According to some critics, student protesters are currently attempting to stomp out free speech in the name of political correctness. At Yale, students demanded the resignation of administrators for defending insensitive Halloween costumes. At the University of Missouri, a student shoved a reporter who was trying to cover protests. Now some students at Princeton think the elite Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs should change its name. While many have lauded these protests, others argue that students are trying to shut down differing opinions and debate.

But stifling speech isn’t a problem confined to the left. Conservatives try to shut down speech they don’t like as well–often in much more aggressive ways.

Take the case of trans writer Sarah Nyberg. Over the last year, Nyberg has been using Twitter to criticize Gamergate, a loose movement that has virulently fought against accusations of sexism in video games. Nyberg argued that Gamergate was shot through with sexism, anger, transphobia, and violence. Gamergate advocates responded by finding and revealing her name and personal information online and sending her rape and death threats. They hacked her personal server and used ten-year-old chat logs to spread baseless accusations of pedophilia.

Breitbart, a popular conservative-leaning news organization, picked up the story, publicly accusing various people who had supported Nyberg of countenancing pedophilia. “Everyone that interacted with me publicly was harassed and intimidated in the hopes they would dissociate from me,” Nyberg tells Quartz. “Many were even threatened with having their employers contacted.”

This was, in short, an organized campaign of harassment and intimidation designed to shame and silence Nyberg and anyone who supported her. She held opinions that people disliked, and so she was doxxed and virtually attacked. This is ideologically motivated online harassment. But because it was perpetuated by right-wingers, it’s rarely presented as an attack on free speech or as an overreach of political correctness.

In fact, arguments about how free speech is being endangered—especially online—are almost always directed at the left, not the right. Jonathan Chait’s viral essay about political correctness, for example, talks about how his friend Hanna Rosin was criticized by people he describes as leftist feminists. But he makes no mention of Gamergate advocates or anti-feminists who, one could argue, are also seeking to silence opinions with which they disagree.

Similarly, the Atlantic in September published a lengthy story about the dangers of censorship and of the syllabus trigger warnings favored by some liberal activists on American college campuses. But that article did not include perhaps the most high-profile case of academic censorship in recent memory: that of Steven Salaita, whose position at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign was rescinded when his criticism of Israel angered donors. Apparently, because Salaita is a liberal, censoring him doesn’t deserve the same discussion in an article on academic free speech. (The University of Illinois recently granted Salaita a settlement.)

These are only a few examples. Anita Sarkeesian, a feminist video game critic, has had to cancel talks because of anti-feminist death threats. Milo Yiannopoulos, a writer at Breitbart, tried to silence prominent Black Lives Matter activist Shaun King by spreading baseless rumors that he was not black (Yiannopoulus has been involved in the attacks on Nyberg as well.) Breitbart also wrote multiple articles about Monica Foy, a woman who was in no way a public figure, for sending out an anti-cop tweet. As Breitbart surely knew would happen, her phone and address were quickly leaked online, and she received numerous threatening voice mails. Her family’s addresses were leaked as well.

As sociologist and trans feminist Katherine Cross tells Quartz, “the political right nurses a number of shibboleths that one can never say a word against without bringing down hellfire: we never think of the fact that one cannot publicly criticize the military easily as a form of political correctness, for instance, but it meets the classic definition far better.”

So when people talk about the dangers of political correctness, why aren’t such examples of conservative intolerance ever brought up?

There are probably several reasons. First, bashing the left for political correctness has become a popular pastime for many liberals like Jonathan Chait and Katha Pollitt. By declaring your commitment to free speech, you can show your seriousness and relative political moderation. Much of the discussion of political correctness, then, is about inter-left positioning. Talking about censorship perpetuated by right-leaning pundits in that context would just muddy the waters.

Second, the left itself tends to frame harassment that stems from politically conservative sources as prejudice rather than censorship. Gamergate, for example, is typically criticized for misogyny, rather than for stifling free speech.

Yet in practice, prejudice and censorship are so intertwined it’s difficult to separate them. For example, after freelance writer Sarah Sahim wrote a piece about the need for more diversity in indie rock, she was targeted for vicious harassment by neo-Nazis. She received rape and death threats and numerous racist and sexist insults.

All the harassment comes from men, Sahim tells Quartz. “My guess is that white masculine fragility came into play—they are annoyed by default when someone speaks out against them.” Sexism and racism are easy weapons in the battle to shut down speech.

