I hope so. We've spent over $6 Trillion (adjusted for inflation) since 1940 on the capability of incinerating those goddamn vodka-sotted Ushanka wearing dill eaters off the face of the planet and it's time we got our money's worth.
Vlad only wants to wet his beak a little.... and you guys want to nuke him. You'd think that you were both getting a cut of the Ukrainian economy, and not George Soros.
Nuclear fallout doesn't stay put. Beamish displays tRump level stupidity (re his suggestion that we nuke hurricanes to disperse them). Also, Russia has nukes. Apparently Beamish has never heard of mutually assured destruction.
Re "Russian Peacekeepers Invade Ukraine" and "American Peacekeepers Remain in Syria"... apparently Minus believes both sides want peace. So there should be no problems. Given that both sides want peace.
Re the Beamish stupidity above... nuclear fallout doesn't stay in one place. An idiotic move like nuking Russia would have serious repercussions even if they didn't fire back at us (environmental and economic). Or if we intercepted their nukes. Beamish must be unaware that Reagan's Star Wars was never implemented.
The point of mentioning Syria, Dervish, is to point out that the SuperEgos of BOTH of the larger powers do not recognize, nor do they have any "respect", for International Law.
Trump, America's SuperEgo, merely winks at Putin, Russia's SuperEgo, to let him know he's not a "stupid b*tch" like Biden (or you), either.
The formula of the Party-State, as the defining feature of twentieth-century Communism, thus needs to be complicated: there is always a gap between Party and State, corresponding to the gap between the Ego-Ideal (symbolic Law) and the Superego, for the Party remains the half-hidden obscene shadow which redoubles the State structure. There is here no distance, its organization embodying a fundamental distrust of the State organs and mechanisms, as if they need to be continually kept in check. A true twentieth-century-style Communist never fully accepts the State: there always has to be a vigilant agency outside of State control, with the power to intervene in the State's business. - Slavoj Zizek, "Living in the End Times"
Law begins in trauma. From the standpoint of the old law, the violent establishing of something new is crime. The old law is disobeyed, overthrown, transgressed, usurped. From the standpoint of the new law, this crime is self-negating. It vanishes (or is concealed) as a crime once the new order is constituted. Put somewhat differently, the establishment of law overthrows law, for example, the law of custom, the law of nature, or even law as an ideal that only existed at the very moment of its loss. And, because establishing is overthrowing, there is a risk--the negation of law such. Establishing manifests a disregard for law as it perversely (or criminally) turns crime into law. This paradox, this traumatic identity of law and crime, is the repressed origin of law.
---
For law to function as law, the Real of violence must be concealed. As Zizek explains (with reference to Kant), law's validity requires that we remain within law, that we don't go outside law and emphasize its contingent, historical founding. If we do go outside the law, we can't even see the order as law; its claim to authority becomes just another contingency or act of violence. Zizek is not making a facile point regarding stupid subjects duped by a malevolent legal order. Rather, he is emphasizing the fact that law involves more than the violent, arbitrary, control of people. People need a kind of faith in law; they have to believe it (to believe that others believe it) for it to function at all. The fantasy of an original contract, for example, provides something in which people can believe; this fantasy attaches them to law as it conceals the Real of violence. Belief in law is that something extra that distinguishes law from violence, that separates the founding moment of violence from what comes after it. - Jodi Dean, "Zizek on Law"
. . . the advent of Law entails a kind of ‘disalienation’: in so far as the Other itself appears submitted to the ‘absolute condition’ of Law, the subject is no more at the mercy of the Other’s whim, its desire is no more totally alienated in the Other’s desire. . . In contrast to the ‘post-structuralist’ notion of a law checking, canalizing, alienating, oppressing ‘Oedipianizing’ some previous ‘flux of desire,’ Law is here conceived as an agency of ‘disalienation’ and ‘liberation’: it opens our access to desire by enabling us to disengage ourselves from the rule of the Other’s whim. - Slavoj Zizek, "For They Know Not What They Do"
But, there is a twist. The liberating aspect of law is both a “symptom” and implicated in yet another set of arbitrary, punishing demands, those of the superego. First, the image of the omnipotent Other to whose whim one is subject is a fantasy. It is a way for the subject to avoid acknowledging that its desire can’t be satisfied, to avoid facing the fact that the Other doesn’t have the ability to give it what it wants. In Hobbes' state of nature, it simply is not the case that one could have everything one desired were it not for the rights of others. As Hobbes acknowledges, desire is itself always in motion, ceaseless, beyond satisfaction. Law intervenes, then, as “a way for the subject to avoid the impasse constitutive of desire by transforming the inherent impossibility of its satisfaction into prohibition: as if desire would be possible to fulfil if it were not for the prohibition impeding its free reign.” The sovereign (for Hobbes) guarantees desire not simply by restraining others but by commanding restraint in general. Law lets the subject think it could get what it wants were it not for law’s prohibition. So, here law lets the subject avoid the impossible Real of its desire. Our attachment to law, then, is a symptom in that it is a way for us to secure our desire (that is to say, the space for it, not the object of it) by avoiding confrontation with the impossibility of fulfilling it. - Jodi Dean, "Zizek on Law"
donald tRump is no "master". He is a charlatan, a huckster, a criminal, a moron, a racist misogynist, a traitorous insurrectionist and a (soon to be) bankrupt inmate sentenced to many years behind bars.
