#anti sartre

[glitter-stained]

Jean Paul Sartre kinda hilarious ngl, dedicated to talk shit about Freud in perhaps the only way that's dumber than Freud himself, then had the balls to write a wildly incorrect scenario for his biography movie and be confused they wouldn't use that scenario for the movie script like I'm so confused what's going on here bro didn't you hate that guy

[mysharona1987]

[yorgunherakles]

modern insanlık tarihi ne kadar ilerlemiş olursa olsun, o hala felsefenin özel alanı ve ayrıcalığı olan "değer" sorunuyla ilgilenmiyordu.

frederick beiser - hegel'den sonra

[magz]

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

― Jean-Paul Sartre

[vileidol]

Inez is good at burning.

Made for the neo-twiney game jam. A rambling reflection on Sartre’s ‘No Exit’

Judas never had a chance.

Made for the neo-twiney game jam and the anti-romance jam. A rambling reflection on Sartre’s ‘No Exit’

[hezigler]

Jean-Paul Sartre understood the nature of such antisemitic tropes and their use by anti-Semites. These are not verbal tools for persuasion but for intimidation.

yall go check out the “antisemitic tropes” wikipedia page before it gets vandalized - i think we all know half of this is gonna get deleted

[viaxen]

really annoys me when a terf actually says something valid and then their terfness just underscores everything they said. it’s like having an open flame next to the ice cold argument babes you just melted down the validity of the one good argument you made just by the pure contrasts of your beliefs

[merelygifted]

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

-- Jean-Paul Sartre, re: nazi anti-Semites

[heritageposts]

In his seminal The Wretched of the Earth, Frantz Fanon could be writing about Gaza when he said: “In all armed struggles, there exists what we might call the point of no return. Almost always it is marked off by a huge and all-inclusive repression which engulfs all sectors of the colonial people.” In Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, that point has arrived. From Gaza to the Red Sea, on all fronts the West is now unmasked as a lawless killing machine in terror of losing control. Genocide, starvation and war, defended with Olympic-level diplomatic double-speak, are its only answers to the fact that the Global South, and the nations of the Middle East (if not their leaders) no longer wish to live under US hegemony. Jean-Paul Sartre, in his preface to Fanon's work, wrote of western colonialism: “Our Machiavellianism has little purchase on this wide-awake world that has run our falsehoods to earth one after the other. The settler has only recourse to one thing: brute force… the native has only one choice, between servitude and supremacy.” Fanon was a revolutionary thinker and a practising psychiatrist of colonial racism and its psychic impact on the colonised, and the coloniser. He and Sartre were writing about France’s imminent defeat in Algeria after seven years of brutal war. [...] Western powers are involved in conflicts thousands of miles from home, as they were in Fanon's time in Algeria, Congo and Indochina. Today the western political class has united behind Ukraine and Israel, but for millions of people it is no longer clear that the wars are worth fighting.  As Yemen’s spokesman, Mohammed al-Bukhaiti, put it: “The war today is between Yemen which is struggling to stop the crimes of genocide, and the American and British coalition [who] support its perpetrators. Every party or individual in this world has two choices that have no thirds… who do you stand with as you watch these crimes?” Fanon, writing 63 years ago, agrees: “The colonial world is a Manichaean world… at times this Manichaeism goes to its logical conclusion and dehumanises the native, or to speak plainly, it turns him into an animal. The native is declared insensible to ethics; he represents not only the absence of values, but the negation of values… he is the enemy of values, and in this sense he is the absolute evil. “The native knows all this, and laughs to himself every time he spots an allusion to the animal world in the other’s words. For he knows he is not an animal, and it is precisely at the moment he realises his humanity that he begins to sharpen the weapons with which he will secure victory.”

. . . full article on MEE (1 Feb 2024)

You can also find a free copy of Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth on the Internet Archive (available as a PDF, EPUB etc.)

[a-very-tired-jew]

“It’s not antisemitism, it’s anti-Zionism!”

Meanwhile, Kiswani’s Twitter.

