like. okay yeah I have my own criticisms of bourgeois academia as an instrument of class rule, but some of this is a bit silly. a lot of people are acting as though academia refers solely to like, literature degrees.
like at a fundamental level, yes, the purpose of a degree is as a barrier to access - but that is not in and of itself always a negative thing! the proletariat also requires the ability to produce, assess, and verify intellectuals. all the 'why the fuck should I care if the student across from me cheated on their tests, never attended class, etc' talk falls apart when the question being answered by their possession of a degree is 'should this person be permitted to design and construct buildings'! fundamentally, yes, someone cheating on their exams devalues a degree, because the confidence in qualification granted by that degree is lessened - not to mention the inherent danger of a fraudulent qualification! (strangely, this argument hasn't been extended to driving license exams yet, though I'm sure the inevitable libertarian convergence isn't far away.)
in all the discussion of burning down the local polytechnical, i have seen vague mention to academia existing as a barrier to access, some scant reference to discrimination against poor and minority students, but zero mention of the actual role of bourgeois academia and the intelligentsia in upholding bourgeois rule! it's all simply coming from the point of view of the restrictiveness being bad because it prevents people from getting high-paying jobs or the like, and the vague notion of elitism. again, with all abolition discourse here, given the lack of any real class analysis, the question is - are we talking solely within the context of capitalism, of existing bourgeois institutions? if so, why? why limit our positions to capitalist realism, to an essentially liberal discourse? if not - then how have we not reconciled the real, practical value of these technologies (mass education, examination, qualification) with their specific characteristics under capitalism?
everything has both positive and negative aspects. bourgeois class rule itself, even, was once a truly progressive thing. we can acknowledge the negative side of bourgeois academia without ignoring its positive side - and still take it on the whole that it, along with all bourgeois institutions, should be torn down and replaced by proletarian ones. that, stripped of their capitalist character, these are useful barriers.
Fundamentally, the point is this: why is our focus on attacking the barriers keeping us from class mobility, from high-paying jobs, themselves; instead of on attacking the existence of the high-paying, middle-class jobs that themselves characterise a fundamentally useful, practical system like examination as an instrument of class rule?
411 notes
·
View notes
I love how the difference between Welcome to Night vale and The Magnus Archives is just the difference between how Americans and the British deal with the supernatural.
148 notes
·
View notes
Do you think things would've been different had Louis and Marie Antoinette accepted constitutional monarchy.
Oh, definitely. I am bad at alternate history (which I dislike about myself, because it is super interesting), so I can't guess how, but it would sure be a very different situation if they honestly accepted constitutional monarchy.
There is this misconception of the French revolution as the "mob"/revolutionaries jumping at the first opportunity to crush royals, but in reality, Louis and MA were given so many chances and things dragged for several years until it became clear that they were uninterested at being constitutional monarchs. Then and only then the republic was founded and monarchy abolished. (And all of this before any of them lost their head).
We know is that the people of France - revolutionaries at least - wanted constitutional monarchy more than Louis and MA did. National Constituent Assembly prepared everything for it to be put into place, all while the royal couple pretended they wanted to play along. In the writings and speeches of many prominent revolutionaries, there is a clear will and hope for constitutional monarchy. Only a minority (mostly among Girondins) called for a republic. Still, the project of the constitutional monarchy was well underway and constitution prepared when Louis and MA decided to flee the country.
It became clear in the summer 1791 that Louis never really supported the idea of a constitutional monarchy. And yet, they did not proclaim the republic then and there - Louis got another chance. So things dragged for another whole year, but this is where the idea of a republic was truly born: through Louis' actions and treason.
So given that the king's treason and unwillingness to accept the constitutional monarchy led to the proclamation of the republic (and (in)directly, other things, such as the war with foreign powers and a surge of counter-revolutionary efforts to name a few), I can definitely say that things would've been different if he and MA honestly accepted constitutional monarchy.
26 notes
·
View notes
have you ever considered writing more about icemav's respective childhoods? i'm always thinking about val kilmer saying in his memoir and documentary that he had obsessive dreams about ice's father who made him feel he had to prove himself as The Absolute Ideal Man and that the interactions he dreamt about between ice and his dad surely "imbued ice with greater fury" and his obsession with perfection made him arrogant.
yeah i go into ice’s childhood a little in my slider one shot since they’re right out of high school when they meet. But val and I took it in two completely different directions. Val’s ice has daddy issues and a poor relationship with his father (extrapolating from excerpt above); my ice has lack-of-daddy-issues and NO relationship with his father. No dad = no man to model himself on = overcompensating. When I said, in mavericks POV (debriefing), that ice “clearly doesn’t know how to talk to other men,” I meant that with my whole chest.
i appreciate Val’s insight, and I’m not sure when his memoir was published, but i think TG86 Ice is complicated DEEPLY by his plot-necessary accession to COMPACFLT in TGM22. At least for me, his end rank of O-10 casts him in a totally different light. It implies that what he wants is not necessarily to be “The Ideal Man,” he wants to be The Ideal OFFICER. And there’s a lot of data to back up that claim in Top Gun 86, too: he’s so gentle with Maverick, even when he’s trying to intimidate him (take the intonation of “I heard that about you. You like to work alone,” for example—is that how you’d say that if you were trying to piss someone off?); and there’s also the fact that two of the five times Ice talks directly to Maverick are explicitly about his safety practices and how they affect the safety of the TEAM (“Who was covering Cougar while you were showboating with this MiG?” / “I don’t like you because you’re dangerous.”). I said in a post last week that I don’t think Ice is a team player—but a good OFFICER doesn’t have to be a team player to make sure that the rules are followed and everyone stays safe. I think if Ice were trying to be The Ideal Man, he’d look a lot more like super-cool bad-ass rule-breaker MAVERICK (the buff daredevil male protagonist of a pro-military propaganda movie), who is canonically overcompensating for HIS relationship with his father/his incredibly unhealthy toxic masculinity.
So, yeah. that’s just how i see it. Again, idk when Val’s memoir was published—the writers of TG and TGM treat Ice as a character very differently, and both characterizations necessarily reflect on the other. I did not get the sense that TGM Ice was “imbued with fury,” for instance. So I think Ice trying to be/feeling pressured to be the best OFFICER makes more sense in light of TGM than Ice trying to be/feeling pressured to be the best MAN.
I feel very shrug about mav’s childhood. Kinda seems like he got over that in TG86. He got to save his team the way his dad did, AND lived to tell the tale. Yay. His development’s pretty much done for the franchise.
59 notes
·
View notes
Watching Miami sans Messi and Alba playing the other bottom half eastern teams struggling for a playoff spot is like watching two blindfolded fencers dueling with pool noodles. Stoppable force meets moveable object every gotdam week.
7 notes
·
View notes
head in my hands dedicating far too much thought to this anatomy class student turned archival assistant idea. her names amelia novák (jan novák from the statement. amelia was the most popular name for baby girls in london 2014) and her little fear farm on the side as she tries to stay on her best behavior inside the institute to spy on them for as long as possible is shuffling thru a myriad of different identities and going out to the same circuit of clubs at night to freak out the ppl who come to recognize Bits of each identity intermixing with all the others
3 notes
·
View notes