FUCK THEORY

Experiments in visceral philosophy.

#

(click)
No, really. How can anyone think this is a good idea?

No, really. How can anyone think this is a good idea?

#

Notes on Hume - A Treatise of Human Nature, I.I.IV
OK. This one was a little tougher to diagram (in fact, the further I go and the more abstract Hume gets the more unlikely it seems that I’ll be able to do the entire book, but I digress).
This section, along with the next one (I.I.V) are kind of the heart of Hume’s epistemology. It’s absolutely crucial to understanding his system. The first few sections explored the “contents” of the mind: the ideas that it organizes and contains. In this section, Hume goes one step further to ask what principle is responsible for this organization. As he says, “Were ideas entirely loose and unconnected, chance alone wou’d join them; and ‘tis impossible the same simple ideas should fall regularly into complex ones…without some bond of union among them, some associating quality, by which one idea naturally introduces another.”
Hume argues that ideas are connected by “relations,” which are outside or between the entities they relate. But what determines which idea is related to which? The answer is principles, most importantly the three Principles of Association: resemblance, contiguity, and cause and effect.
As before, we have to think of all Hume’s distinctions collectively as a single plane of immanence, rather than applying or rejecting each qualifier individually to a single idea; hence the somewhat obscure diagram above, which, like the previous ones, moves by degrees from one state to another. Direct or simple impressions are taken up by the senses; these produce sensations in the mind (ideas of impressions), which in turn produce complex ideas and reflections. We saw previously that the more constrained the order and organization of simple ideas that make up a complex idea, the more firmly it belongs in the domain of memory, moving gradually to the domain of imagination or fancy the more loose the organization. We also noted in the very first diagram that the difference between impressions and ideas is their intensity or strength.
The three principles of association differ by degree in correspondence with the mind’s ideas. Just as imagination is unconstrained and free, so too is resemblance, the weakest form of association. Basically, a resemblance mightbe “actual,” but it could just as easily be entirely in your mind. Contiguity, meanwhile, is harder to just randomly imagine, because the senses are more reliable here; if two things are next to each other, you kind of notice. But this is not a fool-proof association, because perspective and proportion can interfere with it: it may look to you like the sun and that cloud are right next to each other, but they’re not. Finally, cause & effect relations are the most constrained and thus most likely to be memoriesrather than fancies.
To use classical philosophical terminology, we can say that the difference between relations and principles is that the former are particular and the latter universal. A relation always obtains between two or more particular ideas, while a principle is the tendency to form a certain relation. We can think of it quantitatively as the statistical likelihood of a given relation’s production.
Finally, it’s worth noting that while we might expect them to generallycorrespond, we can imagine an idea falling differently on the scale of intensity and the scale of consistency: in other words, we can imagine an idea that is extremely intense but confused or blurry, and, conversely, an idea that is extremely organized and constrained by which carries little or no emotional charge. Rote memorization is an example of the latter; post-traumatic stress might be an example of the former.

Notes on Hume - A Treatise of Human Nature, I.I.IV

OK. This one was a little tougher to diagram (in fact, the further I go and the more abstract Hume gets the more unlikely it seems that I’ll be able to do the entire book, but I digress).

This section, along with the next one (I.I.V) are kind of the heart of Hume’s epistemology. It’s absolutely crucial to understanding his system. The first few sections explored the “contents” of the mind: the ideas that it organizes and contains. In this section, Hume goes one step further to ask what principle is responsible for this organization. As he says, “Were ideas entirely loose and unconnected, chance alone wou’d join them; and ‘tis impossible the same simple ideas should fall regularly into complex ones…without some bond of union among them, some associating quality, by which one idea naturally introduces another.”

Hume argues that ideas are connected by “relations,” which are outside or between the entities they relate. But what determines which idea is related to which? The answer is principles, most importantly the three Principles of Association: resemblance, contiguity, and cause and effect.

As before, we have to think of all Hume’s distinctions collectively as a single plane of immanence, rather than applying or rejecting each qualifier individually to a single idea; hence the somewhat obscure diagram above, which, like the previous ones, moves by degrees from one state to another. Direct or simple impressions are taken up by the senses; these produce sensations in the mind (ideas of impressions), which in turn produce complex ideas and reflections. We saw previously that the more constrained the order and organization of simple ideas that make up a complex idea, the more firmly it belongs in the domain of memory, moving gradually to the domain of imagination or fancy the more loose the organization. We also noted in the very first diagram that the difference between impressions and ideas is their intensity or strength.

The three principles of association differ by degree in correspondence with the mind’s ideas. Just as imagination is unconstrained and free, so too is resemblance, the weakest form of association. Basically, a resemblance mightbe “actual,” but it could just as easily be entirely in your mind. Contiguity, meanwhile, is harder to just randomly imagine, because the senses are more reliable here; if two things are next to each other, you kind of notice. But this is not a fool-proof association, because perspective and proportion can interfere with it: it may look to you like the sun and that cloud are right next to each other, but they’re not. Finally, cause & effect relations are the most constrained and thus most likely to be memoriesrather than fancies.

To use classical philosophical terminology, we can say that the difference between relations and principles is that the former are particular and the latter universal. A relation always obtains between two or more particular ideas, while a principle is the tendency to form a certain relation. We can think of it quantitatively as the statistical likelihood of a given relation’s production.

Finally, it’s worth noting that while we might expect them to generallycorrespond, we can imagine an idea falling differently on the scale of intensity and the scale of consistency: in other words, we can imagine an idea that is extremely intense but confused or blurry, and, conversely, an idea that is extremely organized and constrained by which carries little or no emotional charge. Rote memorization is an example of the latter; post-traumatic stress might be an example of the former.

#

Freudian, All Too Freudian
The most narcissistic question possible is, “Am I too narcissistic?” The very process of inquiry requires thinking intensely about yourself, that is, the formation of a kind of meta-narcissism. Like the Freudian concepts of repression and resistance, the risk of infinite regress is considerable.

Freudian, All Too Freudian

The most narcissistic question possible is, “Am I too narcissistic?” The very process of inquiry requires thinking intensely about yourself, that is, the formation of a kind of meta-narcissism. Like the Freudian concepts of repression and resistance, the risk of infinite regress is considerable.

#

Notes on Hume - A Treatise of Human Nature I.I.III
As in the first diagram, the organizing principle here is the plane of consistency. In this section, Hume introduces a third rubric according to which a perception must be evaluated, so that any given perception must be placed in relation to all three: idea/impression, simple/complex, and free/constrained. The crucial thing here is that the memory is not opposed to the imagination because one is “real” and the other “isn’t”; rather, memory differs from imagination by degree, in that one corresponds precisely to a given set of impressions, whereas the other does not necessarily correspond to a given set of impressions.

Notes on Hume - A Treatise of Human Nature I.I.III

As in the first diagram, the organizing principle here is the plane of consistency. In this section, Hume introduces a third rubric according to which a perception must be evaluated, so that any given perception must be placed in relation to all three: idea/impression, simple/complex, and free/constrained. The crucial thing here is that the memory is not opposed to the imagination because one is “real” and the other “isn’t”; rather, memory differs from imagination by degree, in that one corresponds precisely to a given set of impressions, whereas the other does not necessarily correspond to a given set of impressions.

#

Notes on Hume - A Treatise of Human Nature, I.I.IIAn absolutely crucial aspect of Hume’s Treatise is the fact that, again, unlike Descartes and Hegel, the mind is not a “thing”: rather, it is a system. The mind is a an aggregate set consisting of perceptions and relations organized by principles. Thus, the question of process and becoming are absolutely crucial; being is pretty much always secondary. Concepts are best understood in terms of their mutual interrelation: as his criticism of Hume makes clear, this is something Kant was never really able to grasp.

Notes on Hume - A Treatise of Human Nature, I.I.II

An absolutely crucial aspect of Hume’s Treatise is the fact that, again, unlike Descartes and Hegel, the mind is not a “thing”: rather, it is a system. The mind is a an aggregate set consisting of perceptions and relations organized by principles. Thus, the question of process and becoming are absolutely crucial; being is pretty much always secondary. Concepts are best understood in terms of their mutual interrelation: as his criticism of Hume makes clear, this is something Kant was never really able to grasp.

#

Notes on Hume - A Treatise of Human Nature, I.I.I
I’m vaguely considering making this a series and explaining each section of Hume’s Treatise with one diagram. I think 5-6 of you would really appreciate that and several hundred of you would really not.
The first section of the Treatise is both short and pretty straightforward, but it goes a long way towards illustrating the affinity Deleuze always saw in Hume with Bergson and Spinoza. Like both of those latter thinkers, Hume is an absolutely practical thinker who begins with what D&G call a “conceptual plane of immanence.” Where thinkers like Descartes and Hegel begin with a single fundamental opposition with an excluded middle (such as certainty and doubt for Descartes, or Self-Consciousness and non-being for Hegel) and construct their ontology on the basis of this first opposition, Hume begins instead not with a thing or a rule but with a set of conceptual coordinates. We have not two opposing concepts or even two pairs of opposing concepts, but rather two spectra which delineate between them a range of possible objects: the graph shape of the above diagram is not accidental.
The place (and hence nature) of any given object in the plane of consistency depends on its position relative to both spectra. In other words, it’s not that a given perception is either an idea or an impression, and then, if an idea, either a simple or a complex idea. (This is the difference between a plane of consistency and a typology or schema). Rather, the proximity and distance from all four of these qualifiers (idea, impression, simple, complex) determines the nature of the object under consideration. In this we discover Hume’s affinity with Bergson’s method, especially as presented in Matter & Memory: As in Bergson, differences in degree along a spectrum become differences in kind by a process of increasing differentiation: thus ideas and impressions are two distinct phenomena, even though, as Hume says, “the difference betwixt these consists in the degrees of force and liveliness.” As Hume says later in the Treatise, “Where-ever the imagination perceives a difference among ideas, it can easily produce a separation.”

