Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Urban v's the Commentariat

I don't know what that means
I mean that it wasn't a question of a single individual "deciding" that politics is downstream from culture, and therefore "we have to like, change the culture, dude". The structure of American society predisposed millions of people to make the mistaking of confusing a road to nowhere with a path of least resistance.
 
OK - I think this path of least resistance down which this stuff so easily disappears is something that's been created intentionally by people who have things to gain from it disappearing down it, rather than just springing up naturally. Certainly seems to be the case here anyway.
 
For context, there has been some chat on social media recently about how police shows reinforce the idea of cops being good guys etc etc in the popular consciousness - I think that's certainly true and worth thinking about, but I don't think it's a demand for people to justify their TV watching habits to the world.

Yeah there's some interesting reflections on this - sure David Graeber has an essay not he cosmological role of the police in American culture which I though was great, can't find it at the minute but this touches on some similar themes:

 
Tangential - LP mentor news:




:mad: :(

Moar today:

 
Moar today:


So, he was a prolific “love rat”. Isn’t that what fame is for? Have we become so cossetted that the realities of a culture that worships celebrity have entirely slipped from our minds?
 
kavenism having up to 19 concurrent relationships without a) making it clear to his primary partner or b) each woman that they are not his only girlfriend is the behaviour of more than a 'love rat' as you call it.

It's the behaviour of someone who has no regard for anyone but himself and treats women like objects.

Isn't that one plausible definition of a love rat, perhaps combined with the ethos of the "player" and "pick-up artist"?
I don't doubt his profligacy, though I'd be surprised if it was quite as superhuman an effort as this article makes out. 19 at the same time? When would he have time to write? It does say there that some of these "relationships" were online only, which doesn't really count in my book.
 
Isn't that one plausible definition of a love rat, perhaps combined with the ethos of the "player" and "pick-up artist"?
I don't doubt his profligacy, though I'd be surprised if it was quite as superhuman an effort as this article makes out. 19 at the same time? When would he have time to write? It does say there that some of these "relationships" were online only, which doesn't really count in my book.
Are you seriously trying to argue that 'love rat' is a justifiable label for someone who has behaved like this? 'love rat' is a tabloid term for a man who cheats on his wife, not someone who objectifies women almost pathologically.

An online relationship can be very much as damaging as an in person relationship, if not more so because of the usually high emotional content.
 
Are you seriously trying to argue that 'love rat' is a justifiable label for someone who has behaved like this? 'love rat' is a tabloid term for a man who cheats on his wife, not someone who objectifies women almost pathologically.

An online relationship can be very much as damaging as an in person relationship, if not more so because of the usually high emotional content.

There’s nothing in this article that suggests he was objectifying these women, a concept that is a lot more complex than many seem to recognise. I defer to Martha Nussbaum on that subject. Having multiple partners does not necessitate objectification, though it can do.

Disrespectful? Opportunistic? Narcissistic? Indulgent? Deceitful? Certainly, his behaviour could be described like that, and I’m not defending him, it’s a shitty and degrading way to behave towards people. But there are ways of criticising someone like this (and the women who contributed to these articles seem to recognise that) which takes into account the complexities of the power relations at work and see a bigger picture with broader lessons to learn.
 
Last edited:
No I deferred to Martha Nussbaum, whose essay I found very useful when I was writing my MA thesis on objectification. Distinction, in case you were wondering.
images
 
An MA? On objectification? And a distinction? Do tell us more oh wise sage.

Ignore LynnDoyleCooper. The rest of us doubt your sagacity and have no desire to read your MA thesis, whatever it's distinctions.

This thread is about exposing, mocking and belittling members of the Commentariat. Until you have a column in the New Statesman, you cannot expect to be seriously scoffed at upon it
 
Some stuff on him on this very thread and elsewhere, the search function reveals
yes thanks, a bit bitty though. From AWL>Left Foot Forward to UnHerd is I suppose a well trodden trajectory, but he doesnt strike me as a full blown Nick Cohen type. Some dubious positions on international wars, but that in itself isn't worthy of being a right off. His book Hired on shit working conditions looks overall like a job well done, but there's definitely a suspect whiff about him - I'd just like a bit of clarity on what he's really all about, if anyone knows.
 
Back
Top Bottom