It's really easy to define a term such as 'slavery' sufficently, even if it has to include a vast variety of practices. The problem is not the definition, but to have people agree on it. Is wage slavery really slavery? Some people would say yes, others would say no and both would be sure to have it right.
Even if you try to bring forth a 'minimal definition', with which everyone should be able to agree that everything that falls under it certainly is slavery, there will be problems, when you look at it closely. Things like forced penal work or legal guardianship are hard to differentiate from slavery and people will here, again, disagree on what is a form of slavery and what not.
Also, the slavery debate is rarely one taking place on the field of reason, but rather on the emotional plane. Definitions can't really do justice to the emotional side of things.
All that said, I think it'd be a good thing to agree on a definition for the sake of the discussion. Even if one doesn't agree with all facets of the definition, it helps making clear where one disagrees and where one agrees and generally gives a discussion a structure that allows to better understand what is actually talked about and how.
I don' t know. Nico is probably right.
No. You both are wrong. Let me explain.
If I make a theory with a defintion** of slavery as z1, those it matter that you definited it in another way? If you definining it as z2, thos this falsify my theory? Or let me explain it even easier that you two postmodernoist understand it.
I - the artist formerly known as PV - do a theory about amarr slavery now: If x1. then z1. or lets say: The more x2, the less z1.
Does your "new" defining of slavery, falsify my theory in any shap or form? NO...... NO...and friking fucking NO..... If you want to learn more about theories and definition, plz read Hartmut Esser, Methodologie der Sozialwissenschaften. I know it is a very thick book, but it will help. And Im 100% sure i have linked in this very forum already a link to this work (where I try to explain, that institutions dont act, only individuals in institutions.
At this point I should make a general service anouncement (like
ConMatt): Everything with a post- in front is gargbage:
- Post-modernism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_philosophy- Post-structuralism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-structuralism- Post-postivism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postpositivism_%28international_relations%29- Post-materism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-materialismAs those two derplords, those theories as well try to sell their obscurism as fact. In your case: "You cant define slavery, therefore you cant do a theory about slavery." As you can see, if I bring your derp stuff down to one line, how usless and obscure it is.
For all other b/*** users: Generally all those post- schools/theories/movements, are more or less nonsense. Always if someone starts with terms likes: "narrative" or "meta-narrtive", "power relations", be warned that you most likely talk to a post-(something).
I also know that I post this critque very late, and I laso dont ably it overall. For example I could, rip Jace, Bloodbird and Silas another ass-hole for the derp shit those people wrote in the feminisim thread.
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=5683.msg93352#msg93352When I already read "metaculture" alone gives me Ebola. *trollface* Another time had Bloodbird linked a Youtube link which more or less just second Jean Baudrillard retard shit, that we are product of the media. *facepalm* And that Silas and Jace even complemented that tard shit.*facepalm* (sadly I cant find the thead, when I find it I will link it.)
At this point I most likely have to explain some stuff to others. Because I did not know before ~a year what this movement was; before a collque explainted it to me. Next of course you will ask: Who the fuck is this Jean Baudrillard? He was a french """"philospher"""" which loved to sit on talk shows and to tell the media/journalist how they shap reality, that we are a product of the media. In short: the same crap as the marxist crap, just change "product of capitalism and bourgeoisie, to product of the media and the journalist. He famously stated that the TV makes us.*faceplam*
Nevertheless how retard that stuff was, or how often he got call out on his BS or even falsified by other philosphers or scientist; he got always a set in this aweful late-nighties-early 2000 german and french political talkshows. Most of time with
jutta ditfurth (the early german version of anita sarkeesian, as my collque explained to me.). I think he was in so many because he was ego stronging those journalist/pundits. What I mean with it? He told them what they wanted to hear: How important they are, and all that jazz. The afterpains/aftermath can be seen even more today. Ehm.. At this point I make better a american example, so that people understand it more. So today, you see this idea echoing through the media (left and right, entertaiment and eductaion.). Left: MSNBC where the porcelain-face**** with the fake classes tries to sell, that whaching movie x lets to anti-semitism (The Passion of the Christ). Right: Fox news, where the big tited blonde**** tries to sell, that watching move x lets to anti americanism (God Bless America). Enteraiment: Last week or so, where Bill had try to sell that the SC-shoting was because of some news/blog. Education: Where Jace had try to sell me that post modernism and post structuralism is part of pol sci. Sadly he never sended me a mail why that is the case.*****
Nevertheless you people see already where this is going, and why I have such a huge problem with that movement. I also know that I was in past not always fair. As I mention above, I should have shit at some "postmodern feminist" on this board as well, so that it does not look like Im bias. On the other hand Im all for LGBT emanzipation. Which means Im in the zone where I fucking think:
Butler and Co. are derplords, but also dont want really hurt the LGBT movement. But after a discussion with a colleque, I come to the same conlusion as him and Denis Dutton.
"The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power." JB
Just reading those lines gives me Ebola.*trollface* the same counts for lot of shit in that topic as well:http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=6607.0
For example Jace: "No need for defensive sarcasm. There are countless non-profits such as FEE on every ideological side. That one just happens to be on your side. *shrug*"
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=6607.msg111972#msg111972I can see his critque on the anarcho derp lord: Stefan Molyneux, but not on the others (Hayek in part, but of differnt reason then that Jace most likly, as I dont like his pro-normative sciences-stuff.). But thats not the point, the point is: I would love to know why that postmodern pol scientist belives that austria school (for germans neoclassic) is a Ideology?
But I also dont hold my breath. Because I think, he would never answer that question to me. It is a long Backstage tradition to not answer questions (looks at that Mithra).*trollface*
But not to shit on jace alone, the same counts for that Mithra too.... where I get fucking AIDS from some of his derp claims.... not just that math isnt part of science.... I mean that he claims laws cant be proven.... *facepalm* You people know what is coming.... Shit what every BWL/VWL learns in the second semester and pol sci.. in the fiveth.... drum roll: Little´s law. Mithra you claim you have done a seminar in philosphy of science, but still you know so little. How is that even possible? I mean, I had that just a secondary lit. abou that stuff, which where part of some first semester seminars about other stuff, and I still know more? How the fuck can you know know what mathematical proof is? Or what for Kuhn is a paradigm is? Or that claim which I love the most that Popper is falsfied, navie and outdated (looks at the old slavery topic).
To round up that topic (because I already have said more the engouh) a small question: How has postmoderism become so dominate? So
hegmonial? See what I did? trollface.
____
**Not counting Nominaldefinitionen
*** /b is my nickname for this forum.
****You will find porcelain-faces and big tited blondes in alot of horror movies: For example the oculus movie, in that Karen Gillan was the porcelain-face. Ehm... or to make a even better Sci-Fy example: Star Trek: Voyager: Kes (pf) and Seven (btb).
***** And People dont contact me online or send me hate-mails with your two day old NPC old. Because I sold PV already over the CB.