And if you don’t know who Nerdeen Kiswani is, she’s the leader and founder of Within Our Lifetime. She and her organization are the ones routinely organizing protests in NYC. Said protests always end up harassing and threatening Jews in some capacity, their last big one to make the news ended up in front of the Nova exhibit and vandalizing an anti-Zionist Jew's home. She has spread antisemitic conspiracies repeatedly, multiple members of WOL have been arrested for hate crimes, and the “If you’re Zionist raise your hand” person is a senior member of WOL as well. Kiswani’s entire brand is violent antisemitism under the guise of “anti-Zionism”.

She is the epitome of the Sartre quote as she knows what she is doing and quickly jumps to an aggressive defense of her actions. Any time she gets called out for her antisemitism and stochastic terrorism she has rhetoric ready to go that makes her the victim and Jews Zionists the villain. Never mind that she engages in every type of antisemitic conspiracy and canard, she's the actual victim here and calling her an antisemite just shows you how much of a victim she is.

She has a follow up tweet to this that essentially victim blames Jews, but calls them Zionists who "twist everything". Disregard the fact that she's "just joking" about getting Black September originals, this is the same type of "just joking" that we see all know is a method for the person to wave away accusations of bigotry. If this was a joke trivializing a tragic event in any other ethnicity's history she would be rightfully called out and vilified.

Read that again. Why are people allowed to do this to Jews and the Left refuses to hold them accountable?

It's people like Kiswani who openly use Zionist to mean Jews and then use the old Soviet playbook of "well we're anti-Zionist, not antisemitic".

Why does the Left not hold people accountable who engage in stochastic terrorism against Jews when they do so for other groups?

Instead, Kiswani is lionized and held to no standard beyond her own.

[yorgunherakles]

var olma nedenlerimiz, taşların var olma nedenlerinden daha fazla değil.

baudrillard - cool anılar

[cherryblossomshadow]

[Image 1 ID and source: Screenshot of the following headline from The Pink News:

Gun advocate Tucker Carlson furious at trans people carrying guns for self-defence Mar 25 • Written by Chantelle Billson

/end ID]

.

[Image 2 ID: Screenshot from the article reading

“But what you’re watching here is not the exercise of the Second Amendment. “What you’re watching here is political hysteria: fear ginned up on purpose with maximum dishonesty in order to get people in a state of agitation – armed people in a state of agitation. It doesn’t matter if they are trans or not, whatever that is.” He went on: “It’s the same template always: scare the crap out of your voters, tell them that their lives are at risk, [and] encourage them to get guns. How do you think that ends?”

/end ID]

.

[Image 3 ID: Screenshot from Anti-Semite and Jew: An Exploration of the Etiology of Hate by Jean-Paul Sartre, reading

I mentioned awhile back some remarks by anti‐Semites, all of them absurd: "I hate Jews because they make servants insubordinate, because a Jewish furrier robbed me, etc." Never believe that anti‐ Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti‐Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.

/end ID]

What's that one quote about how conservatives only ever support gun control when it's about any kind of minority owning the guns?

[thegayhimbo]

"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."

- Jean-Paul Sartre

[bimboficationblues]

I think it is ill-advised to go on the backfoot by quibbling over whether extremely straightforward resistance slogans are actually secret genocide dogwhistles or whether "anti-Zionism =/= anti-Semitism" or whether we must "condemn Hamas." the arguments from Zionists and defenders of the Israeli government on these topics are always completely arcane nonsense that assume what they set out to prove (e.g. insurmountable and inherent conflict between "civilizations", the "right" to an ethnostate, mystic ideas about national spirit, loyalty as more important than critical thought). they keep saying the word "Hamas" like it's a magical, scary word that immediately will shut down or discredit their opponents, because in the process of repeated invocation, they give it power and encourage loyalty to the cause - it's modeled on how US officials used the word "al-Qaeda" or "ISIS" or just "terror(ist)" more broadly to shut down criticism of mass surveillance and military interventionism.

like this is the sort of magical thinking that reactionary thought and practice thrives on. saying things that are flagrantly, maddeningly foolish makes it tempting to get derailed from the actual point, which is that Israel's actions are *indefensible.* the irony is that Israel's defenders and leaders so eagerly participate in what Sartre described as a fundamental trait of anti-Semitism, which is this sort of bad-faith discursive play-acting.