Notes on Hume - A Treatise of Human Nature, I.I.I

I’m vaguely considering making this a series and explaining each section of Hume’s Treatise with one diagram. I think 5-6 of you would really appreciate that and several hundred of you would really not.

The first section of the Treatise is both short and pretty straightforward, but it goes a long way towards illustrating the affinity Deleuze always saw in Hume with Bergson and Spinoza. Like both of those latter thinkers, Hume is an absolutely practical thinker who begins with what D&G call a “conceptual plane of immanence.” Where thinkers like Descartes and Hegel begin with a single fundamental opposition with an excluded middle (such as certainty and doubt for Descartes, or Self-Consciousness and non-being for Hegel) and construct their ontology on the basis of this first opposition, Hume begins instead not with a thing or a rule but with a set of conceptual coordinates. We have not two opposing concepts or even two pairs of opposing concepts, but rather two spectra which delineate between them a range of possible objects: the graph shape of the above diagram is not accidental.

The place (and hence nature) of any given object in the plane of consistency depends on its position relative to both spectra. In other words, it’s not that a given perception is either an idea or an impression, and then, if an idea, either a simple or a complex idea. (This is the difference between a plane of consistency and a typology or schema). Rather, the proximity and distance from all four of these qualifiers (idea, impression, simple, complex) determines the nature of the object under consideration. In this we discover Hume’s affinity with Bergson’s method, especially as presented in Matter & Memory: As in Bergson, differences in degree along a spectrum become differences in kind by a process of increasing differentiation: thus ideas and impressions are two distinct phenomena, even though, as Hume says, “the difference betwixt these consists in the degrees of force and liveliness.” As Hume says later in the Treatise, “Where-ever the imagination perceives a difference among ideas, it can easily produce a separation.”

#

Change We Can Believe In
(click)
Also, the Beach House show at Bowery Ballroom on Tuesday was fucking incredible; Donna Summer died this morning; and My Bloody Valentine are playing live shows (!!!). I’m just…feeling so many feelings right now.
There might be a post on Hume in a bit but I’m not sure I’ll have the energy to finish it tonight.

Change We Can Believe In

Also, the Beach House show at Bowery Ballroom on Tuesday was fucking incredible; Donna Summer died this morning; and My Bloody Valentine are playing live shows (!!!). I’m just…feeling so many feelings right now.

There might be a post on Hume in a bit but I’m not sure I’ll have the energy to finish it tonight.

