Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

Interpretation the neg may not fiat action by every single

person on earth
1. Fiat abuse
Interpretation if the negative reads an alternative framing
mechanism, they must clarify a standard or roll of the ballot
text in the nc which contextualizes how to weigh offense and
cannot just claim that the cards provide a framing
mechanism.
1. Strat
a. Dk
b. shift
1ar baudrillard
Baudrillard is wrong---debate SOLVES collapse and
oversaturation of meaning
Turner 4 Bryan S. Turner, Dean of Social Sciences at Deakin University,
Australia, Baudrillard for Sociologists, in Forget Baudrillard?, 2004 edition,
p. 80-83
While, as far as one can tell, Baudrillard was not influenced by Bells vision of the role of technology and the media in shaping
postindustrialism, he was influenced by Marshall McLuhans analysis (Gane 1991b:48) of the impact of new media on the transformation
of modern culture, especially in The Gutenberg Galaxy (McLuhan 1967). McLuhan was particularly sensitive to the idea that we live in a
processed social world where human beings live in a complete technostructure. This technological environment is carried with us as
extensions of our own bodies, but McLuhan did not adopt a pessimistic view of the age of anxiety, because his technological humanism
(Kroker et al. 1984) and Catholic values committed him to the idea of the immanence of reason and the hope of an escape from the
labyrinth. Indeed, a global technological system could become the basis of a universalistic culture. Although he was fully aware of the
sensory deprivation which he associated with the impact of the mass media, he none the less remained committed to the hope that these

Baudrillard, who as we have noted was deeply influenced by


negative effects were not fatal.

McLuhans idea that the content of messages was relatively


unimportant in relation to their form , has embraced a very nihilistic
position with respect to our processed environment . Baudrillards
pessimistic view of the fissure in the historical development of the modern is based on his view
of the masses. Baudrillards analysis of the masses is a product of the Situationist responses to the May events of 1968,
when it became increasingly obvious that the critical social movements of modern society would not be dominated by Marxist theory or
directed by a vanguard of the working class. The crisis of May 1968 had not been predicted by Marxism or by mainstream sociology, but
they did validate the claims of Situationists like Guy Debord in the journal Internationale Situationiste. However, if the crisis had been
unanticipated by conventional political analysis, then the sudden collapse of the students and workers movements of 1968 found no
easy explanation in the framework of mainstream social sciences. Baudrillards concept of the inexplicable nature of the mass depend a
great deal on the unusual circumstances surrounding the May events. By 1973 with the publication of The Mirror of Production (Baudrillard
1975), Baudrillard was already moving away from an orthodox Marxist view of production, arguing that Marxism, far from being an

Instead of
external critique of capitalism, was merely a reflection or mirror of the principal economistic values of capitalism.

engaging in the production of meaning , a subversive, oppositional


movement would have to challenge the system from the point of
view of meaninglessness . Subversion would have to rob the social system of significance. In taking this stand,
Baudrillard followed the Situationist claim that whatever can be represented can be controlled (Plant 1992:137). The mass events of 1968
offered a promise of the nonrepresentational moment, the pure event of authenticity, which could not be explained, and therefore could
not be manipulated. Baudrillard, in dismissing Marxist theory as a means of representing events, sought to replace the idea of a mode of
production with a mode of disappearance. In taking this attitude towards modern social movements, Baudrillards argument also rests
on the various meanings of the word mass. Baudrillard is thus able to make allusions to the idea of physical substance, matter, the
majority and the electrical meaning of earth. The translators note to In the Shadow of the Silent Majority points out that faire masse can
mean to form a majority and to form an earth. Baudrillard argues by allusion that the mass absorbs the electrical charges of social and
political movements; the mass thus neutralizes the electrical charge of society. This use of allusion, parody and irony is typical of
Baudrillards mode of analysis, which is a type of sociological poetics, a style which is likely to make sociologists feel uncomfortable (Gane
199la:193). There is here also a continuity with the style of Dada and the Situationists. The poetic and striking character of

Baudrillards style has no counterpart in professional social


science , least of all in the British context. Baudrillards sociological fictions (1990a:15) are
striking and challenging, but they are not ultimately convincing . Arguments which depend

on allusion, allegory and similar rhetorical devices are decorative but


they are not necessarily powerful . The notion of mass society already has a clearly worked out sociological
critique. The idea of mass society might have been relevant in describing the new markets which were created in the post-war period
with the advent of innovative technologies, which had the immediate effect of lowering prices and making commodities available to a

mass
mass audience. However, the trend of sociological analysis in the last two decades has been to assert that

audiences have been broken down into more selectively


constructed niches for more individualized products. It is controversial to argue that industrialization necessarily
produces a mass society, characterized by a common culture, uniform sentiments or an integrated outlook. The idea of a mass society
was often associated with the notion that the decline of individualism would produce a directionless mass as the modern equivalent of the
eighteenthcentury mob. Critical theorists like Adorno and Marcuse associated the massification of society with authoritarianism and a

Baudrillards version of mass society is based on a


potential for fascism. Of course,

view of the mass media creating a hyperreality in which the


particular

real has been absorbed by the hyperreal; meaning has imploded


on itself . Although Baudrillards analysis of hyperreality is postcritical (Chen 1987), he does adopt in practice a critical position
towards American civilization, which is the extreme example of massification. Rather like critical theorists, Baudrillard believes that the

However, sociological
(bourgeois) individual has been sucked into the negative electrical mass of the media age.

research on mass audiences shows that there is no ground for


believing that media messages are received, consumed or used in
any standardized manner , and the majority of social scientists
working on culture have attempted to argue that cultural objects in the age of the mass
media are appropriated, transformed and consumed in diverse forms

and according to various practices (de Certeau 1984). In fact, sociologists, largely
inspired by the Situationists, have argued that everyday life is resistant to

massification and that the concrete reality of everyday life-situations is the principal arena within which opposition to
massification can be expected. Everyday life was regarded by both Guy Debord and Henri Lefebvre (1991) as the foundation of

Baudrillard , by arguing that criticism belongs to the period of modernism and not to the age of hyperreality,
authenticity.

has ruled out opposition to the system , at least at the level of public
debate and formal politics.

Its not all simulacra --- reality still exists outside the text
--- should take into account the people whose lives are
actually affected by these images
Simon Blackburn 7, professor of philosophy at Cambridge University, 4-
29-07, Au revoir Baudrillard, Prospect ,
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2007/04/aurevoirbaudrillard/---- {hors
texte = outside the text}
Baudrillard was not concerned with the artists touch but with what happens when television and other media purport to
take us to the field of action. The 1990 Gulf war was modelled by planners using simulations; it was won, if we call a
massacre a victory, largely by pilots looking at computer screens; and it was relayed to the public by television. Most
consumers of these images get no reality check; the image is all we have to go on. And the image does not come to us
innocently. What happened in 1990 may, indeed, have been something more than a war: an episode in Americas cultural
narcissism, a hallucinatory projection of its fears and fantasies, a Faustian pact between developed capitalism and virtual
Baudrillards
reality, a promotional video, or a simulacrum indistinguishable from Disneyland. So
hyperbole had a serious point. He often provoked outrage by it, but
when, for instance, he tactlessly suggested that the iconic place of Nazi atrocities as a symbol of evil makes it logical to
ask whether they even existed, his point was not to ally himself with the David Irvings of this world, but to suggest that for
many political and cultural purposes, the answer is irrelevant. As with God, it is our investment that matters, not whether
Baudrillards ideas about simulated reality seem to
it is invested in a fiction.
have touched on an old philosophical panic. Perhaps our senses are no better than our
televisions. Perhaps nature has varnished and spun the pictures we
receive. They too are commodities, bought in to provide sustenance. Perhaps, at the limit, we live in a
virtual reality, unable to comprehend our real position, sentenced to
a woeful life of dreams, myth, fiction and illusion. Baudrillard, the inspiration for the Matrix films, tried to distance
himself from the trite opposition of one moment seeing through the glass darkly and then coming face to face with reality,
generalised scepticism
yet he enjoyed playing with its ingredients. I do not think this was wise, since
implies that there is nothing especially wrong about America or late
capitalism or consumer societyand would any self-respecting
culture critic want to draw that conclusion? In any event, it is not all
simulacra . We are participants in a public world, not hermits
trapped in our own private cinemas. The cure for the sceptical nightmare
is action. Nobody stays sceptical while crossing the street, or
choosing dinner. Nor while dodging bombs and shells, even if they
are sent by people watching computer screens. In the hurly-burly of
survival, there is a lot that is hors textealthough this is more true for
the artisan driving nails or baking bread than for the politician (or academic)
whose work is confined to the production of signs and messages.

