Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[8]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[9]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[8]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-10-15 13:49:11.950
	1	+2016-10-15 13:49:11.0

Caselist.CitesClass[9]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,37 @@
	1	+====Narratives are accommodated into hegemonic structures- they obscure the connection between particular stories and universal problems and place certain truths beyond question- this is an epistemological indict====
	2	+Patricia Ewick and Susan S. Silbey Law and Society Review, 00239216, 1995, Vol. 29, Issue 2, KK
	3	+In the previous section, we discussed how narratives, like the lives and experiences
	4	+AND
	5	+without the requirement to produce an individually crafted narrative of right and liability.
	6	+
	7	+
	8	+====K means non falsfifiable- we might agree that yours are good, bot co-opted ones are probably bad eg cap fuel industry====
	9	+
	10	+
	11	+====Real documents prove- incredible corruption and deception====
	12	+,,Kathy,, Mulvey Et Al 15 ,,Seth Shulman Contributors Dave Anderson Nancy Cole Jayne Piepenburg Jean Sideris July 2015 ""The Climate Deception Dossiers" Internal Fossil Fuel Industry Memos Reveal Decades of Corporate Disinformation" http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf,,
	13	+The internal documents collected and excerpted in this report tell the story of this
	14	+AND
	15	+for their share of responsibility for global warming and the damages already underway.
	16	+
	17	+
	18	+====Using experience to represent the ‘other’ reinforces dominant power relations – fails to affect political change====
	19	+Pedwell ‘2 ,,(Carolyn, PhD and visiting lecturer gender institute at LSE, "MARGINAL RESEARCH: REFLECTIONS ON LOCATION AND REPRESENTATION: SEEING THE SELF IN THE 'OTHER' AND THE 'OTHER' IN THE SELF : (INTERSUBJECTIVE) REFLEXIVITY - A METHODOLOGY FOR REPRESENTING 'OTHERS' http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/genderInstitute/pdf/marginalResearch.pdf accessed on 12/6/2007),,
	20	+I want to argue that the strategy of speaking only for one’s self is not
	21	+AND
	22	+possible to do so, the political advantages of this practice appear negligible.
	23	+
	24	+
	25	+====The impact is the structural violence of billions at the hands of capitalism====
	26	+Zizek and Daly 4—Profesor of Philosophy @ Institute for Sociology in Ljubljana ~~Slavoj and Glyn, "Conversations with Zizek", pg 14-16~~
	27	+For Zizek it is imperative that we cut through this Gordian knot of postmodern protocol
	28	+AND
	29	+standardized positions. We might say that it is an ethics which is not
	30	+
	31	+
	32	+====The alternative is to do nothing. Refusal to take action breaks down the pseudo-activity that maintains capitalism and steers away from past Communist failures====
	33	+Zizek 08—Senior Research @ Institute for Social Studies-Ljubljana ~~Slavoj, Violence, p. 207-217~~
	34	+Mutatis mutandis, the same holds also for large, organised collective violence. The Chinese Cultural Revolution serves as a lesson here: destroying old monuments proved not to be a true negation of the past. Rather it was an impotent passage a I'acte, an acting out which bore witness to the failure to get rid of the past. There is a kind of poetic justice in the fact that the final result of Mao's Cultural Revolution is the current unmatched explosion of capitalist dynamics in China. A profound structural homology exists between Maoist permanent self-revolutionising, the permanent struggle against the ossification of state structures, and the inherent dynamics of capitalism. One is tempted to paraphrase Brecht again here: "What is the robbing of a bank compared to the founding of a new bank?" What were the violent and destructive outbursts of a Red Guardist caught in the Cultural Revolution compared to the true Cultural Revolution, the permanent dissolution of all life-forms which capitalist reproduction dictates? The same, of course, applies to Nazi Germany, where the spectacle of the brutal annihilation of millions should not deceive us. The characterisation of Hitler which would have him as a bad guy, responsible for the deaths of millions but none the less a man with balls who pursued his ends with an iron will, is not only ethically repulsive, it is also simply wrong: no, Hitler did not "have the balls" really to change things. All his actions were fundamentally reactions: he acted so that nothing would really change; he acted to prevent the communist threat of a real change. His targeting of the Jews was ultimately an act of displacement in which he avoided the real enemy-the core of capitalist social relations themselves. Hitler staged a spectacle of revolution so that the capitalist order could survive. The irony was that his grand gestures of despising bourgeois self-complacency ultimately enabled this complacency to continue: far from disturbing the much-despised "decadent" bourgeois order, far from awakening the Germans, Nazism was a dream which enabled them to postpone awakening. Germany only really woke up with the defeat of 1945. If one wants to name an act which was truly daring, for which one truly had to "have balls" to try the impossible, but which was simultaneously an act of horrendous violence, an act which caused suffering beyond comprehension, it was Stalin's forced collectivisation at the end of the 1920s. Yet even this display of ruthless