“What harassment, especially harassment en masse, does is effectively chill speech.” sociologist Cross tells Quartz. “You start calculating around the inevitability of it, thinking ‘I shouldn’t say this because it may give a clue about where I live’ or ‘I won’t say this because I know someone will take it out of context.’ Every time I publish an article, tweet, or even give answers in interviews like this I have to think about my family, the fallout that might affect them, and whether there is some unforeseen offense I’ll give to someone on the far right who will make me their pet project for the next god-knows-how-long.”

Sadly, in the age of the internet and social media, such treatment isn’t even reserved for high-profile individuals or those with large platforms. As Foy’s experience shows, anyone who expresses opinions the right disagrees with can be targeted.

People who truly care about freedom of speech, and who worry about silencing in the name of political correctness, should care about the right’s actions too. By framing the problem as one perpetuated by liberals, we allow individuals on the right to continue to harass their own ideological enemies with impunity. As it is, current discussions of political correctness don’t challenge censorship. They provide cover for it.

WRITTEN BY
Noah Berlatsky

It's the lefties who push that idiocy called Political correctness.

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 1^st, 2015 at 12:38pm:

It's the lefties who push that idiocy called Political correctness.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservative_correctness

If true, then all I can say is suck on this big fat one. You reap what you sow


Quote:

This was, in short, an organized campaign of harassment and intimidation designed to shame and silence Nyberg and anyone who supported her. She held opinions that people disliked, and so she was doxxed and virtually attacked. This is ideologically motivated online harassment. But because it was perpetuated by right-wingers, it’s rarely presented as an attack on free speech or as an overreach of political correctness.

This is a daily occurrence from the left, so suck on it.

Kiron22 wrote on Dec 1^st, 2015 at 12:41pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 1st, 2015 at 12:38pm: It's the lefties who push that idiocy called Political correctness. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservative_correctness

Conservative correctness ("CC"), also known as patriotic correctness ("PC")[1] or right-wing political correctness[2] is a term referring to a brand of political correctness practiced by conservatives. Yes, seriously. Whereas political correctness attempts to minimize offense through the rebranding of certain words and terms to be neutral or inclusive, its conservative counterpart rebrands terms to include extreme political bias,


I think you should re-read your article and match it with the definition

Baron is correct. The article is about lefties political correctness

No it isn't. Right wingers are often criticized but not outright attacked. You find that violent hate mobs online are almost always exclusively right wing and male dominated.

Compare the two "Tech ethics" subs on Reddit, the left wing Ghazi and the right wing KiA. KiA has been implicated in recent shootings at BLM protesters and is being investigated by the FBI, Ghazi is a very mature community where information has sources and rare aggressive violent behavior (from left wingers) is moderated and they are banned.

Look at Youtube, compare two popular channels say the left wing Tooltime to the right wing Sargon of Akkad.

Sargon of Akkad doxxes people (releases their home/work details) is incredibly aggressive, calls minorities "Sp*cs", "N*ggers" etc etc, engages in outright quote mining and editing of footage to make it look like people said something they didn't say. Sargon of Akkad has hundreds of thousands of right wing subscribers on Youtube.

Tooltime another large channel sources all his information to journals, has studied psychology and philosophy, is incredibly polite to people in his comment sections and tries to foment real discussion on issues.

Censorship online and largely in the media is generally the domain as the right, as the appeal to status quo is easy and people don't like to be criticized.

How about how that SBS reporter lost his job for decrying the absolute jingoistic disgrace ANZAC day has become. Yet Bolt still denies the Stolen Generation happened and nothing happens to him.

Kiron22 wrote on Dec 1^st, 2015 at 12:50pm:

No it isn't. Right wingers are often criticized but not outright attacked. You find that violent hate mobs online are almost always exclusively right wing and male dominated.. Compare the two "Tech ethics" subs on Reddit, the left wing Ghazi and the right wing KiA. KiA has been implicated in recent shootings at BLM protesters and is being investigated by the FBI, Ghazi is a very mature community where information has sources and rare aggressive violent behavior (from left wingers) is moderated and they are banned. Look at Youtube, compare two popular channels say the left wing Tooltime to the right wing Sargon of Akkad. Sargon of Akkad doxxes people (releases their home/work details) is incredibly aggressive, calls minorities "Sp*cs", "N*ggers" etc etc, engages in outright quote mining and editing of footage to make it look like people said something they didn't say. Sargon of Akkad has hundreds of thousands of right wing subscribers on Youtube. Tooltime another large channel sources all his information to journals, has studied psychology and philosophy, is incredibly polite to people in his comment sections and tries to foment real discussion on issues. Censorship online and largely in the media is generally the domain as the right, as the appeal to status quo is easy and people don't like to be criticized. How about how that SBS reporter lost his job for decrying the absolute jingoistic disgrace ANZAC day has become. Yet Bolt still denies the Stolen Generation happened and nothing happens to him.

oh geezuz whatever.

