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.
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:
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.
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.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
agree, but also
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.
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.
ugh, i wish marx would go off all over me :panting:
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.