people talk about how media literacy being at an all time low, but this right here is just the death of regular literacy

I believe there is a gaping hole in the field of epistemology, particularly in how it categorizes knowledge. We all know philosophers are liars by nature, so why not take from the philosopher in american history, Daniel Rumsfeld.

To quote him directly, "As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know."

Slavoj Žižek himself has spoken on the fourth category here, the unknown known.

"If Rumsfeld thinks that the main dangers in the confrontation with Iraq were the 'unknown unknowns', that is, the threats from Saddam whose nature we cannot even suspect, then the Abu Ghraib scandal shows that the main dangers lie in the "unknown knowns"—the disavowed beliefs, suppositions and obscene practices we pretend not to know about, even though they form the background of our public values."

In today's world where all facts are up for debate, where unknown unknowns are the greatest threats of all (not known knowns such as human-caused climate change), our best chance for survival is to adopt this framework.

What do you think?

To give a bit more detail, I've been attempting to bridge the gap (however wide or short it may be) between Queer Theory and Marxism. I feel as though the two most common views of contemporary Marxists on queer theory are incorrect.

1. Reactionaries who proclaim that Queer Theory is somehow monolithically idealist, usually having never read a shred of it, should be dismissed out of hand. No need to elaborate further on this.
2. We should be critical of those who simply combine Marxism and Queer Theory (whichever tendencies of both they most align with) like toppings on a sandwich. Queer Marxism is something that needs to be developed, yet it requires more than upholding both as distinct yet compatible entities. We must synthesize them, likely transforming both to some degree in the process.

I don't wish to fall into the trap of naïve originality, aka writing theory on a matter without studying that which has already been written. So, I'm looking for two things. Firstly, any freely accessible (I don't have the funds to buy/subscribe) theory on the question of Queer Marxism. Secondly, your personal thoughts (Brief or lengthy as they may be) on the subject.

Thanks in advance, –Zero

To give a bit more detail, I've been attempting to bridge the gap (however wide or short it may be) between Queer Theory and Marxism. I feel as though the two most common views of contemporary Marxists on queer theory are incorrect.

1. Reactionaries who proclaim that Queer Theory is somehow monolithically idealist, usually having never read a shred of it, should be dismissed out of hand. No need to elaborate further on this.
2. We should be critical of those who simply combine Marxism and Queer Theory (whichever tendencies of both they most align with) like toppings on a sandwich. Queer Marxism is something that needs to be developed, yet it requires more than upholding both as distinct yet compatible entities. We must synthesize them, likely transforming both to some degree in the process.

I don't wish to fall into the trap of naïve originality, aka writing theory on a matter without studying that which has already been written. So, I'm looking for two things. Firstly, any freely accessible (I don't have the funds to buy/subscribe) theory on the question of Queer Marxism. Secondly, your personal thoughts (Brief or lengthy as they may be) on the subject.

Thanks in advance, –Zero

I've recently taken a greater interest in Soviet history than ever before, and I was thinking of particular topics to focus in on. Being disabled & neurodivergent, my first thought was to look into the Soviet disability paradigm and how it evolved over the years. But then I remembered a song by The Decemberists, titled "When The War Came". It's about the Siege of Leningrad, in particular the 9 scientists at the Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry who had the strength of will to face fatal starvation before they would betray the solanum by eating of the seeds (which had gone through decades of genetic modification) contained within the vault. Now, having researched further into Vavilov's work, I find him often contrasted with Lysenko, framed as a sort of martyr standing up for the field of genetics, being imprisoned for a famine he did not cause only to die, ironically, of malnutrition. I know this isn't some whole and simple truth, and I don't take Lysenko to be some one-dimensional pseudoscientist villain hellbent on ruining the careers and lives of other scientists. So what I am left with, lacking the Soviet perspective on the internet of course, are questions. Mainly questions about what led to Lysenkoism, further context behind Vavilov's life & death, and maybe some resources I can use in future to cross-examine the mainstream historical consensus. Thanks in advance, –Zero

it's amazing to see how any group of people can at once claim to stand for international proletarian revolution, support a "two-state" solution (aka liberal zionism) and proclaim that colonialism has brought us closer to socialism, responding to any critique of their eurocentric, historically-inapplicable claims with accusations of 'moralism'

yeah, i need to get off twitter

let me repeat

michael roth is german

from an israeli propaganda film (what is it with zionists and cartoonish queerphobia?)