Please show us these crazed left wing hate mobs doxxing people.

Oh look doesn't exist.

4chan, Reddit, 8chan, Stormfront, websites with literally tens of millions of users between them and the default is right wing crybaby edgelord who gets offended at literally every little thing the left criticizes and siks huge hatemobs on them.

Kiron22 wrote on Dec 1^st, 2015 at 1:02pm:

Please show us these crazed left wing hate mobs doxxing people. Oh look doesn't exist. 4chan, Reddit, 8chan, Stormfront, websites with literally tens of millions of users between them and the default is right wing crybaby edgelord who gets offended at literally every little thing the left criticizes and siks huge hatemobs on them.

It isn't hard to figure out, if you had a brain that is not swinging all over the place left.

Today we are in a time where most people are sick to death of the left and will not take it lying down.

Now go to one of those supposed right wing sites and get your medicine that is well deserved after 40 years of constant left wing whining.

Free speech only matters when it's the right.

Once again that sentence proves itself true..

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 1^st, 2015 at 1:17pm:

Kiron22 wrote on Dec 1st, 2015 at 1:02pm: Please show us these crazed left wing hate mobs doxxing people. Oh look doesn't exist. 4chan, Reddit, 8chan, Stormfront, websites with literally tens of millions of users between them and the default is right wing crybaby edgelord who gets offended at literally every little thing the left criticizes and siks huge hatemobs on them. It isn't hard to figure out, if you had a brain that is not swinging all over the place left. Today we are in a time where most people are sick to death of the left and will not take it lying down. Now go to one of those supposed right wing sites and get your medicine that is well deserved after 40 years of constant left wing whining.

So the world isn't sick of arms dealing and war industry shennanigans then??

:o :o :o

Kiron22 wrote on Dec 1^st, 2015 at 1:34pm:

Free speech only matters when it's the right. Once again that sentence proves itself true..

Freedom has to be defended by arms dealing, i mean,... standing armys that rely on a standing bespoke infrastructure. But, you can't expect the market forces employed to just destroy the old technology,.. surely that wouldn't make aforementioned market forces ameniable? Just pawn it off and 'we' can all look the other way  :o :o

no wuckas bro  :-?

(Talk about government intervention into the bullshite invisible hand of free-markets  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) )

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 1^st, 2015 at 12:38pm:

It's the lefties who push that idiocy called Political correctness.

Really?

That's news to me.

I've certainly never supported it.

The problem here is, the Right see what they think of as
PC as a brake on their bigoted hate-speech.

And so, as long as it serves that purpose, I've decided I
can live with it.

Kat wrote on Dec 1^st, 2015 at 3:43pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 1st, 2015 at 12:38pm: It's the lefties who push that idiocy called Political correctness. Really? That's news to me. I've certainly never supported it. The problem here is, the Right see what they think of as PC as a brake on their bigoted hate-speech. And so, as long as it serves that purpose, I've decided I can live with it.

I call BS. You have never lived without it.

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 1^st, 2015 at 3:56pm:

Kat wrote on Dec 1st, 2015 at 3:43pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 1st, 2015 at 12:38pm: It's the lefties who push that idiocy called Political correctness. Really? That's news to me. I've certainly never supported it. The problem here is, the Right see what they think of as PC as a brake on their bigoted hate-speech. And so, as long as it serves that purpose, I've decided I can live with it. I call BS. You have never lived without it.

POQ if you've nothing worthwhile to add.

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 1^st, 2015 at 12:38pm:

It's the lefties who push that idiocy called Political correctness.

Exactly. We righties are totally above politics, we just like to see the right thing done for our country.

As strange as it may seem, what this country needs is a terrorist attack on Australian soil to shut the idiots up and let decent people take control of our government.

Amen.

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 1^st, 2015 at 3:56pm:

Kat wrote on Dec 1st, 2015 at 3:43pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 1st, 2015 at 12:38pm: It's the lefties who push that idiocy called Political correctness. Really? That's news to me. I've certainly never supported it. The problem here is, the Right see what they think of as PC as a brake on their bigoted hate-speech. And so, as long as it serves that purpose, I've decided I can live with it. I call BS. You have never lived without it.

Neither have we, Progressives. We’re just fond of the new political correctness. Don’t worry though. Once we get Mr Abbott back in charge, we’ll have border protection, direct action, national security and good government.

Say what you’ll do and do what you say, Mr Abbott was our most politically correct grown-up yet.

And thank heavens for that.