donald tRump is a "master" as per your definition, which is an egomaniacal self centered piece of shit. All positive character traits in your opinion, though only because you (like tRump) are a sociopath.
Why wouldn't a jury convict? As I pointed out to you previously, Canadians support vaccine mandates by larger percentages than Americans. A super majority of Canadians do not agree with the minority of truckers who are anti-vax.
And only prison time would potentially involve a jury trial. Trucks can still be seized, trucker licenses taken and fines imposed :)
Regarding your desire for a "master" to rule, the reason is that you are an authoritarian follower.
Zero Jan 6 protestors are being held in any kind of Gitmo. The protestors (ordinary citizens who attended the rally but didn't enter the Capitol) went back to their lives and are living free. Only the insurrectionists were arrested and are facing charges. Or have already been charged and convicted.
Trucks can still be seized, trucker licenses taken and fines imposed... all which we call "illegal search and seizure" during peacetime, hence Trudeau's "Emergency Powers" and Biden's request to Congress given Friday to extend his own.
Blocking traffic by being "stuck in traffic" hundreds of miles away from where you live? When (as a trucker) you are delivering nothing? And posted to FB beforehand that you were going to deliberately block traffic as a form of protest?
Right.
You're not "stuck in traffic" if there is nobody ahead of you, yet you refuse to move. Or arrange to be towed because you have engine trouble. Tell that guy (the person with nobody in front of them) to move or be arrested. Then (when that guy moves or is arrested) tell the next person in line to move or be arrested.
Your strategy won't work. Not that anyone is going to try it. It isn't much of a protest if you deny you're protesting.
Intent will be proven by signs carried by the "protestors". And FB posts. And rants to reporters covering the story. That's what happened re the Capitol insurrectionists. They made it much easier to find and prosecute them because they posted (and livestreamed) to FB what their intent was.
Your assertion that they're going to claim they're just stuck in traffic = pure stupidity.
64 comments:
Is this going to lead to nuclear war?
I hope so. We've spent over $6 Trillion (adjusted for inflation) since 1940 on the capability of incinerating those goddamn vodka-sotted Ushanka wearing dill eaters off the face of the planet and it's time we got our money's worth.
Fuckin' stanky gopniks
Vlad only wants to wet his beak a little.... and you guys want to nuke him. You'd think that you were both getting a cut of the Ukrainian economy, and not George Soros.
No.
I don't care about the Ukrainian economy. We should nuke Russia because the mfers put dill on potato chips
Can we nuke France for putting Mayo on Fries?
And for Napoleon's failure at Waterloo. Squandered opportunities to kill Russians is a hard no.
Nuclear fallout doesn't stay put. Beamish displays tRump level stupidity (re his suggestion that we nuke hurricanes to disperse them). Also, Russia has nukes. Apparently Beamish has never heard of mutually assured destruction.
Derpy thinks low wage drunk gopniks can maintain nuclear arsenal readiness. Let them throw their duds at us. We'll shoot them down too.
Baba Yaga has no teeth.
I would like to see some of those Brilliant Pebbles light up the starscape.
Putin prepares for war with his decrepit 50 year old nuclear arsenal
Re "Russian Peacekeepers Invade Ukraine" and "American Peacekeepers Remain in Syria"... apparently Minus believes both sides want peace. So there should be no problems. Given that both sides want peace.
Re the Beamish stupidity above... nuclear fallout doesn't stay in one place. An idiotic move like nuking Russia would have serious repercussions even if they didn't fire back at us (environmental and economic). Or if we intercepted their nukes. Beamish must be unaware that Reagan's Star Wars was never implemented.
their best missile has a range that can totally make it to the scene of the crash
Derpy needs to ask Saddam Hussein about how well Russia's military technology worked against the byproducts of Reagan's Star Wars program.
Using GPS guided bombs to take out "GPS scramblers" was just mean.
