a thread for fatbadger's stupid ramblings

[Raphael Meade]

here you go mate. post them in here if you most. just leave it alone in the rememberance thread eh?

 

[Mr Popkins]

I think Fatbadger is the new FG!!!

 

[fatbadger]

hold on, Mr Popkins, this thread is meant to be for me!

Take on your own thread of stupid ramblings if you want one, and stop trying to steal mine.

 

[DTES]

I'm a little worried about this thread....

 

[Raphael Meade]

just thought id try and get his highly disrespectful remarks off the other one...

 

[fatbadger]

Disrespectful to whom?

To those of you who have unfortunately been interpellated by the ideology of remembrance?

Or to the war dead? If you think the latter, read my posts again - properly this time, and with a little intelligence. My point was that if we really are to care about their memory, think about the people that sent them off to die, and why they did so, rather than about their deaths. This is the best form of remembrance - not red poppies, not 1, 2 or however many minutes of silence you think there should be.

 

[Titanic]

What does 'interpellated' mean ? I'm wondering if I have been an unfortunate victim ?

 

[DTES]

To be honest fb, (wow, even sounds like FG), that is completely irrelevant. Nobody is stupid enough to assume it's a straghtforward issue, whichever side you're on. But to question, rudely or otherwise, somebody's belief that they should remember their family that died in the war in a thread designed for that purpose is plain wrong. Please feel free to discuss it here, but not there.

It applies to any situation, discuss an issue if you must, but do it somewhere suitable.

 

[Raphael Meade]

isnt there a reclaim the streets march you should be on?

 

[Titanic]

and why do you have to assume that everyone else is not intelligent ? If it's a deliberate attempt to wind people up, then fine - play your games if you must. If it's just plain arrogance, then it won't help you get your political message across.

 

[fatbadger]

It applies to any situation, discuss an issue if you must, but do it somewhere suitable.

So the thread about remembrance is not the place to discuss the politics of remembrance, then. I see. It's all so much clearer now.

 

[Faldo]

Disrespectful to whom?

To those of you who have unfortunately been interpellated by the ideology of remembrance?

Or to the war dead? If you think the latter, read my posts again - properly this time, and with a little intelligence. My point was that if we really are to care about their memory, think about the people that sent them off to die, and why they did so, rather than about their deaths. This is the best form of remembrance - not red poppies, not 1, 2 or however many minutes of silence you think there should be.

And what puts you in a position to declare that other peoples methods of showing respect are any more righteous or misdirected than your own?

Who are you to say whats best?

Quite frankly, I don't give a shit what you tell me is right or wrong - If I want to do something, some argumentative twat with a chip on his shoulder isn't gonna change my mind.

 

[Titanic]

I've found a definition if 'interpellate', but it doesn't seem to fit what you are saying:

Webster Dictionary, 1913
Searching for: "interpellate"
Found 1 hit(s).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interpellate (Page: 779)
In`ter*pel"late (?), v. t. [See Interpel.] To question imperatively, as a minister, or other executive officer, in explanation of his conduct; -- generally on the part of a legislative body.

 

[Faldo]

I think he meant "interpret", but his head's too far up his own arse to consider using less than 4 syllables.

 

[fatbadger]

and why do you have to assume that everyone else is not intelligent ? If it's a deliberate attempt to wind people up, then fine - play your games if you must. If it's just plain arrogance, then it won't help you get your political message across.

I didn't say no one else (or, rather, anybody who disagrees with me) is intelligent - not at all. That would appear to be RM's tactic, not mine.

I said that my posts should be read with a little more intelligence than RM seems to have done on this occasion. All intelligent people are capable of being a little stupid (or perhaps I should say not intelligent) from time to time, especially when emotions or ideology cloud their judgement.

 

[Dandyman]

So, FB is not allowed to express an opinion then ?

I wear a poppy and have a member of my family remembered in a Commonwealth War cemetary.

IMHO it is both possible to honour the sacrifice of the dead and to question the motives of those who sent them to their deaths.

The soldiers of WW1 were famously described as lions lead by donkeys. I don't see that as disrespectful, except to those who felt they had the right to waste other peoples lives.

 

[Raphael Meade]

I didn't say no one else (or, rather, anybody who disagrees with me) is intelligent - not at all. That would appear to be RM's tactic, not mine.

I said that my posts should be read with a little more intelligence than RM seems to have done on this occasion.

you arrogant f***!!

i simply asked, as did many others, that a thread in rememberance for peoples families and others that have died fighting wars that they had no right to die fighting in (just today, i dont care who started them and why, lets do it tomorrow eh?) you didnt put you 'up your arse' politics and left it for those to pay their respects.

 

[Yorkie]

I agree WW1 was a huge mistake and the motives for it were highly suspect. Many many lives were lost unnecessarily.

What you intimated, fatbadger, was that all wars were fought for imperialistic ideaology.

They weren't. The second world war was started because we promised to protect friends of ours ie Poland.

Falklands War I have personal experience of this because my StepMum is a Kelpie (Falkland Islander) and my half brother fought as a Marine in that conflict.

A lot of wars are fought to set people free from dictators and evil regimes.

 

[fatbadger]

I think he meant "interpret", but his head's too far up his own arse to consider using less than 4 syllables.

No, I didn't - I meant interpellate.

According to the French philosopher Louis Althusser, all ideology "hails or interpellates concrete individuals as concrete subjects, by the functioning of the category of the subject". Althusser (probably as a result of the influence of Lacan) is making use of a technical term used to describe what happens when the order of the day in a governmental chamber is interrupted so as to allow a Minister to be questioned. The implication is that, like the Minister, individuals are interrupted and called to account but in this case, by different ideologies. As ideology calls them - so the argument goes - so they think that they recognise who they are. ('think that', because actually they are being told who they are.) In other words: individuals come to live a given set of ideological assumptions and beliefs, and to identify these with their own selves, by means of a process whereby they are persuaded that that which is presented to them actually represents their own inner identity or self. For Althusser, then, the subject is the concrete individual after interpellation, that is, after a sort of ideological 'body-snatching'. However, Althusser believes that bodies are always-already snatched; he adds that individuals "are always-already subjects"; even before being born "an individual is always-already a subject". According to Althusser, the only way for an individual to change this is for him or her, "from within ideology", "to outline a discourse which tries to break with ideology, in order to dare to be the beginning of a scientific (i. subject-less) discourse on ideology".

 

[fatbadger]

you arrogant f***!!

you called my posts "stupid ramblings"; a pot, kettle, black situation, methinks.