ChestRockwell [comrade/them, any]
I work in a university and have some curriculum Input even though I’m a non tenure track faculty. We are reworking the textbook this year and I’m one of the writers. Curent stuff is very libbed “rhetoric is like the courts, look at this good lib decision” shit.
Needless to say I’m gonna cook because the courts won’t save the libs now. The “what is to be done” framing is going to be front and center.
Yes vote local. Especially against judges.
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Halloween 3 is so fun.
I really like The Thing (1982) as well.
And honestly, gotta give it up for Paranormal Activity, where the real paranormal activity is the toxic masculinity along the way.
As someone who works in pre/early modern lit, this is a good post and the real key I think is here:
However, the way you’re talking about the story makes it sound like an explicitly homosexual text, which it isn’t.
I haven’t read OP’s essay, but in general this is the big thing with gender/sexuality and pre modern texts. Noncery aside, reminds us that these things are historically determined. If you want to read homosexual desire into a pre modern texts you need to basically do the work to explain how that desire fits into the material conditions of the medieval period.
Btw, this is actually rooted in a Marxist approach - sex and desire are not trans-historical but always determined by the material conditions of the historical moment. If you’re gonna read same sex desire into Bisclarivet (which, as you note, is actually a commonplace) you have to do the work to read it into the text and articulate how we see something like same sex desire in a period where this didn’t really have a systematic/ideological/cultural sanction.
