General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 1055

I'm referring to this post:

This post doesn't seem to be about Glenn Beck but everyone else here.

 

And, also, the goal is not really to change minds. If the goal was "make all white people not racist" nothing would ever get done

 

Frank Wilderson accepts the premises of Marxism, but thinks that it is only applicable to workers who aren't black. There is a material difference in how others races are constituted as subjects within the regime of racial capital, i.e., they are workers who are exploited and that relationship is contingent on a set of relations which can be moved one way or another. They may be paid less or more exploited, but there remains a chance that a non-black worker can become one of the gravediggers of capital to which Marx referred. What Wilderson wants to say about black people is, the same relationship does not exist for them. The process of transforming the African into the black was such that it brought into being a new ontological framework wherein black bodies are socially dead and fungible. By that, I mean that it has created a world in which civil society hinges about that anti-blackness, that social death and the ability to exchange black, move, isolate, kill black bodies with no contingent factors. Blackness, then, is the non-being against which civil society structures itself and it requires constant reproduction in order to maintain itself, and for non-black people to have psychic coherence. This cuts against a Marxist framework in which we are all subjects, all have agency, all have the means for lisocialism will be the agent for doing so. Wilderson says that, precisely because this anti-blackness/social death structure all discourse and relationships, even that which is radical, there remains no liberatory framework for black folks in it. The exploitation, subjugation, murder, etc., are not contingent, they are just the elements that constitute black existence. All of this, I think, is true to a great extent, but it is within the realm of Marxism to address and therein lies my disagreement with Wilderson. What he sees as something separable from capitalist relations, I see the relative autonomy of superstructural elements, e.g., culture, juridical procedure, religion and so on. That is to say, capitalism is ridden with contradictions and the brutality directed towards black people is integral on the level of the economic, but also exceeds necessity on the superstructural level. To use an example, one owned slaves and robbed them of their humanity, which made them commodities that engaged in labor. At a certain point, however, one notices that slave owners would purchase more slaves than they needed, because it was a signifier for one's status. In this way, economic necessity falls by the wayside in favor of brutality as a means to reconfirm one's own whiteness, one's own humanity. It is in this realm that Wilderson's perspective exists, not as something distinct. As soon as the African was destroyed in the holds of those slave ships, and the black-as-commodity arose, it created the conditions in which the slave relationship was tethered to both economic, cultural and psychic life. The lack of contingency, therefore, is less emblematic of how capitalist relations do not apply and more emblematic of the way in which the slave (the black-as-commodity) became fungible in the sense of value itself, i.e., used anywhere, at any time, at any function for manifold purposes as a core commodity, like crude oil or gold, from which all sorts of value is derived and measured against, and the accumulation process is always-ready built for excess. This is why blackness is policed so thoroughly. If blackness were not, it would create a crisis the likes of which the world has never seen.

 

Oh yeah, this post was about some posters here. You're right. I stand by it.

 

What would the goal be then?

 

no one cares birdman

 

of course you do

 

What time are channels going to start reporting in state numbers / who won each state? I remember it not being too late when they announced Obama winning in 2008 but I imagine a lot has to do with voter numbers and how close each state is before the announcement. Want to watch along and see as it goes but don't want to be up until 3 in the morning.

 

Are there AP-aligning scholars that try to expand on this framework? And would you say this a perspective that sees AP as something that can be wholly integrated into a Marxist framework or just a Marxist framework incorporating just some AP ideas?

 

I guess I just don't know how else to react to someone evolving their sensibilities other than positively?

 

i already explained to you why its not enough especially in the case of glenn beck

 

I'm kinda jealous Bill Mitchell is your family friend.

 

Not sure if I agree with the article. a big gripe he has is that nate uses odds assuming high variability from his model. however that doesn't mean the model is bad, it means many of the parameters going into the outcome might not be reliable. I think one really unreliable thing is to use polls alone to predict outcomes. so it's fair for nate to use, let's say, 1% t tail margins versus 5%.

Do any of these predicturn models actually use test sets from previous elections? because that's the easiest way to tell which model works.

 

lol, the PR person who drafts tweets for Rudy is getting in trouble today.

 

thats a parody account im like 90% sure its not really him

 

I fell for it too fuck, I always told myself I wouldn't and mocked those who did with the Trump ones

 

Dammit haha I knew it was too perfect to be real

 

You can run a brier score to see what models are doing best predictability wise. 538 is usually in the top half, but I don't think has ever actually had the best result. He also changes his model each year. I'd be curious to see his 2012 model on this election, for example.

I think he's got too much going on and made too many assumptions during this year's process.

That said — the current 538 map is exactly what I get.

 

Trump you owe your campaign another $34 million. I bet that could pay for pizza.

 

Area man doesn't know what rap is.

 

hows that african american outreach going mr trump?

 

c'mon there's no way he hasn't used the n word and the b word in his life

 

Haha.

I think he is livid, LIVID, that he doesn't have more famous friends and how badly this election has ruined his name and brand. I think he's trying to copy Hillary's strategy and they are flying by the seat of their pants now.

Trump: SHE HAS CELEBRIRITES?!?!?!? QUICK GET ME ONE OF THOSE.
Conway: Uhm, we ... we have Scott Baio?!
Trump: No REAL CELEBRITIES!
Baio: but I was chachi!
Trump: NOT NOW SCOTT!
Conway: Uhhhhhh, we have .... Ted Nugent? He's super anti-semetic and has a song about fucking "jailbait" which may not go well with everything in this campaign you know
Trump: No it's fine, do it, bigly, celebrity it up! Let's go!

The wheels are off. No one in that campaign is an adult or professional.

 

Final Monmouth: