Pill Pod 174 - Trump v. The United States (exclusive)
Added 2024-07-06 00:22:18 +0000 UTCApparently this is a big deal, but I was not sure exactly why. Luckily, Victor reads Supreme Court decisions on his spare time for fun.
Comments
It was really interesting, very different.
ConstraintAutomaton
2024-08-02 10:41:44 +0000 UTCWhy is this even a debate? They created this fiat law, because the president is the point person for global capitalism.
Khemith
2024-07-24 06:27:55 +0000 UTCVictor's on a list now 😂
Myles Jeffers
2024-07-18 09:22:03 +0000 UTCI am not sure what liberal idealism would be. I know of epistemological idealism which I associate with Kant. And I know of Berkeley’s crazy substance monism or whatever but I don’t know it’s classification as idealism. Nothing at all to do with liberalism in either case as far as I can tell.
Jack
2024-07-14 14:39:55 +0000 UTCI have a feeling about the next episode…
Alex Petty
2024-07-14 06:47:23 +0000 UTCBased!
anacidcommie
2024-07-14 06:08:41 +0000 UTCExactly re capital and ideology, this was full of liberal idealist analyses
anacidcommie
2024-07-14 06:07:04 +0000 UTC“When Biden assassinates Trump” holy shit Victor that was almost prophetic now 🤣🤣🤣
anacidcommie
2024-07-14 06:05:59 +0000 UTCI’ve enjoyed Derrick Barn’s recent few videos where he reads and responds to Why Not Trump? And another where he responds to Cutrone’s response in the first videos comments
Jack
2024-07-09 21:17:56 +0000 UTCSerious props to Victor for slogging through that shit lol I'm glad there are those willing to do it and explain it for the rest of us
Henry Martyn
2024-07-08 21:55:07 +0000 UTCthe market demands it!
Matt S
2024-07-08 15:40:21 +0000 UTCAs an accelerationist I think we need to take this decision further. Instead of an election the president should automatically be determined by the male CEO whose company has generated the most profit over the previous term interval, and he should be immune not only from official acts but also unofficial ones. Also he should be given a presidential harem so that he can build a genetic legacy (only the male offspring will inherit the presidential immunity of course).
Ichabod
2024-07-08 15:07:50 +0000 UTCThe tribal societies you mention in which chiefs are powerless are explained in depth by Pierre Clastres in his book (and the eponymous essay in the book) Society Against the State. This book is also cited many times in A Thousand Plateaus.
Ichabod
2024-07-08 14:53:58 +0000 UTCZizek writing for Trump now? Also, ritual killing of outgoing leaders: go!
Alex B
2024-07-08 11:38:21 +0000 UTCThanks for the feedback as always man, the anthro-sociology stuff is in the front-burner. Oh and "sortition" is rule by a lottery mechanism.
Plastic Pills
2024-07-07 04:45:40 +0000 UTCThis was a v. good topical one. My fav parts were the Potlatch references, Mauss, Durkheim, and Bataille. Can’t wait for u to do more on this. Also, putting words in Clarence Thomas’ mouth: “ I gotta go eat some shrimp and play with Hitler’s dildos on my friend’s yacht.. but here’s a giant mess you guys have to figure out.’ stitches!!! As for G.H. Bush’s Clarence Thomas appointment—-u know it was a big deal, Dems really fought it, Anita Hill accusation of sexual harassment, and Biden dissed Hill… blah blah, a big deal. But apparently Thomas never overcame his bitterness and became a real bad crazy bitch. IMO Victor was too generous to Amy Coney Barrett. “Coney” btw is French and Elizabethan Brit slang … ‘the word "coney" (sometimes spelled conny), meaning a rabbit raised for the table and thus tame’ .. and appropriate in her case coz she sure reproduces like one.🐇 . Anyway, the ideology of current Supreme court left out in discussion, far exceeding their Maga aspect or old time religion, is their corporatism. Anyway, coney Barrett is above all else a shameless corporate shill. That’s her main thing, thus she may waver now and again and appear less predictably ideological on some stuff. But that’s bc this is her real ideology, corporeally corporately procreative. And, speaking hermeneutically, a reading of ‘body politic’ in metaphors of ‘immunity’ (also implying ‘non immunity’ & ‘auto -immunity’) can be deciphered as: tho there’s nothing in the Constitution (the body) that says the President (the head) should be immune (from prosecution/ disease), conservatives claim the founding dads wanted a ‘vigorous, authoritative and decisive’ president, not hamstrung—-so to get that vigor s/he has to have ‘complete immunity’. (but isn’t this always the problem with the law? Why the wild cards r always tempted to or do go outside it? ‘Touch of Evil’ theme. And why Derrida says , ‘there’s no outside of the text? B/c isn’t this ruling to go outside the law legally?) Lastly, one question— I couldn’t understand the word you said right after the potlatch symbolic power part… it sounded like, ‘ but that’s ‘sartician’ , right?’ and victor and eric said ‘yeah’ and I don’t have a clue what you said or what that word is…..
Zachary Manenti
2024-07-07 03:25:28 +0000 UTCI definitely believe if victor wants me to know about the Supreme Court and about political institutions in general then I need him to tell me the ideology of skibidi toilet
Jack
2024-07-07 02:50:47 +0000 UTCGreat episode! Had to listen in segments because the American slide to authoritarianism is so sad to experience.
l. mark harris
2024-07-06 16:39:57 +0000 UTCThe decisions of the legal system seem to be justifications for capital. The ideology does come after the material. I could see how ideas from power have too down material influence, but I don’t see how ideas can come into power from the bottom without organizing material. For example, I live in a dying town since the mill left in the dark 2000s. Southern Virginia is very rural and conservative except for in the cities. Now that we’ve got a casino under development there has been more capital flowing into my area. They even moved the chamber of commerce for our region into my town. I believe this will drastically change the ideologies of people who live here.
Jack
2024-07-06 16:26:34 +0000 UTCya’ll should. (if you want to) cover Chris Cutrone’s take on this stuff. His take isn’t convincing to me yet that this is hysteria over the decision. But out of anyone who says it’s hysteria, the most convincing. The branding he’s been given is as “The last Marxist” and is a bit contrarian sometimes, if yet orthodox. You don’t need to cover it of course to pick any fights, but I would nevertheless be interested in thoughts directly related to it and his, “Why not Trump?” pieces.
Qoheleth
2024-07-06 06:26:55 +0000 UTCThank u I was hoping this ep was coming haha
Alex Petty
2024-07-06 01:08:09 +0000 UTC
