HJM of Prodigies & Monsters has this powerful and moving post on the need for those of us who consider ourselves radical thinkers to also be committed to trans/gender non-conforming rights. I cannot agree more. Few things feel me with as much disgust as radical thinkers who reject such concern as Bourgeois multiculturalism. Also, those thinkers who simply ignore such people are in some ways no better. After summarizing some of the shocking conditions for existence that trans people deal with, HJM concludes:
In short: you can’t just not write about this, folks, even if you don’t ‘do’ queer and/or feminist theory, no matter how much you love the Situationists, no matter what your dissertation is on or what your next article is about, whatever courses you’ve been assigned this semester. If you don’t feel you have whatever knowledge-base you need to think about resistance and the amelioration of certain of these modes of thoroughly naturalized and normalized brutalities, better ask somebody.
Speaking of the rights of transgendered, there is both good and bad news out of Canada, both of which come out of Feminist Philosophers. The good news is that the lower house in the Canadian parliament passed legislation protecting trans people. The bad news is that the legislation seems in danger in the upper house.
Tim Morton and Zachery Price have been discussing OOO and politics. Morton's take home point is in favor of anarchism. Tim is here, and Zachery's follow up is here.
Also, Adam Kotsko and Tim have been discussing OOO and negative theology (in relationship to Derrida and Hagglund's work on Derrida). Adam is here. Tim is here, and here, and here. Make sure to read the comments as well, to get the full discussion.
Also, I know this getting Tim heavy, but he has some discussion on internet types and women in blogging over at Arcade. Since my blog has started to attract its own trolls, I've been thinking a bit more on this issue. I don't have much to say. I don't publish troll comments, and yet trolls keep making them knowing this. Turning their comments into a one-way message to me. It is a weird impulse. One of my debaters referred to as pure art. Not sure if I agree with that, but libidinal economy that certain trolls engage in is one I do not understand. (I will, I presume, get trolled on this post having brought this up. It will continue to amuse and mystify me).
Over at APPS is a wonderful and insightful interview with Cynthia Willett. Check this out, as well:
Now I am working on how the same basis for sociality in the preverbal eros between infants and their caregivers also accounts for ethical relations across species.
Totally awesome, I cannot wait.
Lastly, you have to read this amazing polemic against foodies. Not only is there the enjoyment one gets from reading any good polemic, but it is also very insightful. Some of the quotations are long, but here is a short one that summarizes both joys:
That’s right: guests have a greater obligation to please their host—and passersby to please a vendor—than vice versa. Is there any civilized value that foodies cannot turn on its head?
It is one of the truths of the foodie world that guests are obligated to take on the role of host, and thus hospitality is turned on its head. Maybe so, maybe so. But it is certainly a philosophical insight.
I recently finished teaching Plato's Symposium to my Intro to Philosophy class. I should have thought through how a book that deals with homoeroticism and pederasty might cause a bit of a stir in my Baptist university located in the middle of GA. But, I didn't, really. Anyway, I am going to be showing them Hedwig and the Angry Inch, and I cannot wait for that discussion. In honor of that, here is Hedwig and Angry Inch's The Origin of Love. If you haven't seen the movie/play and are curious how it relates to the Symposium, this is one of the overt parts. You have to see it if you teach this work by Plato. Or, if you like awesome movies.