#

Metablogging - Nietzsche’s Tumblr (Redux)(pars prima)
As this brief aphorism from Human, All Too Human shows, Nietzsche really does have a snippet of wisdom for every occasion.
I’ve noticed something interesting in the pattern of followings and unfollowings on my Tumblr recently. Every time I post, almost immediately a few people unfollow. More slowly, over the course of the next 24 hours or so, a few people follow. Usually, at the end of the day, the number of followers exceeds the number of unfollowers by a small margin. My completely intuitive hypothesis (that’s philosophese for “I’m pulling this out of my ass”) is that, as my posts worm them way around Tumblr, new people discover them, and go, “Oh, this is interesting.” But my blog is pretty random in terms of content, so I imagine that many people are surprised when they see the following posts; if you signed on because you’re a feminist theorist and you liked my post about Irigaray, it may surprise you to find a post about the etiquette of ass-eating on your dashboard the next evening; likewise, I imagine that at least some of the people who liked my recent post about the Black Party didn’t care about today’s Hume-an diagram (I’m impressed with my own pun, so I’m going to keep using it). In other words, my hypothesis is that the majority of followers and unfollowers are the same group of people who come and go, with the small margin of additional followers being the statistical marker of people who are curious enough to stay on board. (I suppose I could actually look at the names of all my followers and test this hypothesis by seeing which people follow and unfollow, but that seems really excessive both in terms of effort and in terms of time. Also, I really just want to think about something for a minute, rather than demonstrate something empirically. And finally, it’s really people’s own business if they want to read my crap or not).
Why is this interesting? Well, if you’re anyone except me, it’s probably not very interesting. But this is my blog, so fuck you. The thing is, my posts have, over the (gulp) years gotten longer and longer, somehow. So my theory is that it’s also become harder to get a quick glimpse of what my blog is like. It used to be that there were 10 or so posts on my homepage; now there are 3-4 at most, usually, and I imagine that when I do the longer posts (like this one) a lot of people don’t get past the first one. Which is also just fine. I have no problem if you stop reading after 2 paragraphs; I try to put the gist of the thing in the beginning for just that reason, so people can skip off if they want (I most emphatically do, have a problem, however, if you stopped reading after 2 paragraphs and you still feel entitled to critique).
When I started this blog, it was kind of an inside joke between me and, maybe, 4 people. I used to have a Blogspot blog that was about “theory.” It was very rarely updated, and when it was updated, the posts were elephantine (much like this one). So I started this Tumblr as a joke, with the motto “Fuck Theory” and forced myself to fit a complete idea into every index card (thanks again to friend and genius Grant for suggesting Tumblr at the time). Each card was just an exercise in capturing a thought, so I really just wrote about whatever I was thinking about, from philosophy to fucking, as the saying goes (I pretty much still write the blog that way, except now I have these huge self-indulgent footnotes). I imagined that, if it was wildly hilarious, 50 people or so might eventually read it. Well, it’s kind of ballooned past that at this point.
The point of all this masturbation is that after a long time writing these cards, I still have no idea what it is that people actually enjoy reading on my blog. I keep having these little hypotheses, but ultimately none of them prove accurate. I base my estimation here, again, not on any statistical data but just on eyeballing. I basically look how many notes a post has gotten. I used to think the longer ones got less notes than the shorter ones, but that hasn’t proven true over the long run. It used to be the sex related ones got way more notes than any philosophy ones, but that’s also long since inaccurate. Then for a while I thought that linked article commentaries were more popular then my own concepts, but that also hasn’t proven valid. Nor has the idea that introductory posts are more popular than complex posts, or the idea that my ranting-and-raving posts are more popular than my geeking-out-philosopher posts. There’s really no firm way of knowing whether readers will like a post or not. And I honestly really like that fact, because though I like to think that I would post whatever the fuck I wanted anyway, it’s nice not to have to choose. I post whatever the fuck I want because I honestly have no fucking clue how you people will react to anything I post. Oh, except that everyone seems to like the swearing. Fuck. No, really. Why are you people here?
Since I’m already in the middle of a gushy self-indulgent streak of narcissism, I might as well take a second to note how fucking amazing it is when I suddenly remember every couple of months that I have a Google Analytics account and I see that people have been reading my blog from Pakistan and India and Australia and Norway and Argentina and so many other countries that I wish I could visit (my continent travel count has been stuck at 4 for too many years…does anyone own a hotel in Buenos Aires?). But I digress. It’s really kind of too incredible that technology makes it possible for my index cards to be read across the planet, which is why I can’t look at that Analytics account too often or it starts creeping me out. It’s not news, of course; the Internet is the new sublime - dwell on its workings too long and it will devour you…

Metablogging - Nietzsche’s Tumblr (Redux)

(pars prima)

As this brief aphorism from Human, All Too Human shows, Nietzsche really does have a snippet of wisdom for every occasion.

I’ve noticed something interesting in the pattern of followings and unfollowings on my Tumblr recently. Every time I post, almost immediately a few people unfollow. More slowly, over the course of the next 24 hours or so, a few people follow. Usually, at the end of the day, the number of followers exceeds the number of unfollowers by a small margin. My completely intuitive hypothesis (that’s philosophese for “I’m pulling this out of my ass”) is that, as my posts worm them way around Tumblr, new people discover them, and go, “Oh, this is interesting.” But my blog is pretty random in terms of content, so I imagine that many people are surprised when they see the following posts; if you signed on because you’re a feminist theorist and you liked my post about Irigaray, it may surprise you to find a post about the etiquette of ass-eating on your dashboard the next evening; likewise, I imagine that at least some of the people who liked my recent post about the Black Party didn’t care about today’s Hume-an diagram (I’m impressed with my own pun, so I’m going to keep using it). In other words, my hypothesis is that the majority of followers and unfollowers are the same group of people who come and go, with the small margin of additional followers being the statistical marker of people who are curious enough to stay on board. (I suppose I could actually look at the names of all my followers and test this hypothesis by seeing which people follow and unfollow, but that seems really excessive both in terms of effort and in terms of time. Also, I really just want to think about something for a minute, rather than demonstrate something empirically. And finally, it’s really people’s own business if they want to read my crap or not).

Why is this interesting? Well, if you’re anyone except me, it’s probably not very interesting. But this is my blog, so fuck you. The thing is, my posts have, over the (gulp) years gotten longer and longer, somehow. So my theory is that it’s also become harder to get a quick glimpse of what my blog is like. It used to be that there were 10 or so posts on my homepage; now there are 3-4 at most, usually, and I imagine that when I do the longer posts (like this one) a lot of people don’t get past the first one. Which is also just fine. I have no problem if you stop reading after 2 paragraphs; I try to put the gist of the thing in the beginning for just that reason, so people can skip off if they want (I most emphatically do, have a problem, however, if you stopped reading after 2 paragraphs and you still feel entitled to critique).