violence culminated in the big purges of 1936-37, which were, again, an impotent passage a I'acte: This was not a targeting of enemies, but blind rage and panic. It reflected not control of events but a recognition that the regime lacked regularized control mechanisms. It was not policy but the failure of policy. It was a sign of failure to rule with anything but forced.1 The very violence inflicted by the communist power on its own members bears witness to the radical self-contradiction of the regime. If at the origins of the regime, there was an "authentic" revolutionary project, incessant purges were necessary not only to erase the traces of the regime's origins, but also as a kind of "return of the repressed," a reminder of the radical negativity at the heart of the regime. The Stalinist purges of high party echelons relied on this fundamental betrayal: the accused were effectively guilty insofar as they, as the members of the new nomenklatura, betrayed the Revolution. The Stalinist terror is thus not simply the betrayal of the Revolution, that is, an attempt to erase the traces of the authentic revolutionary past. It also bears witness to a kind of "imp of the perverse" which compels the post-revolutionary new order to (re)inscribe its betrayal of the Revolution within itself, to "reflect" it or "re-mark" it in the guise of arbitrary arrests and killings which threaten all members of the nomenklatura. As we know from psychoanalysis, the Stalinist confession of guilt conceals the true guilt. It is well known that Stalin wisely recruited people of lower social origins into the NKVD. They were thus able to act out their hatred of the nomenklatura by arresting and torturing high apparatchiks. The inherent tension between the stability of the rule of the new nomenklatura and the perverted "return of the repressed" in the guise of the repeated purges of the ranks of the nomenklatura is at the very heart of the Stalinist phenomenon: purges are the very form in which the betrayed revolutionary heritage survives and haunts the regime.2 In "Murder in the Mews," an early Agatha Christie story, Poirot investigates the death of Mrs. Allen, found shot in her apartment on Guy Fawkes night. Although her death looks like suicide, numerous details indicate that a murder is more likely and that a clumsy attempt has been made to make it look as if Mrs. Allen took her own life. She shared a flat with Miss Plenderleith, who was away at the time. Soon a cufflink is found at the murder scene and its owner, Major Eustace, is implicated in the crime. Poirot's solution is one of the best in Christie's work: it turns round the standard plot of a murder made to look like suicide. The victim, who years ago was caught in a scandal in India, where she also met Eustace, was engaged to marry a Conservative MP. Knowing that the public exposure of her scandal would ruin her chances of marriage, Eustace was blackmailing her. Out of despair, she shot herself. Coming home immediately after her suicide, Miss Plender-leith-who knew about Eustace's blackmail and hated him-quickly rearranged details at the scene to make it appear that the murderer had tried clumsily to present the death as suicide, so that Eustace would be fully punished for driving Mrs. Allen to kill herself. The story thus turns on the question in what direction should the inconsistencies noted at the scene of the crime be read. Is it a murder masked as suicide or a suicide masked as murder? The story works because, instead of the murder being covered up, as is more usual, its appearance is staged: instead of being concealed, a crime is created as a lure. This is precisely what instigators of such violent passages a I'acte do. They misconstrue suicide as crime. In other words, they falsify clues so that a catastrophe which is a "suicide" (the result of immanent antagonisms) appears as the work of a criminal agent-Jews, traitors, or reactionaries. This is why, to put it in the Nietzschean terms which are appropriate here, the ultimate difference between radical-emancipatory politics and such outbursts of impotent violence is that an authentic political gesture is active, it imposes, enforces a vision, while outbursts of impotent violence are fundamentally reactive, a reaction to some disturbing intruder. Last but not least, the lesson of the intricate relationship between subjective and systemic violence is that violence is not a direct property of some acts, but is distributed between acts and their contexts, between activity and inactivity. The same act can count as violent or non-violent, depending on its context; sometimes a polite smile can be more violent than a brutal outburst. A brief reference to quantum physics might be of some help here; one of the most unsettling notions in quantum physics is that of the Higgs field. Left to their own devices in an
	35	+environment to which they can pass their energy, all physical systems will eventually assume
	36	+AND
	37	+violent enough. Sometimes doing nothing is the most violent thing to do.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-10-15 13:49:12.772

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Horowitz

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Evanston

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+6

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Kinkaid Yang Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1- Narratives K

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+StMarks