Anyway, it's very depressing to see a great theorist do a tongue in cheek provocation, and instead of asking ourselves 'how do we keep fit without recreating fascist ideals' everybody just had a kneejerk reaction and told her to shut up. Sure that's a good sign.
61
97
803
27,511
You can’t “do a provocation” and then act scandalized when discourse is provoked. An easy way to avoid this dynamic is to avoid saying ridiculous things for purely rhetorical reasons.
1
104
1,731
It’s not “reactionary” to criticize someone else’s ideologically maximalist take. It’s being criticized because it was ridiculous.
2
13
237
My “reactionary stance” is that it’s ridiculous for a socialist to endorse “dysgenics.” There’s nothing “reactionary” about it.
2
8
142
Which, very obviously, is not what she is saying. Which you would recognize very easily if you were not being reactionary and attempted deal with actual substance:
She is saying is is better that we learn to accept people being push pushed to the margins and called dysgenic by fascists. As in, prepare to defend them against the coming onslaught, which I think you should be more worried about.
1
7
165
She said lots of things, not all of which is outrageous, but what I took issue with was the use of “dysgenic,” which is a real term, with a real definition, and it would be easy to avoid criticism on the basis of that definition if she hadn’t used it.
2
6
118
Dysgeny is an eugenic category. Eugenics reject all form of non-conformity to a fascist ideal. So a society which tolerates and protects all kinds of people is by definition dysgenic, since it rejects eugenics toto. Is literacy finally dead or are people being obtuse on purpose?
1
7
80