Refuse their fatalismwe can reclaim the university


Giroux 13
[09/27/13, Henry Giroux, Henry Giroux on the Militarization of Public
Pedagogy, http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/09/27/teaching-and-learning-
with-henry-giroux/]

How do you teach social change or resistance to


SK: Heres a paradox for you:

authority within public schools institutions that many have


criticized for being authoritarian and resistant to change ? HG: You cant
do it if you believe these institutions are so authoritarian that
theres simply no room for resistance. Thats a mistake . Power is
never so overwhelming that theres no room for resistance . Power
and the forms it takes are always contradictory in different ways and
there is always some room for resistance. What needs to be understood is the intensity of
dominant power in different contexts and how it can be named, understood, and fought. The issue here is to seize upon the contradictions at
work in these institutions and to develop them in ways that make a difference. During the sixties, the term for this was the long march through
institutions and the reference had little to do with reform but with massive restructuring of the instruments of democracy. And we also need to
impose a certain kind of responsibility upon adults in the schools whether they be social workers, university professors, or high school
teachers. Clearly its not enough to say they operate under terrible burdens that make them voiceless. I understand those structural conditions

it doesnt mean they shouldnt resist either. That means they not
but

only have to promote particular kinds of pedagogies in their


classrooms but they also have to join social movements that give
them the force of a collective voice that can bear down on these
problems and create change . The greatest battle that were facing in
the U.S. today is around the question of consciousness . If people
dont have an understanding of the nature of the problems they face
theyre going to succumb to the right-wing educational populist
machine. This is a challenge that the Left has never taken seriously
because it really doesnt understand that at the center of politics is
the question of pedagogy . Pedagogy is not marginal , it is not
something that can be reduced to a method , limited to what happens
in high schools, or to what college professors say in their classes.
Pedagogy is fundamental not only to the struggle over culture but also,
if not more importantly, the struggle over meaning and identity. Its a struggle for consciousness, a struggle over the gist of agency, if not the
future itself a struggle to convince people that society is more than what it is, that the future doesnt simply have to mimic the present. SK:
What would this look like in practice? One encouraging experiment I had the privilege of observing up close is taking place at the Emiliano
Zapata Street Academy in Oakland. There, in an alternative high school within the Oakland Unified School District, student interns working
with a group called BAY-Peace lead youth in interactive workshops on topics relevant to their lives: street violence, the school-to-prison
pipeline, military recruiters in their schools, and so on. HG: I think two things have to go on here, and you just mentioned one of them. Weve
got to talk about alternative institutions. There has to be some way to build institutions that provide a different model of education. On the
Left, we had this in the 20s and 30s: socialists had Sunday schools, they had camps; they found alternative ways to educate a generation of
young people to give them a different understanding of history, of struggle. We need to reclaim that legacy, update it for the twenty-first
century, and join the fight over the creation of new modes of thinking, acting, and engaging ourselves and our relations to others. On the

Its a model
second level is what Rudi Dutschke called what I referred to earlier as the long march through the institutions.

that makes a tactical claim to having one foot in and one foot out.
You cant turn these established institutions over to the Right . You cant
simply dismiss them by saying theyre nothing more than hegemonic institutions that oppress people. Thats a retreat

from politics. You have to fight within these institutions. Not only that, you
have to create new public spheres. SK: Henry, weve covered a lot of territory. Is there anything we
havent addressed that you would like to bring up before closing? HG: We need both a language of

critique and a language of hope . Critique is essential to what we do


but it can never become so overwhelming that all we become are
critics and nothing else . It is counterproductive for the left to engage in declarations of powerlessness, without
creating as Jacques Rancire argues new objects, forms, and spaces that thwart official expectations. What we need to do is theorize,
understand and fight for a society that is very different from the one in which we now live. That means taking seriously the question of
pedagogy as central to any notion of viable progressive politics; it means working collectively with others to build social movements that
address a broader language of our society questions of inequality and power (basically the two most important issues we can talk about
now.) And I think that we need to find ways to support young people because the most damage thats going to be done is going to be heaped

what were really fighting for is not just democracy;


upon the next generations. So

were fighting for the future . And so critique is not enough; we need a
language of critique and we need a language of possibility to be
able to go forward with this.

The thesis of the k is that everything necessarily fails cause its


already trapped in the code and the alt just embraces that,
which means a 1% risk we arent in a simulation is sufficient to
vote aff to prevent suffering treat this kritik like skep.
Perfcon you engaged with and turned the aff by claiming
Delgado goes neg
Perfcon you spoke that isnt silence and kills the alt o/w
cause ruse of solvency
Baudrillards symbolic construction of reality and the
code causes ignorance to actual genocide and mass
atrocities this is a voting issue
Vine 89 (Richard Vine, The Ecstasy of Jean Baudrillard, The New Criterion, 7(9), May 1989
http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/07/may89/vine.htm)

Dissociate yourself from conventional life, capitalism, and the vulgar bourgeoisiepreferably by discovering in the
unlikeliest places half-hidden machinations of repressive control. Eager to be ever more maudit than thou,
Baudrillard manages to surpass the imaginative fecundity of even the
magisterial Foucault. First he weighs in with the now familiar claim that the definition of madness is but a ploy,
that every psychological dysfunction vis--vis normality (which is only the law of the capitalist milieu) is open to a
He then proceeds, via a social interpretation of physical disease,
political reading.
to caution us against the pathological dangers of bourgeois hygiene.
Conveniently, no mention is made of what science and attendant public
health measures have accomplished against cholera, typhoid, smallpox,
diphtheria, yellow fever, malaria, influenza, polio, leprosy, syphilis, etc.
Instead, Baudrillards argument, such as it is, resembles a bizarre
crossbreeding of Christian Science with those lunatic Communist-conspiracy
tirades launched in the 1950s against the fluoridation of city water supplies:
The artificial purification of all milieus, atmospheres, and environments will supplant the failing internal immune systems.
If these systems are breaking down it is because an irreversible tendency called progress pushes the human body and
spirit into relinquishing its systems of defense and self-determination, only to replace them with technical artifacts.
Divested of his defenses, man becomes eminently vulnerable to science. Divested of his phantasies, he becomes
eminently vulnerable to psychology. Freed of his germs, he becomes eminently vulnerable to medicine. It would
not be too far-fetched to say that the extermination of mankind begins with
the extermination of germs. In short, medical progress is a plotlike other
bourgeois inventions, its just another way of stifling naturalism and exerting
control. [3] Purport to extend and correct the prevailing vanguard position. (Add ten points if you can do so through a
reflexive argument that turns key doctrinal precepts back upon themselves.) A major preoccupation of radical thinkers,
from the founding of the Frankfurt School onward, has been the search for an alchemic formula that would somehow rid
critical theory of such real-life Marxist impurities as chronic low productivity, avant-garde condescension toward the
masses, brute censorship, and, most embarrassing of all, the nettlesome Gulag. Baudrillards solution is the magic of
transparency, which renders all such difficulties instantly unreal. Had Marx only had the benefit of modern semiotics, he
would have realized that commodification explains not simply one element of the capitalist system but the system in toto,
There is no biological essence of man, according to
along with its very presuppositions.
Baudrillard, hence no constant and irreducible requirement for food, shelter,
and safety: the vital anthropological minimum doesnt exist. It is an illusion conjured up after the fact to justify
and perpetuate the productivist enterprise: there are only needs because the system needs them. Everything
essential to humankind transpires symbolically, as is evident when Baudrillard asks,
rhetorically, is loss of statusor social non-existenceless upsetting than hunger? The monstrosity of
such a conception in light of, say, the recent famine in Ethiopia is best
contemplated in purely humorous terms. Imagine, then, Monsieur
Baudrillard in a restaurant. He peruses the menu fastidiously, selecting at
last, with the waiters recommendation, medallions of veal accompanied by
lightly buttered haricots verts, followed by a simple green salad, fruit and
mixed cheeses, espresso, and a sliver of apricot tartcomplemented by a
delicate Chablis and, to finish, a noble but little-known Armagnac. Then,
without a quiver, and without so much as having seen any food, Baudrillard
languidly calls for his check, says a gracious farewell to the matre dhotel,
and departs, having consumed the signs of a satisfying repast and fulfilled
all the essential requirements of symbolic exchange . Disdain quantitative measures and
hard evidence. Spin elaborate theories out of a few anecdotes. Baudrillard cannot afford to concede the validity of
empirical standards of proof, for to do so would invite a great many unsettling questions. Exactly how, for example, is my
grandmothers need to sleep caused by the manufacture of beds? Does her sleepiness increase with a rising rate of box
spring production? Anyone can see that this kind of thinking might lead directly to science, which Baudrillard considers
merely a system of defense and imposed ignorance. For him, positivism, that hereditary curse of the Enlightenment,
sets up criteria which, in their alleged objectivity, create a false reality by excluding whatever does not conform to a
limiting, conventionalizing language: the object of a (given) science is only the effect of its discourse.
If they are right that our actions and intellects are
poisoned by an oversaturation with information, how do
they propose to free us from that? It is not just
information that mattersthe context and content of
information is VITAL to our understanding and strategies
of resistance. Their seductive play undermines the
ideological commitments of information saturation
because it explicitly refuses to engage with them---they
make the problem worse
Douglas Kellner 3, George F. Kneller Philosophy of Education Chair in the
Graduate School of Education at UCLA, Baudrillard: A New McLuhan?,
Illuminations, 2003, http://www.uta.edu/huma/illuminations/kell26.htm
Undoubtedly, the media are playing an ever greater role in our personal and social lives, and have dramatically transformed our economy, polity, and society in ways that we are only now becoming aware of.
Living within a great transformation, perhaps as significant as the transformation from feudalism to industrial capitalism, we are engaged in a process of dramatic mutation, which we are barely beginning to
understand, as we enter the brave new world of media saturation, computerization, new technologies, and new discourses. Baudrillard's contribution lies in his calling attention to these novelties and

doubts remain as to whether the media


transformations and providing new concepts and theories to understand them. Yet

are having quite the impact that Baudrillard ascribes to them and whether his theory provides
adequate concepts to analyze the complex interactions between media, culture, and society today. In this section, I shall suggest that Baudrillard's media theory is vitiated by three subordinations which

limitations in
undermine its theoretical and political usefulness and which raise questions as well about the status of postmodern social theory. I shall suggest that the

Baudrillard's theory can be related to his uncritical assumption


of certain positions within McLuhan's media theory and that therefore earlier critiques of McLuhan can accurately and usefully be applied to Baudrillard. This critique
will suggest that indeed Baudrillard is a "new McLuhan" who has repackaged McLuhan into new postmodern cultural capital. First, in what might be called a formalist subordination,

Baudrillard subordinates
, like McLuhan, privileges the form of media technology over what might be called the media apparatus, and thus

content, meaning, and the use of media to its purely formal


structure and effects. Baudrillard -- much more so than McLuhan who at least gives some media history and analysis of the media

tends to abstract media form and effects from the media


environment --

environment and erases political economy, media production,


thus

and society as large) from his theory


media environment (i.e. . Against abstracting media form and effects from context, I would

argue that the use and effects of media should be carefully examined and
evaluated in terms of specific contexts. Distinctions between
context and use, form and content, media and reality , all
dissolve, however, in Baudrillard's one-dimensional theory
where global theses and glib pronouncements replace careful
analysis and critique . Baudrillard might retort that it is the media themselves which abstract from the concreteness of everyday, social, and political life and

media analysis
provide abstract simulacra of actual events which themselves become more real than "the real" which they supposedly represent. Yet even if this is so,

should attempt to recontextualize media images and simulacra


rather than merely focusing on the surface of media form . Furthermore,
instead of operating with a model of (formal) media effects, I would argue that it is preferable to operate with a dialectical perspective which posits multiple roles and functions to television and other media.

Baudrillard's formalism vitates the project of ideology


Another problem is that

critique , and against his claims that media content are irrelevant and unimportant, I would propose grasping the dialectic of form and content in media communication, seeing how media
forms constitute content and how content is always formed or structured, while forms themselves can be ideological, as when the situation comedy form of conflict/resolution projects an ideological vision
which shows all problems easily capable of being resolved within the existing society, or when action-adventure series formats of violent conflict as the essence of reality project a conservative view of human
life as a battleground where only the fittest survive and prosper.[12] For a dialectical theory of the media, television would have multiple functions (and potential decodings) where sometimes the ideological
effects may be predominant while at other times time functions a medium like television functions as mere noise or through the merely formal effects which Baudrillard puts at the center of his analysis.