When I started this blog, it was kind of an inside joke between me and, maybe, 4 people. I used to have a Blogspot blog that was about “theory.” It was very rarely updated, and when it was updated, the posts were elephantine (much like this one). So I started this Tumblr as a joke, with the motto “Fuck Theory” and forced myself to fit a complete idea into every index card (thanks again to friend and genius Grant for suggesting Tumblr at the time). Each card was just an exercise in capturing a thought, so I really just wrote about whatever I was thinking about, from philosophy to fucking, as the saying goes (I pretty much still write the blog that way, except now I have these huge self-indulgent footnotes). I imagined that, if it was wildly hilarious, 50 people or so might eventually read it. Well, it’s kind of ballooned past that at this point.

The point of all this masturbation is that after a long time writing these cards, I still have no idea what it is that people actually enjoy reading on my blog. I keep having these little hypotheses, but ultimately none of them prove accurate. I base my estimation here, again, not on any statistical data but just on eyeballing. I basically look how many notes a post has gotten. I used to think the longer ones got less notes than the shorter ones, but that hasn’t proven true over the long run. It used to be the sex related ones got way more notes than any philosophy ones, but that’s also long since inaccurate. Then for a while I thought that linked article commentaries were more popular then my own concepts, but that also hasn’t proven valid. Nor has the idea that introductory posts are more popular than complex posts, or the idea that my ranting-and-raving posts are more popular than my geeking-out-philosopher posts. There’s really no firm way of knowing whether readers will like a post or not. And I honestly really like that fact, because though I like to think that I would post whatever the fuck I wanted anyway, it’s nice not to have to choose. I post whatever the fuck I want because I honestly have no fucking clue how you people will react to anything I post. Oh, except that everyone seems to like the swearing. Fuck. No, really. Why are you people here?

Since I’m already in the middle of a gushy self-indulgent streak of narcissism, I might as well take a second to note how fucking amazing it is when I suddenly remember every couple of months that I have a Google Analytics account and I see that people have been reading my blog from Pakistan and India and Australia and Norway and Argentina and so many other countries that I wish I could visit (my continent travel count has been stuck at 4 for too many years…does anyone own a hotel in Buenos Aires?). But I digress. It’s really kind of too incredible that technology makes it possible for my index cards to be read across the planet, which is why I can’t look at that Analytics account too often or it starts creeping me out. It’s not news, of course; the Internet is the new sublime - dwell on its workings too long and it will devour you…

#

A Diagram of Hume-an Nature
The above diagram summarizes, as succinctly and clearly as I can manage, the reading of Hume given by Deleuze in his amazing book Empiricism & Subjectivity. Though often ignored and rarely read, I actually think this is one of Deleuze’s most important books, and reading it slowly and carefully was crucial in helping me pull other pieces of Deleuze’s project together and greatly enhanced my understanding of his work.
Not surprisingly, in Deleuze’s reading Hume has more in common with Bergson than with Locke and Berkeley. Deleuze’s typically subtle and effortlessly brilliant reinterpretation of Hume’s “empiricism” allows Hume’s most important work, the Treatise of Human Nature, to be read alongside Spinoza, Nietzsche, and other Deleuzian mainstays. Unlike both Cartesian rationalists and British empiricists, Hume, like Bergson, posits the subject and the material world not as two absolutely divided substances but as associative constellations formed by a kind of “carving up,” what Hume calls ‘extension’ and ‘correction,’ gradations of difference that produce a new phenomenon immanently from within an existing phenomenon. Belief is the affective condition which moderates the subject’s understanding of the given; invention is the affective condition which moderates the subject’s action in the given. The difference between the two is qualitative, but, as in Bergson’s “memory” and Nietzsche’s “relations of force,” the qualitative difference is produced by a process of quantitative distinction.

A Diagram of Hume-an Nature

The above diagram summarizes, as succinctly and clearly as I can manage, the reading of Hume given by Deleuze in his amazing book Empiricism & Subjectivity. Though often ignored and rarely read, I actually think this is one of Deleuze’s most important books, and reading it slowly and carefully was crucial in helping me pull other pieces of Deleuze’s project together and greatly enhanced my understanding of his work.

