| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,111 @@ |
|
1 |
+====First, our body is a condensed history of millions of years of mutations, and we continue to be vulnerable to the random laws of genetics. Random mutations create the inevitable conditions for evolution and explain the diversity of life. ==== |
|
2 |
+ |
|
3 |
+=====Haviland ~~1~~:===== |
|
4 |
+Haviland, William A. Anthropology: The Human Challenge, 15th Edition. Cengage Learning, 2017. ~~Yuzu~~. UH-DD |
|
5 |
+"At the level of an |
|
6 |
+AND |
|
7 |
+for some new adaptation." (Pg. 41) |
|
8 |
+ |
|
9 |
+Implications: |
|
10 |
+A) Analytic |
|
11 |
+B) Analytic |
|
12 |
+C) Analytic |
|
13 |
+D) Analytic |
|
14 |
+E) Analytic |
|
15 |
+F) Analytic |
|
16 |
+ |
|
17 |
+====The evolution of our brains created the conditions for cultural adaptation. No longer did we have to wait generations to prevail environmental pressures. Through culture, we could overcome challenges that were not possible from a purely biology standpoint. ==== |
|
18 |
+ |
|
19 |
+=====Haviland ~~2~~: ===== |
|
20 |
+Haviland, William A. Anthropology: The Human Challenge, 15th Edition. Cengage Learning, 2017. ~~Yuzu~~. UH-DD |
|
21 |
+"In the quest for |
|
22 |
+AND |
|
23 |
+and cultural change." (Pg. 167-168) |
|
24 |
+ |
|
25 |
+Implications: |
|
26 |
+A. Analytic |
|
27 |
+B. Analytic |
|
28 |
+C. Analytic |
|
29 |
+D. Analytic |
|
30 |
+ |
|
31 |
+====And, if cultural conflict is inevitable, the goal of intercultural politics is not to eradicate conflict, but to channel conflict in ways productive to intercultural coexistence. This requires an agonistic commitment, which reframes the other as an advisory instead of an enemy. ==== |
|
32 |
+ |
|
33 |
+=====Mouffe ~~1~~:===== |
|
34 |
+"On the Political" by Chantal Mouffe 2000 UH-DD |
|
35 |
+"Once the theoretical terrain |
|
36 |
+AND |
|
37 |
+in an ongoing confrontation." (Pg. 101-102) |
|
38 |
+ |
|
39 |
+====Thus, the standard is promoting agonistic democracy. To clarify, the standard is concerned with following the constitutive procedures of agonistic democracy, not ends. ==== |
|
40 |
+ |
|
41 |
+=====Mouffe ~~2~~:===== |
|
42 |
+(Chantal Mouffe, Professor at the Department of Political Science of the Institute for Advanced Studies. June 2000. "The Democratic Paradox") |
|
43 |
+"To avoid any confusion, |
|
44 |
+AND |
|
45 |
+for conflicting interpretations." (Pg. 120-121) |
|
46 |
+ |
|
47 |
+===Contention One – === |
|
48 |
+ |
|
49 |
+====A – Analytic.==== |
|
50 |
+ |
|
51 |
+====B – Injurious speech subjugates agents but paradoxically marks them as socially recognizable within language. This presents a site of linguistic reversibility. Since language is temporal, we can reverse the norms that make injurious speech possible. ==== |
|
52 |
+ |
|
53 |
+=====BUTLER ~~1~~:===== |
|
54 |
+"Excitable Speech: A Politics of Performativity" by Judith Butler 1997 UH-DD |
|
55 |
+"One is not simply fixed by the name that one is called. In being called an injurious name, one is derogated and demeaned. But the name holds out another possibility as well: by being called a name~~d~~, one is also, paradoxically, given a certain possibility for social existence, initiated into a temporal life of language that exceeds the prior purposes that animate that call. Thus the injurious address may appear to fix or paralyze the one it hails, but it may also produce an unexpected and enabling response. If to be addressed is to be interpellated, then the offensive call runs the risk of inaugurating a subject in speech who comes to use language to counter the offensive call. When the address is injurious, it works its force upon the one it injures. What is this force, and how might we come to understand its faultlines?" (Pg. 2) |
|
56 |
+ |
|
57 |
+Analytic |
|
58 |
+ |
|
59 |
+===Contention Two – === |
|
60 |
+ |
|
61 |
+====A - Hate speech is different from hate crimes ==== |
|
62 |
+ |
|
63 |
+=====Kamier:===== |
|
64 |
+Kaminer Wendy (author, lawyer, journalist at the Atlantic and civil libertarian) "Why We Need to Tolerate Hate" Nov. 28 2012, The Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/why-we-need-to-tolerate-hate/265654/ KA |
|
65 |
+Decorate your house |
|
66 |
+AND |
|
67 |
+business of the state. |
|
68 |
+ |
|
69 |
+====B - Agonism requires the diversity of beliefs to allow engagement.==== |
|
70 |
+ |
|
71 |
+=====Mouffe ~~3~~:===== |
|
72 |
+(Chantal Mouffe, Professor at the Department of Political Science of the Institute for Advanced Studies. June 2000. "The Democratic Paradox")\ |
|
73 |
+I submit that this |
|
74 |
+AND |
|
75 |
+thinking is invaluable. |
|
76 |
+ |
|
77 |
+===Contention Three – === |
|
78 |
+ |
|
79 |
+====Censorship allows our own logic to get co-opted crushing social movements.==== |
|
80 |
+ |
|
81 |
+=====Adler '96:===== |
|
82 |
+(Adler, Amy. "Whats Left?: Hate Speech, Pornography, And The Problem For Artistic Expression." California Law Review, Vol. 84, No. 6. December 1996. Web. December 07, 2016. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3481093.) |
|
83 |
+The failure of leftist |
|
84 |
+AND |
|
85 |
+left's very eyes. |
|
86 |
+ |
|
87 |
+====Censorship is an issue of interpretation. This ensures cooption. ==== |
|
88 |
+ |
|
89 |
+=====BUTLER ~~2~~:===== |
|
90 |
+"Excitable Speech: A Politics of Performativity" by Judith Butler 1997 UH-DD |
|
91 |
+"Indeed, recent efforts |
|
92 |
+AND |
|
93 |
+the moment of utterance." (Pg. 13) |
|
94 |
+ |
|
95 |
+====Censorship only reifies the reigning hegemonic ideology. ==== |
|
96 |
+ |
|
97 |
+=====Ward '90:===== |
|
98 |
+Ward '90 (Dr. David V, ~~Phil Prof at Widener University,~~ "Library Trends," Philosophical Issues in Censorship and Intellectual Freedom, Vol 39, No 1 and 2, 1990, pg 86-87) |
|
99 |
+ |
|
100 |
+Second, even if the opinion |
|
101 |
+AND |
|
102 |
+the expressions of others. |
|
103 |
+ |
|
104 |
+===Underview=== |
|
105 |
+ |
|
106 |
+====Arguments about construction of certain identities can never turn the framework- that misses the goal of agonism. Identity politics homogenizes and turns their identity.==== |
|
107 |
+Mouffe 4 ~~Chantal Mouffe, Professor at the Department of Political Science of the Institute for Advanced Studies. June 2000. "The Democratic Paradox"~~ |
|
108 |
+ |
|
109 |
+A well-functioning democracy |
|
110 |
+AND |
|
111 |
+basis of civility. |