The article just has these people loosely connected or "active" in the protests. One of them attended the protests, one launched a tear gas canister back at the police, one's mother attended the protests, etc. These aren't the main organizers or leaders dying mysteriously, but rather random attendees dying.
Is this more or less than the number of attendees we would expect to die based on Ferguson homicide rates and approximations of the number of attendees? I couldn't find that in the article.
Also, what's the theory that this isn't a coincidence? The police are murdering random protestors for some reason?
Are they organizers? That's not clear to me from the NBC article.
"""
— MarShawn McCarrel of Columbus, Ohio, shot himself in February 2016 outside the front door of the Ohio Statehouse, police said. He had been active in Ferguson.
— Edward Crawford Jr., 27, fatally shot himself in May 2017 after telling acquaintances he had been distraught over personal issues, police said. A photo of Crawford firing a tear gas canister back at police during a Ferguson protest was part of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s Pulitzer Prize-winning coverage.
— In October, 24-year-old Danye Jones was found hanging from a tree in the yard of his north St. Louis County home. His mother, Melissa McKinnies, was active in Ferguson and posted on Facebook after her son’s death, “They lynched my baby.” But the death was ruled a suicide.
— Bassem Masri, a 31-year-old Palestinian American who frequently livestreamed video of Ferguson demonstrations, was found unresponsive on a bus in November and couldn’t be revived. Toxicology results released in February showed he died of an overdose of fentanyl.
"""
One was "active", one sent tear gas back at police, one livestreamed parts of the protest, and one's mother was in the protest.
The first two people, who were shot in their cars, I didn't see the extent of their involvement.
How many were involved at this level or higher? Tens of thousands? How many should we expect to die of murder, suicide, and drug overdose, and how many have?
What is the theory explaining this? Do you think there is a group murdering Ferguson protestors after the fact?
It's not really. Police lie constantly, especially when it would implicate them. Their statements carry zero information except where they provide positive publicly verifiable evidence. Unsettling and sad, but its the truth.
Given the circumstances, I would say you're never going to know the truth about these deaths with the possible exception of documents declassified or admissions of guilt decades after the fact. The question is if you are a political activist, is do you take these deaths seriously even if you can't prove they are foul play? Given the record of the government, I just can't rule it out.
Sure, they're leaders in different disciplines which seem to overlap in the zeitgeist. I doubt Zizek would be able to match Peterson when discussing practical psychiatry.
IMHO, after a brief fascination I've found my enthusiasm for Zizek fading. He seems to know his quotes very well and spits them out like a rapper on speed, but as a career philosopher and author I haven't seen his work leading to positive change in people. Peterson on the other hand has a growing cohort of I regret to say 'followers' who are purportedly cleaning up their acts.
IMHO the group (and subsequently the ideology) is the wrong level of analysis to diagnose and then treat our contemporary woes. Groups cannot be addressed simultainously, cannot be held accountable, and most of all are never clearly delineated (what is 'race'?). The individual CAN be held accountable, that's how every law system on Earth is engineered. The individual can be addressed. That's how almost every communication system in the world works (except public PAs, radio, and the like). And most of all individuals are trivial to delineate. An individual human is unlike anything else in the universe except other humans and each has their own unique history.
Can you name some musicians, artists, architects, philosophers? What are you talking about? This post is hilarious, you’re acting like studying French philosophy is doing fentanyl or something.
Certainly. A classic example of a "postmodern" composer is John Adams, whose magnum opus could be considered the piece "El Nino", which modern critics have compared to Handel's "Messiah". I encourage you to listen to the "El Nino" front-to-back. During Handel's "Messiah", many audiences developed a tradition of standing during the Hallelujah chorus and singing along in four-part harmony; the piece, even at the time recognized as a triumphant achievement of one of the best living composers, could be easily participated in by the everyman, as long as they could carry a tune.
Is the El Nino as approachable? Does it marry the general non-studied audience with the music of the most-trained (in that case Handel, in this case John Adams)? Even looking at some of the farther out-there modernist composers, who came before the postmodernists (Charles Ives, Schoenberg, Cage, Shostakovich), you can see that they're writing bizarre, anti-melodic rejections of music that audiences have traditionally liked (read: music that audiences can hum after they're done listening). Charles Ives's father taught him to sing in one key and play in another, and said that children in the future would be whistling tunes in semi-tones.
And who have they inspired? People like Steve Reich and Phillip Glass. Listen to Four Organs and let me know if you think that we should reject the melodies of the past as the antiquated drivel of delusional Euro-supremacist royalists in favor of what the modernists, postmodernists, and the "post-post-modernists" have to offer us. If you think I'm exaggerating, you don't know enough academic musicians. (I do, however, freely admit that there are plenty left who appreciate both the old and the new; not every modern musician claims that we should cease playing Beethoven altogether. I myself like bits and pieces of each of the composers I've just named; the attitude I am criticizing is not that their music should exist at all, but more the attitude of the people I know who claim that their music should replace the earlier composers.)
I have many friends who have professionally studied music, and the more obtuse and obsessed with "new sounds" they get, the more insufferable and critical of historically popular music they become. It's as if they're deliberately driving a wedge between the musically non-educated and the musically educated. This wouldn't be too much of an issue if it hadn't started to spread into other fields that the public has no control over, like architecture, on which I could write another comment of equal length, although with somewhat less authority because I only personally know a few architects, whereas I've been studying music as an amateur and interacting with professional musicians for 20 years.
What I find most ironic is that these stalwart critics of western tradition, architecture, philosophy, and music, are the first to embrace the traditions of other cultures. Some of my acquaintances will spend an entire visit to Chicago complaining about the reductive and inequitable American architectural tradition, or criticize the cathedrals and castles of Europe, and then turn on a time and talk about how beautiful the palaces, mosques, and temples of the Middle and Far East are. It's maddening.
Your pseudo-intellectualism is painfully obvious here. French postmodernism (Foucault, Derrida) is very different from critical theory of the Frankfurt school. It’s a token sign of someone who hasn’t read any of them to lump them together.
The influence of Kantian ethics on Marx and Adorno’s philosophy is very strong. Kant was a genius but in many ways his morality was stuck in the worldview of 18th century bourgeois. These modern authors chose to update his work instead of simply repeating it as dogma. Ironic that you describe Marxism as a religion, then. No, Kant is not the “opposite” of a Frankfurt school philosopher, and you’d be hard pressed to find any reputable scholar who would agree with that. A better “opposite” might be someone more contemporary, like Austrian economists, Karl Popper, or logical positivists.
Also, why not reply to my post directly instead of I subtweeting me? You should probably read more before you accuse others of “philosophical disinfo.”
You’d be interested to hear, then, that most of Marx’s work is about analyzing capitalism and very little of it involves prescriptions for future societies. In fact, Marx wasn’t interested in drafting any exact plan for a post-revolutionary society. He was far more concerned with describing the internal contradictions of capitalism that would lead us to such a point.
Sure, except the mortality rate is nowhere near 100% and you will likely acquire the virus or it’s descendants at some point unless you continue washing your cereal boxes forever.
you take the red pill, you read Marx, Althusser, and Adorno and your eyes are forever opened. you take the blue pill, you agree with the posts up voted above mine and go back to sleep. your choice, kid