Not surprisingly, in Deleuze’s reading Hume has more in common with Bergson than with Locke and Berkeley. Deleuze’s typically subtle and effortlessly brilliant reinterpretation of Hume’s “empiricism” allows Hume’s most important work, the Treatise of Human Nature, to be read alongside Spinoza, Nietzsche, and other Deleuzian mainstays. Unlike both Cartesian rationalists and British empiricists, Hume, like Bergson, posits the subject and the material world not as two absolutely divided substances but as associative constellations formed by a kind of “carving up,” what Hume calls ‘extension’ and ‘correction,’ gradations of difference that produce a new phenomenon immanently from within an existing phenomenon. Belief is the affective condition which moderates the subject’s understanding of the given; invention is the affective condition which moderates the subject’s action in the given. The difference between the two is qualitative, but, as in Bergson’s “memory” and Nietzsche’s “relations of force,” the qualitative difference is produced by a process of quantitative distinction.

#

Missed Connections - M4M - Red Line Between Dupont Circle and Gallery Place
Absolutely true story. He was wearing robes and everything.
Also, to all the people who keep telling me that medieval Latin philosophy is a useless thing to study, you’ve obviously never flirted with a Thomist clergyman on the subway before. ‘cause it definitely came in handy last week.

Missed Connections - M4M - Red Line Between Dupont Circle and Gallery Place

Absolutely true story. He was wearing robes and everything.

Also, to all the people who keep telling me that medieval Latin philosophy is a useless thing to study, you’ve obviously never flirted with a Thomist clergyman on the subway before. ‘cause it definitely came in handy last week.

#

Boss Smiley’s Big Gay Brainstorm
What annoys me the most about this ludicrous soundbyte circus isn’t the sight of a politician blatantly using people’s lives and happiness for election leverage. It’s not the translation of oppression into rhetorical advantage. These are commonplaces of contemporary life. What annoys me the most is the obsequious, ass-licking way in which the homosexuals have responded to this carefully orchestrated and utterly cynical move. One precisely-timed press release and the fucking Internet blows up like Jesus and Moses just came back hand in hand and started giving out free lube. Are you kidding me? Are you so easily taken in?
At first I was just going to ignore this travesty, because it’s a move so clearly calculated to drum up attention among the gays that really it should just be ignored. I mean, big words, big deal; put your legislation where your mouth is if you want to impress me. But then the blissed-out, adoring responses started appearing in the media. And on Tumblr. And on my Facebook feed. “My hero!” trumpeted one acquaintance on Facebook. “Such a brave move for Obama!” announced a Tumblrite. Again, are you kidding me? The man is the president of the United Fucking States. Have you guys ever read that little “Declaration of Independence” thing? It’s 2012, for fuck’s sake. This isn’t some backwater redneck hick who’s suddenly seen the light of day. We’re getting this excited because a Columbia- and Harvard-education lawyer from Chicago supports the idea of equal rights? He hasn’t actually done anything yet - he’s just not opposed. And everyone’s acting like this is some huge ethical revelation or act of moral clarity. Seriously?
It’s painfully apparent that this entire operation was carefully planned and executed. 10 days or so ago, a B-list administration official comes out in favor of gay marriage. A couple of days after that, Joe Biden comes out in favor of gay marriage. What a coincidence. But then the “speculation” starts. I love then the press uses this word. The support of two administration officials for gay marriage has “fueled speculation,” the NYT informed us a few days ago, that President Obama might be “pressured” into publicly shifting his stance on gay marriage. “Speculation”? “Pressured”? As if this wasn’t a cynically orchestrated media circus. As if the media hadn’t been given a heads up that this was coming and that it was going to clog up the new cycle for a week. And the most outrageous part of it is the stories about Biden “apologizing” to the President for “forcing” him to come out in favor of gay marriage. Are you fucking kidding me? How fucking stupid do you think people are? As if Biden’s statement couldn’t have been buried under some other frivolous but important-sounding press release if Obama hadn’t felt inclined to express his “evolving” views on gay marriage.
Speaking of which, can we talk about this “evolution” bullshit for a second? You have access to the greatest minds in the Western world, to research, to statistics, and to common fucking sense, and it took you FOUR YEARS to realize that, oh, wait a second, people in my country don’t deserve to be discriminated against! Oh hey! What an insight! I can see how you got into Harvard, Mr. President. If this is how long it takes you to make up your mind on such a simple and clear-cut issue, what exactly happens when an urgent and morally ambiguous crisis comes up at 3 AM in the Situation Room? Do you go on sabbatical for a year while you try to figure it out?
This entire circus is so transparent, calculated, and predictable that’s frankly offensive. Romney’s a (relative) moderate. Obama is now seen as far more of a centrist than he was four years ago. The Obama camp is worried that Romney will cut into Obama’s votes in the center, and it’s not like Obama can outflank Romney on the right, so he has to push to the left in search of support. Which is why he’s now suddenly remembering all the people he sucked up to four years ago and then promptly forgot. It’s shameful and embarrassing.
Four years ago, Obama ran for election under the slogan “Change.” Does anyone else remember that? There was a pretty famous poster, and, in 21st century terms, Obama won by a landslide. People came out to vote and shoved the Republicans out of power because they thought something might actually be different. Obama’s 100 Days should have reflected that slogan. He should have gone into the White House four years ago and done exactly what he received a mandate from the people to do - shake shit up, and fast. Obama’s should have pushed harder, more immediately, and further on health care. He shouldn’t have surrendered to Congressional Republicans so quickly. Once he had a health care reform in his pocket, he should have worked quickly and aggressively to solidify the coalition that had put him in office. DADT should have disappeared within the first 6 months of the Obama administration. He should have worked quickly and aggressively to undo Bush-era policies on abortion, HIV, and education, which would have put the gays, the feminists, and the teachers’ unions firmly in his pocket. If Obama had had any true vision beyond “Change” as an empty slogan, or if he had had any loyalty to the people who believed in and supported him to begin with, he would have worked first and foremost to fulfill those campaign promises. If he had done that, all those groups would be unhesitatingly giving him support right now and he wouldn’t be in the awkward and cynical position of fishing for votes on the left after spending four years in office dicking around the center. Instead, Obama’s time in office is marked by a lot of big words, a half-assed health care compromise, and a lot of time spent stroking the status quo. No major reform on Wall Street. No gay marriage. No change. Lots of photo ops, though. And I hear he’s real popular in France.
In short, Mr. President, I’m thoroughly unimpressed by your manipulation of my identity group for your own political gain.
Finally, let’s turn briefly to the other side of Cynical Alley with a quick note to all the gays who are against the idea of gay marriage because they are against the institution of marriage as such. “I don’t want them to addgay marriage, I want to abolish all marriage!” Good for you. Stand by your principles. Except that refusing to fight for gay marriage because you oppose the institution of marriage is a lot like refusing to fight for the reform of corporate practices because you’re a Marxist and you’re waiting for the revolution. It’s great that you’re waiting for the revolution. But it’s going to take a while. While you’re waiting, would you like to get fucked with or without lube?