Ten months after we punked Saddam and his arsenal of Soviet tanks and planes, the Soviet Union shit itself to death.
Nothing whoops ass like an ass-whoopin.
...quite literally, the 1991 Gulf War changed the governments of 16 countries.
It took Russia 17 years after that to grow the balls to invade Georgia.
And 24 to 32 years to bow up at Ukraine.
Kick these bitch ass Rus in their baby nuts. Biden has done our country a disservice by not calling Putin a pussy.
donald tRump declared that he's still Putin's bitch.
The point of mentioning Syria, Dervish, is to point out that the SuperEgos of BOTH of the larger powers do not recognize, nor do they have any "respect", for International Law.
Trump, America's SuperEgo, merely winks at Putin, Russia's SuperEgo, to let him know he's not a "stupid b*tch" like Biden (or you), either.
The formula of the Party-State, as the defining feature of twentieth-century Communism, thus needs to be complicated: there is always a gap between Party and State, corresponding to the gap between the Ego-Ideal (symbolic Law) and the Superego, for the Party remains the half-hidden obscene shadow which redoubles the State structure. There is here no distance, its organization embodying a fundamental distrust of the State organs and mechanisms, as if they need to be continually kept in check. A true twentieth-century-style Communist never fully accepts the State: there always has to be a vigilant agency outside of State control, with the power to intervene in the State's business.
- Slavoj Zizek, "Living in the End Times"
Trump and Putin share a "Master" morality, Biden and you, a "Slave" one.
Slaves should keep their mouth's shut when their Masters are speaking.
Law begins in trauma. From the standpoint of the old law, the violent establishing of something new is crime. The old law is disobeyed, overthrown, transgressed, usurped. From the standpoint of the new law, this crime is self-negating. It vanishes (or is concealed) as a crime once the new order is constituted. Put somewhat differently, the establishment of law overthrows law, for example, the law of custom, the law of nature, or even law as an ideal that only existed at the very moment of its loss. And, because establishing is overthrowing, there is a risk--the negation of law such. Establishing manifests a disregard for law as it perversely (or criminally) turns crime into law. This paradox, this traumatic identity of law and crime, is the repressed origin of law.
---
For law to function as law, the Real of violence must be concealed. As Zizek explains (with reference to Kant), law's validity requires that we remain within law, that we don't go outside law and emphasize its contingent, historical founding. If we do go outside the law, we can't even see the order as law; its claim to authority becomes just another contingency or act of violence. Zizek is not making a facile point regarding stupid subjects duped by a malevolent legal order. Rather, he is emphasizing the fact that law involves more than the violent, arbitrary, control of people. People need a kind of faith in law; they have to believe it (to believe that others believe it) for it to function at all. The fantasy of an original contract, for example, provides something in which people can believe; this fantasy attaches them to law as it conceals the Real of violence. Belief in law is that something extra that distinguishes law from violence, that separates the founding moment of violence from what comes after it.
- Jodi Dean, "Zizek on Law"
. . . the advent of Law entails a kind of ‘disalienation’: in so far as the Other itself appears submitted to the ‘absolute condition’ of Law, the subject is no more at the mercy of the Other’s whim, its desire is no more totally alienated in the Other’s desire. . . In contrast to the ‘post-structuralist’ notion of a law checking, canalizing, alienating, oppressing ‘Oedipianizing’ some previous ‘flux of desire,’ Law is here conceived as an agency of ‘disalienation’ and ‘liberation’: it opens our access to desire by enabling us to disengage ourselves from the rule of the Other’s whim.
- Slavoj Zizek, "For They Know Not What They Do"
But, there is a twist. The liberating aspect of law is both a “symptom” and implicated in yet another set of arbitrary, punishing demands, those of the superego. First, the image of the omnipotent Other to whose whim one is subject is a fantasy. It is a way for the subject to avoid acknowledging that its desire can’t be satisfied, to avoid facing the fact that the Other doesn’t have the ability to give it what it wants. In Hobbes' state of nature, it simply is not the case that one could have everything one desired were it not for the rights of others. As Hobbes acknowledges, desire is itself always in motion, ceaseless, beyond satisfaction. Law intervenes, then, as “a way for the subject to avoid the impasse constitutive of desire by transforming the inherent impossibility of its satisfaction into prohibition: as if desire would be possible to fulfil if it were not for the prohibition impeding its free reign.” The sovereign (for Hobbes) guarantees desire not simply by restraining others but by commanding restraint in general. Law lets the subject think it could get what it wants were it not for law’s prohibition. So, here law lets the subject avoid the impossible Real of its desire. Our attachment to law, then, is a symptom in that it is a way for us to secure our desire (that is to say, the space for it, not the object of it) by avoiding confrontation with the impossibility of fulfilling it.
- Jodi Dean, "Zizek on Law"
Beamish speaks with pure SuperEgo. You, Dervish, speak with pure Ego-Ideal. Guess who the "Master" is.
The Discourse of the Master is NOT the Discourse of the University.
:P
donald tRump is no "master". He is a charlatan, a huckster, a criminal, a moron, a racist misogynist, a traitorous insurrectionist and a (soon to be) bankrupt inmate sentenced to many years behind bars.
Joe Biden is president.
donald tRump is a "master" as per your definition, which is an egomaniacal self centered piece of shit. All positive character traits in your opinion, though only because you (like tRump) are a sociopath.
A Master "revels" in his Power. A Slave is "shamed" by it.
The United States is a democracy and it's elected representatives are public SERVANTS.
donald tRump LOST the election and will be going to prison soon.
Honk! Honk!
LOL!
Good luck finding jury's willing to convict. :)
ps - Or will they be held, like the Jan 6 protestors, in some local Gitmo legislative limbo indefinitely, Mr. Stolypin?
Your wagon awaits.
Why wouldn't a jury convict? As I pointed out to you previously, Canadians support vaccine mandates by larger percentages than Americans. A super majority of Canadians do not agree with the minority of truckers who are anti-vax.
And only prison time would potentially involve a jury trial. Trucks can still be seized, trucker licenses taken and fines imposed :)
Regarding your desire for a "master" to rule, the reason is that you are an authoritarian follower.
Zero Jan 6 protestors are being held in any kind of Gitmo. The protestors (ordinary citizens who attended the rally but didn't enter the Capitol) went back to their lives and are living free. Only the insurrectionists were arrested and are facing charges. Or have already been charged and convicted.
:P
Trucks can still be seized, trucker licenses taken and fines imposed... all which we call "illegal search and seizure" during peacetime, hence Trudeau's "Emergency Powers" and Biden's request to Congress given Friday to extend his own.
America isn't safe. We need to keep those Jan6 pizza insurrectionists in Jail!
Why would it be illegal if you're breaking the law by illegally protesting by blocking traffic?
Because "blocking traffic" isn't illegal when you're "in traffic".
That's why they call it "stuck in traffic".
Is there a law against driving around a city block or 10"
How about 1,000 trucks driving around a city block of 10?
It's not "illegal" to block traffic...but it would be breaking an "unwritten" rule (don't "deliberately" block traffic).
That's why Trudeau is using an Act meant for punishing Wartime Saboteurs to charge truckers not with "treason", but "mischief".
Reminds you of the "sit-ins" at colleges in the 60's... or the "Occupy" movement, huh?
Breaking the "unwritten" rules....
...a "SuperEgo" play for those prone to following their "Ego-Ideals".
Blocking traffic by being "stuck in traffic" hundreds of miles away from where you live? When (as a trucker) you are delivering nothing? And posted to FB beforehand that you were going to deliberately block traffic as a form of protest?
Right.
You're not "stuck in traffic" if there is nobody ahead of you, yet you refuse to move. Or arrange to be towed because you have engine trouble. Tell that guy (the person with nobody in front of them) to move or be arrested. Then (when that guy moves or is arrested) tell the next person in line to move or be arrested.
Your strategy won't work. Not that anyone is going to try it. It isn't much of a protest if you deny you're protesting.
Have fun proving "intent". The statutory default is "Innocent until PROVEN guilty". That crazy "caritas" thing.
Beamish speaks with pure SuperEgo.
L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace. ;)
Trump brought back civil asset forfeiture without a trial for a reason.
Have fun proving "intent"
Have fun finding your truck or a court date.
Intent will be proven by signs carried by the "protestors". And FB posts. And rants to reporters covering the story. That's what happened re the Capitol insurrectionists. They made it much easier to find and prosecute them because they posted (and livestreamed) to FB what their intent was.
Your assertion that they're going to claim they're just stuck in traffic = pure stupidity.
"I like taking the guns first, then doing due process..." - Donald J. Trump, far-left autocrat.
Intent will be proven...
Two words. "Jury nullification"... the citizen's "beyond the law".
Let's ask Jimmy Hoffa about that. Where is he?
Where are you going to stash the bodies of 10,000 Jimmie Hoffas, beamish? One of them's going to be found.
slow ride ... take it easy
They'll all die of Covid, duh.
You'd do better giving helicopter rides.
Ah, Pinochet. Now there's a real ocean polluter.
Post a Comment