"PS your post was the most reprehensible I have seen on LBO-talk. I mean that in a nonmoralistic way ... It was the most vile (in the nonmoral sense) of any post ever in the history of LBO-talk."
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:45 PM, shag carpet bomb <shag at cleandraws.com>wrote:
"it's looking for a subject of history at all that's the
> problem."
>
You're making an awfully big leap from what Julio said to any kind of search for *a* subject, which he never suggested. In fact, you seem to have a unique penchant for introducing poorly-thought-out, ill-defined propositions into discussion, attributed to others or not: "joe does agree that there are some oppression(s) that matter more than others," "you think that the struggle of labor in the u.s. is as important as the struggle of palestinians?" etc. Half the time, I have no idea how you get to where you end. This is one of those times.
> Unlike Carrol, though, I think that folks who buy into this approach
> are pretty harmless. They're wrong, on my view, but they aren't going
> to do any serious damage and will end up sittingin a corner, with
> other believers, staring at their navels trying to decide who has a
> more legit right to speak, who is the true subject of history, who is
> more or less alienated, etc. based on their social location. As such,
> y'all are a pretty harmless bunch - in practice - cause y'all will
> never get shit done.
>
Well, when you base your politics on silly, groundless fantasies about the activities of others, I can see how careful analysis might be a less pressing concern. If it gives you some kind of validation to imagine Julio (whose political work is familiar to me) sitting into corner and staring into his navel, go for it; I'm confident he won't lose any sleep over it. I'll admit that I have no idea what it is you or Carrol actually do, beyond posting here, but wouldn't base my opinions of your politics on that.
-- "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað."