Asia and hormones

Jim heartfield Jim at
Tue Jun 23 11:27:23 PDT 1998

In message <v03102807b1b5311bc88a@[]>, Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at> writes
>How about making it a rule that those who use those terms must specify and
>explain what exactly they mean by those terms _and_ offer examples that are
>not mere anecdotes? They had better explain what 'identity' is as well.
Here comes the union bureaucrat with the rule book in hand 'sorry comrade but that subject cannot be raised here!'

>Max S, Eric Alterman, etc. use 'pomo' and 'identity politics'
>interchangeably because doing so helps them to dismiss both as matters of
>culture, symbols, discourse, etc.
Perhaps what they mean is what they say, questions culture symbols and discourse and not what you assert they mean -
>It's much more difficult--even for left
>conservatives--to assert that struggles against job discrimination, sexual
>harassment, hate crimes, etc., all of which have unmistakable material
>consequences, are of no importance, merely cultural nonsense, _without_
>revealing their true colors.
Presumably they do not reveal what you take to be their true colours because they are not their true colours. But then it is so much easier to argue against what people do not say than it is to argue with what the do say.

The arguments put forward by Yoshie and Carrol seem destined to end in demotic caricature, smear and assertion. Why? -- Jim heartfield

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list