cool i learned how service types work

i sure love submitting financial risk escalations on a friday afternoon

spoiler alert: preauths are fucked

feels so far away

1 member is comfy

it’s funny that i can’t even tolerate my own company

if i can get preauths plus like two of my misc issues done before today ill be content

no kidding joe might be my favorite guy

someone tell me why the junk folder takes precedence over deletion rules

bright and overstim and everyone vying for attention

unironically kinda traumatic to finish a task and get an email notification about it, i just assume it’s more drudgery on the pile

the chinese live action vn is peak

reciprocation isn’t what you need

responding in turn is a disrespectful misstep

hm sorry, i didn’t get that right

hope you can find someone who will

someone less selfish maybe

i dislike consumerism because it reminds me that commodities exist

"anarchists with the stench of humanism" damn straight

ugh lmao i know this is like one of the main points of the book but "the hard sciences are radicalism and the humanities are reactionary" is so weak man

like im being reductionist in that attribution, certainly at this early stage, but you can see the seeds being planted for it

:sob: even like the characterization of the opposition's position can't avoid your humanism

yes please keep repeating that science is radical because it seeks the root of all things thats so insightful and brave and has so much carry-over to the political context youre so right

lol. the poor analytic philosophy "that was out of step with the popular narratives of the humanities which greedily followed adorno and horkheimer in wildly misrepresenting the logical positivists." lol.

lmao bro this is so embarrassing. look like i'm not a staunch defender of everything adorno ever did and certainly im not like hard-line supporter of all these specific guys and movements, but like.. really?

"aronowitz correctly perceived that the inclinations of the frankfurt school (and marxism more generally) towards "holism" and "dialectics" were existentially challenged by physics' radical focus on underlying root dynamics".

if you repeat it enough its true, surely. but also it just completely misunderstands the err of this era. the focus on "instrumental reason" was not dialectical enough, that was the good part you got right with your critique of holism. i guess i have to take that back now

also like, to be clear, i have no dog in the race of defending pomo as a movement, i really couldn't care less. there were undoubtedly a lot of quacks and maybe they had outsize influence. tbh im not deeply informed on the history of may 68 and all its subcurrents, so i dont care the litigate that.

i'm also sympathetic to the argument that the way a philosophy is used matters a lot and reflects upon the thought itself, and of course there's a reciprocal influence there. that isn't being spelled out but i just want to make it clear that i'm chill with that if used carefully.

at the same time though, and for that very reason, some distortions of thinkers and what your broad gloss of them are do matter, especially because you're building to a throughline and generating a historical account leading up to the present

i just really dislike this habit of "our history, wow look our great history as anarchists" and then pointing out the awkward missteps or tendencies in alternative movements. no matter the anarchist current we're able to wipe the error away and essentially ascribe virtue to the rank and file

"a german term like 'wissenschaft' that means something looser than a body of knowledge and may connote something closer to theology and art in a context can become translated as 'science' in english and then greedily directed in critique towards the STEM barbarians" 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭

honestly im not even sure what to say to that one chief

it's hard to know what exactly is fair game to critique in what way because he's explicitly talking about like the fanbase of philosophers and even then he's like "well it could be used for this" and i kinda just have to scratch my head like yea wow

any argument i make about the texts or about the direct point in question is irrelevant, in the terms of the preamble he set out for himself. so ig ill just say wow if people are slinging a notoriously subtle word to translate around with abuse that's real cringe my guy

we namedropped schismogenesis ! zomg graeber mentioned !

also can i take a moment to just revisit, like in a lot of this we're calling out specific guys and quotedunking and calling out embarrassing personal views they held but like, imagine if someone did this with Scientists. yeah man people are just cringe sometimes lmao, even influential people

i get that its not that simple and in a milieu thats still emerging and is greatly influenced by these individuals it has more import. but like you can do that with anything nascent, and if you were to look at even the history of anarchism, you would take pride in the fact that you rejected

the quackery of its significant early individuals and culture

anyway thats chapter 1 i think im gonna try to actually sleep now

one more thought before i go, i know he discusses like The Left having wacky ideas and stuff, but this is distanced from anarchists. like look at the passage below:

"Throughout the ’80s and ’90s, the anarchist mainstream remained committed to frameworks deeply at odds with... antirealist legitimizers. One prominent anarchist journal at the time even titled itself Reality Now!"

"pretty much all the leading figures of the anarchist movement openly despised postmodernism, and those involved in daily projects or struggles simply ignored it. But its influence grew so vast in U.S. subcultural scenes as to become an unavoidable part of the Left."

like come on dude we're just no-true-scottsman-ing forever, the anarchist mainstream can do no wrong

this is why you get accused of humanism, and why you would better off not neglecting adorno when he sneers at the proletariat

idk lowkey maybe i can see the "anarchist mainstream" being immune to the occultism critique or whatever else if we would nail down what we're talking about. like IWW style guys or just adherents to classical anarchist writers then yea alright ig, but we're being pretty unclear

i'm not trying to do the thing where i'm committed to the view that "nuh uh you did the exact same thing", because my point is that even if you carve out a lineage that doesn't fall prey to one type of error, it doesn't mean they didn't have issues either, and potentially even some issues that

those associated with the quacks were hinting in the right direction on. idk we still haven't really covered much ground yet, still setting the stage, so i'm still witholding full judgement. i just dont like the direction we're headed and the implied positions / rhetorical moves thus far

yay i love the devtools debugger pause