until recently i’d just assumed we all wanted the same thing and all that was required was a few presentational tweaks. the thinking was everyone would get involved if i could just find the right topic/ limit the jokes/ get this specific person going/be more encouraging/etc.
luke it’s time to admit it’s game over. they genuinely don’t want what we want.
i’d say the split is largely down to whether you’re interested in generating new ideas or not. me and you come on dissensus wanting to come up with new bodies of thought or to frame things in a way we’ve never encountered before. it’s only very recently that i’ve realised that dissensians by and large aren’t coming here to do that.
where we’re generative, they’re referential. 'listen to this bit of music'. 'read this quote'. 'i’ve read this book’. ‘watch this film’. ’this article’s good’. usually there’ll be a small value judgement attached or a brief comment- ‘i like/don’t like x because of y’- which is completely fine of course, but it isn’t what we’re ultimately after.
I mean I grant I can be guilty of this sometime but when I raise the point for instance that fascists can be into afro-american culture, it goes so against the prevailing wisdom that the nazis and fash were supernatural monsters and nothing more than that. Which is strange given that skrewdriver's white power rock has the blues running all through it. apologies if I've been dismissive in that regard but it seems like sometimes people want to focus on ideologies.
Like, it's very convenient to say masculinism is all about discipline, control, hence authoritarian, and femininity and miscegeniation is all about the oceanic, about the orgasm and liberty, etc etc.
But for every pronouncement you can make in that regard you can always find counter examples.