What Zionists believe, as is common in reactionary, nationalist, and conspiratorial thought, is driven by the outcomes that their beliefs justify - this is true of both the liberal types who perform caring about all sides of the conflict but only really seem interested in extracting completely meaningless "condemnations of Hamas" from the pro-Palestinian left, and the foaming-at-the-mouth arch-reactionaries that dominate the Israeli government and public image at present (y'know, the ones that are saying things about how the Nazis were not as bad as Hamas in the same breath as they say that Palestinians are subhuman animal brutes who need to be exterminated). the goal is to make their enemies shut up or, failing that, distract.

[funeral]

Consciousness is thus constantly surrounded by a retinue of phantom objects. These objects, although at first sight possessing a sensible aspect, are not the same as those of perception...Soon as we try to observe one of them we find ourselves confronted with strange creatures beyond the laws of the world of realities. They always occur as indivisible wholes, as absolutes. At once ambiguous, impoverished and dry, appearing and disappearing in a disjointed manner, they invariably occur as a perpetual "elsewhere," as a perpetual evasion. But the evasion to which they invite is not only of the sort which is an escape from actuality, from our preoccupations, our boredoms, they offer us an escape from all worldly constraints, they seem to present themselves as a negation of the condition of being in the world as an anti-world.

Jean-Paul Sartre, The Psychology of Imagination

[natalieh007]

Okay I am so into Camus and Sartre beef. So this is a little recap.

So Sartre was Marxist and Camus was not (he was in communist party but he got the fuck out as fast as he could). Also another problem Sartre believed that violence and wars could create greater good, on the other side Camus was all about a peace.

So they were friends (and rivals) for a while and then their different opinions started to show up. Then an argument broke out, but was initially confined to a relatively small group of mutual friends of the two of them. THEN Camus wrote a letter in which he wrote "hell is other people", it was kinda easy to imagine that he was referring to Sartre.

‘Absolute freedom is the right of the strongest to dominate,’ Camus wrote, while ‘absolute justice is achieved by the suppression of all contradiction: therefore it destroys freedom.’ The conflict between justice and freedom required constant re-balancing, political moderation, an acceptance and celebration of that which limits the most: our humanity. ‘To live and let live,’ he said, ‘in order to create what we are.’

That is what Camus wrote in The Rebel and Sartre was like “EWWWW” not very communist of Camus (as far as Sartre was concerned, he thought that it was possible to achieve perfect justice and freedom – that described the achievement of communism. Under capitalism, and in poverty, workers could not be free. Their options were unpalatable and inhumane: to work a pitiless and alienating job, or to die. But by removing the oppressors and broadly returning autonomy to the workers, communism allows each individual to live without material want, and therefore to choose how best they can realise themselves. This makes them free, and through this unbending equality, it is also just. THE PROBLEM is that, for Sartre and many others on the Left, communism required revolutionary violence to achieve because the existing order must be smashed.) And they were close friends at that time so instead of, I guess, TALK IT OUT like Sartre telling Camus „you know what ? I think the rebel was shit” and Camus being like „okay you epitome of hell” or just being like „we don’t have to agree on everything”, Les Temps Modernes – Sartre’s journal (it was edited by him) PUBLISHED LIKE FEW MOTHS AFTER THE LETTER a critical review of The Rebel - sold out three times over. And like it was year 1951 in which Sartre published just one work and it wasn’t successful BUT THE REWIEW FOR SURE WAS (Sartre’s diss track could be banger)

Anyways then Sartre wrote a public letter about Camus. He wrote that their friendship wasn’t easy but he’s gonna miss it AND THAT Camus is philosophically incapable ??

And that was a final straw so they never spoke to each other again.

BUT 15 years after Camus’s death Sartre was asked about their friendship AND Sartre said that Camus was probably his last good friend.

My conclusion is that if they were alive they would love mean girls (don’t ask me why.)

In case u didn’t read The Rebel or you don’t remember, in the book, Camus gave voice to a roughly drawn ‘philosophy of revolt’. This wasn’t a philosophical system per se, but an amalgamation of philosophical and political ideas: every human is free, but freedom itself is relative; one must embrace limits, moderation, ‘calculated risk’; absolutes are anti-human. Most of all, Camus condemned revolutionary violence. Violence might be used in extreme circumstances (he supported the French war effort, after all) but the use of revolutionary violence to nudge history in the direction you desire is utopian, absolutist, and a betrayal of yourself.)