what i'm reading:
"Room Party: on Fandom, Contemporary Art, and the Marginalization of Animist Practice"
Folk art, in all its applications, aims to enumerate a list of idiots who are miraculously capable of producing good work. Folk art is a mode of criticism that appraises the author as opposed to the work, and it is commonly deployed when a work contains obvious merit despite running counter to a hegemonic art ecosystem. In effect, it quarantines the viewer from these practices.
in a massive understatement, patrick totally calls this a "review of room party" and not a tent-pole essay of the contempory-art + furry + critique axis that will necessarily need to be addressed by all future discourse, either by reinforcement or refutation.
Ccru - Writings 1997-2003
lovecraft fanfiction by pre-fascist nick land. another addition to my Red Flag library, which so far is just this and Revolt Against The Modern World by Julius Evola (IT WAS A JOKE GIFT FROM A FRIEND).
what i'm listening to:
the radio version of "Closer" by Nine Inch Nails
At what point do we decide to just not play the song? This is the second worst censor job behind the "clean" version of We Cry Together.
what i'm watching:
bobs burgers season 15
i want to make sweet love to bob belcher. i want to make him feel beautiful. after a long day in the unforgiving slog of food service i want to be his shelter.
this will never happen for me, and that is why i want it. the themes of my life are frustration and lack, and it would be foolish of me to to act otherwise.
the minnesota shooter's last video
it's a boring, low-energy video of the shooter showing their phone camera all the dedications, slurs and memes they've painted on their guns and knives, mimicking memes, going "trolololol" a few times.
the regularity of mass shootings has ironically lead them to go under-analyzed by contemporary culture. the way the rash of serial killers in the 70s/80s is being retrospectively blamed on leaded gasoline, i think it's insufficient but appropriate to draw a blame mass shootings on network culture.
the shooter doesn't care about the individuals he targets, doesn't care about the event-in-itself; he cares about its effects, its singularity as a node in the attention economy, the rote condemnations by the so-called mainstream, and his future canonization as a "saint" in distributed telegram channels and discord servers of edgelord posers and school-shooter potentiates.
the incomprehensible slurry of memes on the guns (the act of writing on the loadout itself cribbed from another shooter) is an attempt at weaving oneself into the network. it signals allegiance to the savvy. it is a hyper-linked footnote made literal. the entire mass shooting phenomenon is a memetic chain of copycats and remixes.
I don't think top-down governance can stop this. it's social atomization under neoliberalism that's presented the internet as the alternative to community, and for every marginalized person who has found an online community to embrace them is another person who has been radicalized against life itself. it's both.
something i liked:
my current age is
something i hated:
scared comments about my safety under the Trump administration from well-meaning family members
a couple family members have expressed concern about my safety under the current administration. however, I am a straight-passing[1] white gay cis man with a social security number and a full-time job. I am the least at-risk a person can be right now.
and then theres the screenshot above. i read the article and it deserves ridicule (see below), but the quote tweet hinges on the idea that white MAGA gays are going to be thrown under the bus at some point. this is ridiculous.
The NYT article is-- what else?-- an ignorant fluff piece not even worthy of being tagged as West Wing fanfiction on AO3. The author asks, what makes these gays feels safe in MAGA? and takes pains to describe the brand of its subjects blazers and the sassy subtitles in their party invites. He enumerates the administration's "anti-gay policies", like renaming battleship.
This article is a pathetic attempt to whitewash the flashing neon fucking swastika branded on their foreheads-- how the fuck can you talk about the Trump administration's attacks on LGBT rights and not talk about the deranged witch-hunt on trans women, on people of color, on immigrants? It's ridiculous and ahistorical to act as though aberrant sexual object choice and fascist politics are mutually exclusive; sodomites are endemic to state power.
Why do these gays feel safe? Because what this administration is, and what U.S. government has always been, is a white power movement. Because, like always, they have others to shove under the bus-- just like for "Marriage Equality", just like AIDS, and just like the red scare.
In Shawn McCreesh's defense, no where is he claimed to be a "journalist", so one might forgive him for piddling around like a headless chicken at easy questions like:
Q. Why don't they worry about state funding for HIV/AIDs treatment being rescinded? A. Because they're fucking rich, and just like white gays in the 80s they're going to get faster and better treatment than everyone else.
Q. Why don't they worry about gay marriage? A. Because they can just adopt their boyfriend, like the good ol' days.
Q. Isn't it hypocritical to coalition with homophobic Evangelicals? A. No one on the Right likes each other. And they don't have to, because their whole shtick is to rip everyone off, get their bag, then fuck off to their vacation homes.
In conclusion the New York Times is... sucks?!?!?!?!
a picture:
infant bandicoots
I love these eraserhead-baby-ass fetuses.
in my opinion. âŠī¸