Boss Smiley’s Big Gay Brainstorm

What annoys me the most about this ludicrous soundbyte circus isn’t the sight of a politician blatantly using people’s lives and happiness for election leverage. It’s not the translation of oppression into rhetorical advantage. These are commonplaces of contemporary life. What annoys me the most is the obsequious, ass-licking way in which the homosexuals have responded to this carefully orchestrated and utterly cynical move. One precisely-timed press release and the fucking Internet blows up like Jesus and Moses just came back hand in hand and started giving out free lube. Are you kidding me? Are you so easily taken in?

At first I was just going to ignore this travesty, because it’s a move so clearly calculated to drum up attention among the gays that really it should just be ignored. I mean, big words, big deal; put your legislation where your mouth is if you want to impress me. But then the blissed-out, adoring responses started appearing in the media. And on Tumblr. And on my Facebook feed. “My hero!” trumpeted one acquaintance on Facebook. “Such a brave move for Obama!” announced a Tumblrite. Again, are you kidding me? The man is the president of the United Fucking States. Have you guys ever read that little “Declaration of Independence” thing? It’s 2012, for fuck’s sake. This isn’t some backwater redneck hick who’s suddenly seen the light of day. We’re getting this excited because a Columbia- and Harvard-education lawyer from Chicago supports the idea of equal rights? He hasn’t actually done anything yet - he’s just not opposed. And everyone’s acting like this is some huge ethical revelation or act of moral clarity. Seriously?

It’s painfully apparent that this entire operation was carefully planned and executed. 10 days or so ago, a B-list administration official comes out in favor of gay marriage. A couple of days after that, Joe Biden comes out in favor of gay marriage. What a coincidence. But then the “speculation” starts. I love then the press uses this word. The support of two administration officials for gay marriage has “fueled speculation,” the NYT informed us a few days ago, that President Obama might be “pressured” into publicly shifting his stance on gay marriage. “Speculation”? “Pressured”? As if this wasn’t a cynically orchestrated media circus. As if the media hadn’t been given a heads up that this was coming and that it was going to clog up the new cycle for a week. And the most outrageous part of it is the stories about Biden “apologizing” to the President for “forcing” him to come out in favor of gay marriage. Are you fucking kidding me? How fucking stupid do you think people are? As if Biden’s statement couldn’t have been buried under some other frivolous but important-sounding press release if Obama hadn’t felt inclined to express his “evolving” views on gay marriage.

Speaking of which, can we talk about this “evolution” bullshit for a second? You have access to the greatest minds in the Western world, to research, to statistics, and to common fucking sense, and it took you FOUR YEARS to realize that, oh, wait a second, people in my country don’t deserve to be discriminated against! Oh hey! What an insight! I can see how you got into Harvard, Mr. President. If this is how long it takes you to make up your mind on such a simple and clear-cut issue, what exactly happens when an urgent and morally ambiguous crisis comes up at 3 AM in the Situation Room? Do you go on sabbatical for a year while you try to figure it out?

