http://imgur.com/a/YZvQNfM

G.M. Goshgarian:

>By summer 1966, Althusser had admitted that his critics were right in one crucial respect: the logic of the break isolated the theory required to make the revolution from the realm of the non-theoretical practices in which the revolution had (also) to be made. Theory became theory by virtue of a distantiation that ruled out both its internal determination by Ideology and its direct intervention in ideology: a theory, by definition, had no practical relation to the ideological practices with which it broke. This put philosophy, 'the highest form of the theorization of ideologyl,11 at a double remove from all other practices. It had no practical relation to ideology, one of its objects; nor did it have, as the science of the relation between [theoretical] practice and the other practices', any practical relation to that relation - which, since philosophy, too, was a theoretical practice, included its own relation to itself. Althusser's philosophy thus found itself at odds with two basic contentions of the science on which it claimed to be based: that theory was co-determined - indeed, primarily' determined - by its non-theoretical outside, specifically by the . ideologies, where 'the class struggle figures in person';12 and that the vocation of revolutionary theory was to intervene in ~ the ideological class struggle. What Althusser had called its 'omissions' thus turned out to be symptoms of the fact that he could think the 'union of theory and practice', of theoretical and non-theoretical practice, only as the impossible encounter of two heterogeneous orders ('our union of the body and soul', he quipped in a letter)3 or the tautological consequence of their prior identification.

What I am unable to understand is Goshgarian's point about the distantiation of theory from ideology being a problem. What exactly does he mean by direct intervention in ideology? Isn't Althusser's critique of empiricism as idealist ideology an intervention in ideology and against ideology? Doesn't this critique allow production of Marxist philosophy which shall be able guide all practices ( the economic, political and theoretical) against ideology?

Hello all! Thank you for keeping the posts focused into the few topics up for it about the raid criticisms. I do want to make note that as this is a controversial time, we are temporarily lifting floodgating rules on the topic, though we do still encourage you all to post in the existing threads we will not be locking or removing any new threads (within reason. Don’t take this as a free invitation to make 80 topics each on it). We want you to be able to state and show your grievance, and I will personally be collecting the response to send to WB as we have in other times like these, so please make them safe for work.

Also do feel free to post in here about your thoughts as well. The floodgate rules will be reinstated one day after the end of raids for compiling the response for sending, this should give you all time to articulate your thoughts on the matter.

Do your best, all.

• Doombawkz

This isn’t intended to be another discussion of what’s been going on over the past few days, but it was the catalyst for my question and I’ll be summarising some of the comments I made in those threads expressing my thoughts and would love to hear yours.

There isn’t one artist that doesn’t hold some views that could be labelled problematic, whether they’re conscious or inadvertent. It’s impossible, none of us get it right all of the time, even the most well-intentioned. Issues can arise when those views or actions are publicly expressed/exposed and the artist finds themselves at odds with a general social/political consensus but also thousands of wide-ranging personal opinions.

So what happens when that situation arises? How should the artist handle it? There are so many facets of the public response and just a few include: people genuinely trying to educate, those condescendingly virtue signalling and hot-takers that don’t really care about the issue and are looking for some quick social clout. And of course, there’s a huge majority who literally don’t care. How can an artist appease all of these people? Should they try to?

As I mentioned in one of my comments in another thread, I personally have no idea how I would respond if I had tens of thousands of people telling me that something I believed was wrong, especially if I was well-intentioned. What I can speak to is that my view-changing experiences have come from intimate, in-person conversations with people sharing their point-of-view and life experiences with me. In my opinion and in this context, the internet removes that ability for a deep connection and discussion to affect real acknowledgement and change in someone. Instead, it can read as hive-minded and almost mobbish if the artist doesn’t agree, so it’s not really a surprise that they either put out a transparent PR apology or double down on their original opinion.

In some situations, is it really possible to undo years of internalised, unconscious and institutional racism/sexism/homophobia and become completely enlightened in 24 hours? Do you just want an apology, even if it‘s damage control? Would you rather the artist stick to their guns and defend their stance, even if you think they’re wrong and they think they’re right?

For me, it comes down to measuring an artist against my own moral values and how much incongruence I’m willing to accept before I stop consuming their work. Is it just ignorance? Are they actively oppressing others? T

About a month ago, I wrote a post to provide some clarity regarding the leak Naughty Dog sprung about a month ago. In it, I addressed some of the criticisms that were being levied at the time without unveiling any of the spoiled material, that way my curious spoiler-virgins would go unsullied until release day. There, I explained why all the major criticisms at the time weren't (and still aren't) warranted. Toward the end of the post, I noted that the outrage was not only political, but also emotional. I correctly predicted that there would be some spoiler-virgins that would not be pleased with the game's controversial narrative direction. I wish I'd been taking bets because not only was I right, I was right to an extent I never imagined. The response to this game has been chaotic, to say the least. This post will explore this phenomenon, directly respond to the most prominent criticisms and those who make them, and address my own criticisms of the game (as well as how I believe those flaws can be fixed).

Part 1: The Chaotic Controversy

I need to lay my cards on the table: I thought this was a fantastic game. Having purposefully indulged in the leaks back in April, I knew about every major death/plot twist before it happened, and I approached the story with an open mind. While I thought TLOU was a great game, TLOU2 blew me away with its darker, more complicated themes, the tiny details that collectively enrich the game's themes of gray morality, superb character interactions, the gosh diddly darn adorable relationship between Ellie and Dina, the endearing big sister-little siblings dynamic between Abby and Yara/Lev, and the excellently crafted set pieces that made each part of the game unique. I also loved the new gameplay mechanics that made stealth satisfying, such as crafting silencers for the pistol or taking cover in tall grass/ferns. It irks me to no end that such an obviously great game has received so much undeserved abuse. Can it be criticized? Of course it can. There's always room for criticism, but I think this is downright pathetic.

It should be noted that this avalanche of negative reception is not coming from a single body of grievances. It is, in fact, coming from up to at least three different factions. Sometimes there is crossover between factions, but a member of one