https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5NAQJANvmNg&t=1754s&pp=2AHaDZACAQ%3D%3D

What's the point of understanding posthumanism, other than pawning humanists, if it means that you (or "humans") can't affect history if you're right?

idk alain badiou is cool af though he writes so clear its crazy

>>1
there's really no point it's a purely theoretical exercise

i like big video

>>3
How is that better than media analysis that n0 critiques breadtube for?

people post too many humans

>>5
it's an aesthetic prefference

>>7
But n0 said fascism is the sublimation of ethics to aesthetics... Wait does that mean that-

>>1
Most post-humanisms don't deny that you constitute a historical subject. They would take issue with your premise.
A:

you (or "humans")

"you" might not be equivalent to "human". Someone like Luhman might take issue with the category of "human", but still believe that your psychic system constitutes the environment for the social system and therefore changes in that environment might affect a systems ability to perform autopoeisis. There is no singular "you", rather you are divividuals in many systems.
B:

can't affect history

You may still be able to affect history, but you might just not be the only or most important thing that effects history. They might be broadening what constitutes a historical subject. Rather then just denying human as a category they might accept it partly, but not think it's the only historical agent that matters. For example, you might look at wheat as having a kind of historical agency which interacts with human historical agency.

This can even run counter to your point. If you take Bernard Stiegler, and we say that technics are inseperable from the human, this might actually mean that you have stronger historical agency in conjunction with technics than had previously been assumed. If changes in technology are literally changes in the human, then you have more historical agency to affect those changes, which a humanist might deny.