This entire circus is so transparent, calculated, and predictable that’s frankly offensive. Romney’s a (relative) moderate. Obama is now seen as far more of a centrist than he was four years ago. The Obama camp is worried that Romney will cut into Obama’s votes in the center, and it’s not like Obama can outflank Romney on the right, so he has to push to the left in search of support. Which is why he’s now suddenly remembering all the people he sucked up to four years ago and then promptly forgot. It’s shameful and embarrassing.

Four years ago, Obama ran for election under the slogan “Change.” Does anyone else remember that? There was a pretty famous poster, and, in 21st century terms, Obama won by a landslide. People came out to vote and shoved the Republicans out of power because they thought something might actually be different. Obama’s 100 Days should have reflected that slogan. He should have gone into the White House four years ago and done exactly what he received a mandate from the people to do - shake shit up, and fast. Obama’s should have pushed harder, more immediately, and further on health care. He shouldn’t have surrendered to Congressional Republicans so quickly. Once he had a health care reform in his pocket, he should have worked quickly and aggressively to solidify the coalition that had put him in office. DADT should have disappeared within the first 6 months of the Obama administration. He should have worked quickly and aggressively to undo Bush-era policies on abortion, HIV, and education, which would have put the gays, the feminists, and the teachers’ unions firmly in his pocket. If Obama had had any true vision beyond “Change” as an empty slogan, or if he had had any loyalty to the people who believed in and supported him to begin with, he would have worked first and foremost to fulfill those campaign promises. If he had done that, all those groups would be unhesitatingly giving him support right now and he wouldn’t be in the awkward and cynical position of fishing for votes on the left after spending four years in office dicking around the center. Instead, Obama’s time in office is marked by a lot of big words, a half-assed health care compromise, and a lot of time spent stroking the status quo. No major reform on Wall Street. No gay marriage. No change. Lots of photo ops, though. And I hear he’s real popular in France.

In short, Mr. President, I’m thoroughly unimpressed by your manipulation of my identity group for your own political gain.

Finally, let’s turn briefly to the other side of Cynical Alley with a quick note to all the gays who are against the idea of gay marriage because they are against the institution of marriage as such. “I don’t want them to addgay marriage, I want to abolish all marriage!” Good for you. Stand by your principles. Except that refusing to fight for gay marriage because you oppose the institution of marriage is a lot like refusing to fight for the reform of corporate practices because you’re a Marxist and you’re waiting for the revolution. It’s great that you’re waiting for the revolution. But it’s going to take a while. While you’re waiting, would you like to get fucked with or without lube?

#

Reblog If You Just Met Zola Jesus At The Guggenheim After Her Amazing Show With Jim Thirlwell And A String Quartett
God DAMN that girl has a voice.
OK. This officially concludes Fanboy Week, I promise. Tomorrow, a post about the President’s recent gay marriage flip-flop (sneak preview: I’m not impressed), and next week will be a return to some actual philosophy with a post or two on Hume and Deleuze.

Reblog If You Just Met Zola Jesus At The Guggenheim After Her Amazing Show With Jim Thirlwell And A String Quartett

God DAMN that girl has a voice.

OK. This officially concludes Fanboy Week, I promise. Tomorrow, a post about the President’s recent gay marriage flip-flop (sneak preview: I’m not impressed), and next week will be a return to some actual philosophy with a post or two on Hume and Deleuze.

#

FUCK WORK LIVE LIFE (Within Feasible Economic and Social Parameters)
Sometimes you just need to get in a car with good people and take-out Chinese food and just go see a show, you know?
As you can see in this picture I took outside the Jefferson Theater, not only was the Beach House show at maximum capacity, but we done used up all the fun there was to be had in Charlottesville on Friday, because come Saturday fun was sold clean out.
The new Beach House album is fucking incredible and this show was fantastic. I can’t wait to see them again in Manhattan in a week; if you get a chance to see this tour, you should really take it.
Oh, also, what’s up with the people who start unfollowing every time I don’t post for 3-4 days? Are you really that nervous that I might not be coming back?

FUCK WORK LIVE LIFE
(Within Feasible Economic and Social Parameters)

Sometimes you just need to get in a car with good people and take-out Chinese food and just go see a show, you know?

As you can see in this picture I took outside the Jefferson Theater, not only was the Beach House show at maximum capacity, but we done used up all the fun there was to be had in Charlottesville on Friday, because come Saturday fun was sold clean out.

The new Beach House album is fucking incredible and this show was fantastic. I can’t wait to see them again in Manhattan in a week; if you get a chance to see this tour, you should really take it.

Oh, also, what’s up with the people who start unfollowing every time I don’t post for 3-4 days? Are you really that nervous that I might not be coming back?

« Back Page 1