Welcome to Kingdom Hearts Insider

Join us now to get access to all our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, and so, so much more. It's also quick and totally free, so what are you waiting for?

Ask question

Ask Questions and Get Answers from Our Community

Ask a Mod

Ask Questions from your staff

Contact Staff

If you need additional information or have a concern please contact us.

  • Hello everybody! We have tons of new awards for the new year that can be requested through our Awards System thanks to Antifa Lockhart! Some are limited-time awards so go claim them before they are gone forever...

    CLICK HERE FOR AWARDS



REGISTER TO REMOVE ADS
Enchanted Rose

Profile posts Latest activity Postings Awards About

  • Haven't smoked. But I have been just a bit bad about keeping in contact with fam, and slept through some classes, a bit stupid about getting help and confronting academic issues. One thing I swore to myself months ago was, unless it was studying (even then), never to spend entire days in my room. Do things, take initiative, don't while away time on worthless shit. Read, write, pray, think before you speak. Sleep. All of these aims have been precarious, but at least I have't been as bad as before. I think, reflecting on life, that 'progress' is an awful model of existence but if I were to use it, my line may be shaky but it's always going up. I think you're just a tad more than bad habits, Naomi.

    It does tickle me a bit, but I'm glad to hear you're working. And honestly, if the professor is sincere (even I've been lately just floored by the amount of hard leftism, genuine or otherwise, in uni instructors) than I don't begrudge him for separating his work from his politics, to the extent we can. I don't think there's ethical consumption (or production) under capitalism, and difficult to earn your wages "radically". A fellow has to eat.
    Tentatively, we're going to say yes. Resisting falling to bad old habits, with limited success. New roommate. I think overall improved performance as a human being, friend, etc. You? Any plans/resolutions?
    Shame on you for forgetting QoTSA! :D

    Yeah, I try to keep myself open-minded, 2013 was a great year for music! Probably forgot about other albums as well haha.

    Noticed Vampire Weekend on your list. I've been wanting to listen to some tracks but for some reason, I haven't gotten to it yet. Any suggestions there?
    The live lounge used to be pretty great back in the day haha. Used to be a really good selection of covers and acoustic performances. I had a look at the track listing for the latest one and I swear the only worthwhile one was the Arctic Monkeys covering Drake.

    And you can just tell radio isn't going the right way when Chris Moyles leaves and the absolute worst Nick Grimshaw comes on and they lose two million listeners. I am pretty sure the main reason R1 are keeping hold of Zane is because he has those connections to artists because of that clear love of music.

    I think I've listened to Mike Davies before, sure I have. Only really other DJ's worth listening to on most stations. Radio 2 has a few gems, but nothing major.

    And thank you : D I've worked in it in the past volunteering and presenting and junk. That was fun enough, so I wouldn't mind getting paid to do it haha.
    Hello! Uhm, okay I'll try to give you the best explanation possible.

    Tias-
    The I in Ti has the same sound as the e in me
    The A in -as has the same sound as the British a in can't, fast, etc.

    Nimbas-
    Basically sounds like Simba. With an S.

    But don't worry, as a Dutchie knowing how stupid things are in my language, you won't sound stupid if you mis-pronounce it! Good luck :)
    What spurred on that change, if I may ask? You will be unsurprised to know I'm very much against pornography as an industry...built up of horror stories that are rules as opposed to exceptions. On this construction of desires, and indeed human nature (a concept I regard with deep wariness) Marx and Gramsci have said (respectively)

    Spoiler Spoiler Show
    Hahahaha, sounds epic and then some. So how has life been treating you?? I see you're still as gorgeous as ever; Inside and out I'm guessing.
    Is it? If someone's partner, particularly their male partner in a heterosexual relationship, gets off on their girlfriend or wife being humiliated or being subordinate or 'pretend-raped' (and that's just the tame stuff), then those are red flags in my opinion. "Ah but what if the woman enjoys it!!" Then perhaps they've internalized some shit, which may seem condescending, but is it really in a patriarchal society that breeds misogyny in both sexes? Now, I'm not going into legality, but personally, I find it distasteful anything gets a free pass as long as it, to be coarse, gets one wet. The fact that shit like 50 Shades is considered romantic is horrible. We are literally sexualizing misogyny and a whole slew of other violent behaviours and encouraging them all under the guise of liberalism and not wanting to be kink-shamers. Nor is this some intellectual debate once we consider the statistics of battered women and the experience of women who've recovered from BDSM and other related relationships or occupations and lived to tell the gruesome tale, even as these occurrences do not occur in a vacuum, supporting industries and structures that propagate the cycle. Well, I say, f*ck that. We may disagree.

    I'd recommend Walter Benjamin and Antonio Gramsci (somehow I feel you're familiar with both, especially the latter). Both Marxists but definitely your style, I feel. The former engaged with literature and art specifically a lot.

