism is also a state of radical equality between persons, made possilby (sustained) by endowments from the Ivy Leage. The last part of that sentence seems to speak of communism only being possible if the well-to-do intellectuals strive to make it a reality and become an invisible ruling class, effectively manipulating the population to act for the good of the Commune after first having been the force which triggered the revolution. This is a throwback to Marx himself, who speaks in the Manifesto of the small numbers of elites and intellectuals who would betray the Bourgeois and join the Proletarian cause, becoming leaders in the proletarian revolution. Such is a traditional Marxist belief.
'iSnce the act of self-describing is rhetorical anyway'
Since you can call youself what you want and it doesn't mean anythiing
(Like the Bolsheviks calling themselves such despite being a minority and the CCCP calling itself socialist despite clearly being an authoritarian oligarchy not much different from the old Czarship except that it allowed the people less liberty and wealth)
'its only criteria of judgement is whether it gets some sort of effect'
I think he's talking about using names, titles, etc for shock value, but he's really a very poor writer.
' or whether it instead rushes to get a dividend from a process of getting people to think otherwise what, at this stage, needs to be more concrete and particular, albeit not fragmented and ungrounded in postmodern fashion.'
Again, this part of the sentence just doesn't make any sense to me
yeah hes just a warped nut bag who is being inflamed by the right wing lies just like they inflamed other right wing warped nutbags in the past.
If the right wing leaders had any decency they would cut these people off and point out the insanity.
They wont and someone will likely die and we will get Murrah buildinged again.
But of the essense you understand of course that the wallaby speaketh in tones, scribes, and I think of the time I had to use the toilet and look in there at the floating ships that sailed from Japan to my tea kettle oh I left the water running but the red water from my fingers it colored my vision--but anyhow, he speaks in higher speak than you can understand, for you are but that tea kettle, limited in the amount of water you can carry when the red water comes out of my fingers, because I can't handle the scissors, that rusty pair of scissors, they cut, cut, CUT! Oh, how it cuts...
Separate names with a comma.