HOW “UNMANNED” WEAPONS QUEER THE EXPERIENCE OF KILLING IN WAR Killing with drones produces queer moments of disorientation. Drawing on queer phenomenology, I show how militarized masculinities function as spatiotemporal landmarks that give killing in war its “orientation” and make it morally intelligible. These bearings no longer make sense for drone warfare, which radically deviates from two of its main axes: the home–combat and distance–intimacy binaries. Through a narrative methodology, I show how descriptions of drone warfare are rife with symptoms of an unresolved disorientation, often expressed as gender anxiety over the failure of the distance–intimacy and home–combat axes to orient killing with drones. The resulting vertigo sparks a frenzy of reorientation attempts, but disorientation can lead in multiple and sometimes surprising directions – including, but not exclusively, more violent ones. With drones, the point is that none have yet been reliably secured, and I conclude by arguing that, in the midst of this confusion, it is important not to lose sight of the possibility of new paths, and the “hope of new directions.”
So wait… Drone warfare makes you gay because killing on the field and going right back to home life fucks with your mind? Or does drone warfare just naturally attract gays?
Amazing, an analysis using faggot """""""phenomenology""""""" trying to proce that people who use drones to nuke mudhuts become confused about benis in bagina. I cannot believe someone wasted their life adding something of so minimal value to the world. I would go so far as to say that this shit detracts from the world and even the abstract is filled with buzzwords.
Apparently drone warfare makes you gay because there is such a contrast between the horrors of killing via a screen and the home you go back to after work. I mean MAYBE just MAYBE there is some truth behind it. Sitting on an uncomfortable chair may have an impact on your potency. If you go home to your wife after a long day of fast food and bombing huts in the desert and you can't get one up because you jerked it all day to trap hentai, then you may have a sexual problem or whatever. But I highly doubt that the drones made you gay. If anything the traps did.
Critical studies departments have tried to ape actual sciences by publishing "studies" to fit in with the departments that actually perform productive research. They use vague and seemingly meaningless terms to obfuscate the fact that they're not really doing anything.
You can think of it as a kind of "cargo cult" imitation of real science: they're publishing papers but they don't understand that those papers are supposed to be a vessel for transmitting research. They seem to figure that as long as people who haven't studied their field don't understand what they're talking about they're doing legitimate scholarship.
Daniel Cook
drones gay drone pilots gay america btfo
Thomas Adams
Hmm. If Drones are 'genderqueer bodies' then I think it's time to mount v8 powered fucking machines on UGVs (dragon dildos on the arm of course) in order to create a whole new category of war crime. Mechanised combat super-rape, it's so hot right now
Kind of like that, but with a v8 diesel instead of that little battery thingy, and with a control system that is programmed to seek out and penetrate virgin buttholes, and maybe a net launcher or harpoon in a coaxial mounting just to be sure.
Jose Jackson
What language is this in?
Cameron Howard
Postmodern horseshit
Those departments throw a tismfit when called out on their shit. Usually they complain how its totally the fault of the predatory publisher and not the people who peer review the word salads they consider articles, then go back to submitting to the same publishers when attention wanes.
Sokal's hoax paper "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" and the more recent "The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct" by Boghossian and Lindsay does a pretty good job at exposing the scholarship to be nothing but a massive unintelligible circlejerk.
I'm trying to work on a summary of that in actual language, but pic related really is my face when. So far all I've got is something along the lines of
Please tell me that the publishers & reviewers were in on this joke. Please. Dear God, is that too much to ask?
I'll do my best attempt to translate. This shit is like going through a Slaaneshi text
Penises exist on men, but since "men" who decide they're women also have penises (before they get them lopped off), an actual, physical penis as representative of maleness is an incoherent construct. (They believe transgendered men are actually 100% women, even before they cut their dicks off or have any sort of "therapy". In essence, they're saying some women have penises, so the physical penis can't represent masculinity.) We argue that the conceptual penis is better understood not as an anatomical organ but as a social construct isomorphic to preformative toxic masculinity. The penis as an organ itself isn't what gives a man his oppressive, masculine powers, but rather the idea of a penis and the actions that idea inspire. Apparently, society is damaged by the idea that a man gets his shitlord powers from his actual, physical dong rather than the idea of his dong. They're going to prove this with marxist mumbo-jumbo and examples of climate change.
I thought the central thesis of these groups was that literally everything everywhere was simultaneously evidence, mechanism, cause, goal, proof, and disproof of female oppression and/or empowerment?
There turning the frecking Drones gay. (Maybe that’s why there getting fucked by the Huthies)
Luis Brown
Bullshitish. Most of these almost sound like something you would read on /b/ if you look at what they're actually saying. >HOW “UNMANNED” WEAPONS QUEER THE EXPERIENCE OF KILLING IN WAR Translation
Reading through it is a real slog, it's an overly-verbose, buzzword-filled "research article" written by someone with a thesaurus on their lap and a treasure trove of equally dubious sources to cite. Including gems such as: Climate Change through the Lens of Intersectionality, Misogyny in Rap Music, 174 Ways to Call a Penis Something Other than "Penis", and Neopatriarchialist Discources: Capitalist Libertarianism, Objectivism, and Subcultural Desituationism among others. If I had to sum it up, I'd say it's a dried-up, crusty-cunted woman and her beta male orbiter complaining about everything from manspreading, climate change, rap lyrics, male machismo, as well as common English words and phrases and tying it all into a complaint about penises. The thing isn't even that long, it's only six pages and- although it'll take a bit to read- a rich source of laughs once you penetrate it with your masculine gaze. I've capped some of the jucier bits.
He is over credited but I like that he wants to bring free speech to Canada. I don't think he'll ever succeed though.
Luis Young
How the hell did you access that? I wasn't able to.
Leo Watson
Drones piloted by sat link are vulnerable to jamming and have too much latency to dogfight.
Drones should be piloted by two-seat multiroles in the frontlines.
Gabriel King
now read (^:
Andrew Reyes
I sense an F35D(ual seat) variant arriving. Although it would mean lengthening the other variants because of muh parts commonality of course. A small price to pay :^) Alternatively we could equip the drones with AI deep learing blockchain distributed robust 5C integrated systems.
Caleb Garcia
The idea behind drone control is that a non-stealthy aircraft, like an A-6 intruder, can be modified to control a half dozen stealthy UCAVs, like the Barracuda.
Huge range advantage, huge dogfighting advantage.
Ryder King
Does this mean you CAN identify as an attack helicopter?
Peterson gives his fist books for free on his website, you can download it as a pdf from a Scribd link. jordanbpeterson.com/maps-of-meaning/ He also uses donation money to let people visit his talks for free, without paying for a ticket. It costs $18k per hour to book the hall he uses, and he's booked maybe 50 hours of it for his christianity lectures.
I think only his 12 Rules for Life book is paid, and his Future Authoring program. But the second one he's not the owner of, he just helped develop it, someone else does the release.