    Doesn't change the fact it's an establishment (mostly) based off ass-kissing and competitive awfulness. I've seen (perhaps even been) brilliant students, with great grades, great extra-curriculars, turned away from recommendations or aid of some sort (even as their parent has cancer) because a favourite got their first, or because it doesn't look good for them to be sponsored by a prof, and so on and so forth. To stay true to oneself and make it in the current, profit-based, static, hegemonic order that is modern academia is impossible, or one's soul will probably have been teared so far asunder that they'll be too decayed on the inside to make any good use of their position. Jinkies, I'm an optimist. Case in point: Zizek, the revolutionary, championing NATO. Or his politics from his stint in Slovenian government circles (which, to be fair, he himself has criticized to an extent).

    Hence why I am not (trying) to go into law. How about yourself?
    Your reply on the science thread was great...because I'm an exhausted grump, I don't bother, but yes. Materialism.
    OMG Naomi :3 you just made my entire day. Like I can't believe it has been so long since we chatted. Like so much technology these days and not even a single skype session or anything </3 Hahahaha and yeeeeea I'm a twerk specialist <3

    All about our last messages being about hot sex. lol
    See, I would, to an extent, disagree (save on laws of orientation, sodomy, etc); I do not feel consent is the be-all-end-all, rather that even if a, let's say, consenting 18-year old slept voluntarily with their 45-year old professor: that doesn't eliminate the material motivations or power imbalances, or the fact that the dude with more status (I assume dude based on history, and contemporary events) is abusing his position and being a generally predatory shithead, hence we have laws on that forefront as well. Do they need to be critical evaluated? Of course, as someone invested in critical legal thought and how much of legality is to re-inforce a neoliberal capitalism, I'd agree, but to me (and here we may disagree), the liberty and choice of the individuals is not my paramount value, hence I mention tangible suffering earlier.

    And they are not free from similar critiques either, though I propose critique must differ from criticism. An arbitrary semantic distinction to posit that depth arises from intimate engagement with the object, rather than a distance. Though I am a proponent of dialectical thinking and engagement instead of hierarchal or other forms of two-dimensional thoughts, I wouldn't superimpose them onto history and naturalism like Engels or Lenin did, forgetting Marx's teachings. This all despite saying I am a Leninist, tentatively.

    I largely agree. Although, positing as I routinely do that they're generally full of shit, tangibly (vis a vis application to the "real world") and even philosophically. Though I may admire their tenacity regarding engaging with (what they percieved to be) the fundamental blocks of speech, knowledge, action, etc. Still...


    [IMG]

    Zizek is a joke and a clown and the reason (along with Lacan: "f*ck or kill the poor!") I changed my mind about the Bolsheviks and censorship. I wish I was joking. That, coupled with a despising of liberalism makes me seem more unrelenting by the minute, ahah. C'est la vie.

    You too! As for the book, I do not doubt what you say, though I haven't read it in a while so I can't make an assessment. Still, I estimate I'd be very disenchanted with what I would see. Don't read that much prose these days, last book I read was by the immaculate Zadie Smith.
    Foucault on anti-pedophile hysteria - William A. Percy
    Sexual Morality and the Law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Of course it's more nuanced than I let on, but I find postmodernism mixed with neoliberalism to be a disease.

    I'll give credit where credit is due and say that Foucault is certainly one of the more clairvoyant folks lumped into the post-structuralist camp; I'm currently working through, ironically enough, Madness & Civilization, and he doesn't often seem to approach history either holistically or materially, but rather a kind of abstract conjecture, projecting his models of power onto it. Some less, and some moreso. And in fact, if you like Debord, then a simpler and more succinct reply would be to say his notions about Spectacle and history only apply so eerily well to Foucault, and many of the other thinkers associated with him and the period. See, I'm not very interested in rhetoric, I've become exhausted and disillusioned with academia (divorced from the public, divorced from issues that require movement beyond a desk), but more (again, ironically enough!) interested in tangible power-relations and suffering. As an old master once said, "...the point, however, is to change it." Hence why I even dislike (uh) saying "oh i like dis guy/no i dislike him", that's not very pragmatic or ~dialectical~ of me.

    I, on the contrary, seem to be (for better or for worst) entrenched in it. A socialist muslim with a penchant for Nietzsche. Lord help me.

    Similar, although the business for me is about to rear up; joining clubs and extracurriculars is something I've been lax about (even as I need to focus on my studies more ahah) but need to go forward with. It's a dilemma, renew a fencing membership, or lose these Kanye tickers. It's not even a question but parting with the $$$ is never easy.
    On the contrary, I despise it, ahah. But yes. Foucault. Pedophile apologist, pro-Israel, hedonistic piece of poop who wouldn't understand history if I shoved tautology up his butt. A bit useful though. Debord and Althusser, tho....(jk fuck both of them but 2 a lesser degree they are way more useful)

    As you can tell I've a militant frakenstenian socialist. I know, I know.

    How have you been keeping? I recall we once chatted about post-modernism, ahah.
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Top