there is no real theory or practice of cultural interpretation


Consequently,

in Baudrillard's theory, which denies the


media (increasingly anti-) also emanates an anti-hermeneutical bias that
importance of content and is against interpretation .[13] This brings us to a second
subordination in Baudrillard's theory in which a more dialectical position is subordinated to media essentialism and technological determinism. For -- according to Baudrillard -- it is the technology of, say,
television that determines its effects (one-way transmission, semiurgy, implosion, extermination of meaning and the social) rather than any particular content or message (i.e. for both Baudrillard and
McLuhan "the media is the message"), or its construction or use within specific social systems. For Baudrillard, media technology and semiurgy are the demiurges of media practices and effects, separated
from their uses by specific economic and political interests, individuals and groups, and the social systems within which they function. Baudrillard thus abstracts media from social systems and essentializes
media technology as dominant social forces. Yet against Baudrillard, one could argue that capital continues to be a primary determinant of media form and content in neo-capitalist societies just as state
socialism helps determine the form, nature, and effects of technologies in certain state socialist societies. Baudrillard, like McLuhan, often makes essentializing distinctions between media like television or
film, ascribing a particular essence to one, and an opposed essence to the other. Yet it seems highly problematical to reduce apparatuses as complex, contradictory, and many-sided as television (or film or
any mass medium) to its formal properties and effects, or to a technological essence. It is therefore preferable, for theories of media in the capitalist societies, to see the media as syntheses of technology
and capital, as technologies which serve specific interests and which have specific political and economic effects (rather than merely technological ones). It is also preferable to see the dialectic between
media and society in specific historical conjunctures, to see how social content, trends, and imperatives help constitute the media which in turn influence social developments and help constitute social

For Baudrillard,
reality. , the media constitute a simulated,
by contrast today simply

hyperreal, and obscene world(view (in his technical sense) ), and a dialectic of media and society is shortcircuited in a new version

The political implications of this analysis are that


of technological determinism.

constituting alternative media, or alternative uses or forms of


existing media, is useless or worse because media in their very
essence for him militate against emancipatory politics or any
project of social transformation. Such cynical views, primarily however,

benefit conservative interests who presently control the media in


their own interests -- a point to which I shall soon return.

Baudrillards theories have no statistical basis and are


painfully vague
Dutton, 90 [Denis, philosopher hater extraordinaire, Jean Baudrillard,
Philosophy and Literature, vol. 4, pg. 234-5, //MW]
when it isnt unintelligible, almost
To this list of charges I would add only that,
everything Baudrillard says is either trite or somehow vaguely
or baldly false. We are not allowed long to forget that Baudrillard is a
sociology professor. Poster believes that Baudrillards work is invaluable in beginning to
comprehend the impact of new communication forms on society. Id advise anyone seeking
to understand the broad implications of computer and video
technologies for information and entertainment to search
elsewhere, but if you want to know which way the wind is blowing
in theory, this is the place. The selections in this book begin in 1968, when Baudrillard was still
some kind of a Marxist, and continue through The Masses: The Implosion of the Social in the Media
This last piece proposes the familiar notion that we are
(1985).
imprisoned in a world of media simulations, video phantasms, and
that we cannot come to know the real not because we are ignorant but
because we are overinformed: we will never in the future be able to separate reality
from its statistical, simulative projection in the media. This isnt an uncertainty weve experienced in
So much
the past, but a brand new kind of uncertainty brought about by an excess of information.
for the trite part about video simulations replacing reality and media/
information overload. The false part comes when Baudrillard talks about
the public reaction to this. The response of the masses (he still
fancies bits of Marxist parlance) to the media is silence people get even
with public opinion polls, television, advertising, and so forth by
plunging themselves into a state of stupor. Like McLuhan, Baudrillard
doesnt want to call this sort of thing good or bad; unlike McLuhan, he
gives very few examples of the phenomena he purports to
describe. There are no examples whatsoever of how public silence,
passivity, and alienation serve as strategies to counter and
undermine the oppression of the media. And how could he give an
example of this? To be sure, there is an abundance of stupified people
out there sitting in front of television screens; but to portray their
stupefaction as a form of calculated revenge on the media is frivolous
without even being interesting.

Perm do the aff and the alternative in all other instances.


Double bind: either a) the alt cant overcome the one instance
of the aff which means its weak and fails anyway, or b) the alt
shields the link and I coopt nearly all solvency to the K, in
which case the net benefit is the aff.
Fiat links the alt to the k its a simulation I dont link cause I
didnt fiat

Вам также может понравиться