It should be noted that the op takes place in an American context, and therefore finding the equivalent in Australia would be close to impossible.

Anyway, you go against the mainstream at your own peril. 

http://i1.wp.com/www.scriptonitedaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/003-Scott-Brown6.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/pc.jpg

PC is definitely the domain of the comrade leftists...... :D

Swagman wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2015 at 12:56am:

http://i1.wp.com/www.scriptonitedaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/003-Scott-Brown6.jpg http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/pc.jpg PC is definitely the domain of the comrade leftists...... :D

yeah.....  the libturds tend to rely on BS and lies.

Cliff48 wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2015 at 5:47am:

yeah.....  the libturds tend to rely on BS and lies

...no you're getting confused with the global warming alarmists  :D

"Cultural Marxism"

Want to spread your ignorance and keep using Neo-Nazi conspiracy theories.

Explain to me, a Marxist, how Cultural Marxism even works. This will be interesting because you've actually got to explain an oxymoron.

Kiron22 wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2015 at 12:35pm:

Explain to me, a Marxist

I bet you're 'Groucho'  ;D

Kiron22 wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2015 at 12:35pm:

Explain to me, a Marxist, how Cultural Marxism even works. This will be interesting because you've actually got to explain an oxymoron.

There you go Comrade Kiron22....... :D

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cultural+marxism


Quote:

TOP DEFINITION    cultural marxism The gradual process of destroying all traditions, languages, religions, individuality, government, family, law and order in order to re-assemble society in the future as a communist utopia. This utopia will have no notion of gender, traditions, morality, god or even family or the state. The Philosophy was proven not to Work already by Vladimir Lenin as he tried in vein to control and subjugate the people. He admitted before he died that capitalism was the only true system in which people understand how to live with each other.... Lenin knew that there were a few western Idiots who kept spreading the communist ideas long after Lenin gave up.... he called these people useful idiots [;D  as they had more emotion than brains and could be used to subvert the western states for a military takeover in the future as the citizens would already be perverted and sick and weak from poisonous ideas, decadent lusts and mindless entertainment. cultural marxism: "everything is relative man".... "there is no truth".... "reality is what we make of it".... smoke dope and drop out dude!!! .... we don't need money... cops are violent pigs (especially the white ones). Women are smarter and betteer than men, all men are rapists. "get in touch with your feelings".... "if it feels good then do it"... "she so empowered!!... you go girl!!"... "there is no god"... "Let's burn the bible" "don't criticize islam!!"... "you're a bigot" "a homophobe" "you're an agist classist pig"..... "think globally act locally".... "save the whales.. the trees... the poor african kids!!".... "drop out of school and rebell against your parents".... "Dad's are scum.... mum's are cool".... "go vegetarian" "the ufo's are comming!!" .... "don't teach kids math's and reading!!!!!..... you elitist pig!!!.... they need to learn to build a veggie patch and learn to recycle and wear gender nuetral clothes!!!" "we can all eat other's cuisines and enjoy each others religions from every nation in one smelting pot of peoples and get along together and intermarry" by Politically incorrect guy. January 02, 2014

;D

Literally makes no sense using Marxist analytics or social theory, under Marxism, culture is defined by the material interactions that people have with the physical world and economic base, you can't use "culture" to bring about a Communist society, it literally makes no sense since Marxism is an analytical tool in examining base-superstructure.

"Cultural Marxism" is a retarded right wing conspiracy theory that doesn't even understand incredibly basic philosophy or sociology.

Lenin never used the term "useful idiots" it was actually coined by Mises.

Swagman wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2015 at 12:52pm:

Kiron22 wrote on Dec 2nd, 2015 at 12:35pm: Explain to me, a Marxist, how Cultural Marxism even works. This will be interesting because you've actually got to explain an oxymoron. There you go Comrade Kiron22....... :D http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cultural+marxism Quote: TOP DEFINITION    cultural marxism The gradual process of destroying all traditions, languages, religions, individuality, government, family, law and order in order to re-assemble society in the future as a communist utopia. This utopia will have no notion of gender, traditions, morality, god or even family or the state. The Philosophy was proven not to Work already by Vladimir Lenin as he tried in vein to control and subjugate the people. He admitted before he died that capitalism was the only true system in which people understand how to live with each other.... Lenin knew that there were a few western Idiots who kept spreading the communist ideas long after Lenin gave up.... he called these people useful idiots [;D  as they had more emotion than brains and could be used to subvert the western states for a military takeover in the future as the citizens would already be perverted and sick and weak from poisonous ideas, decadent lusts and mindless entertainment. cultural marxism: "everything is relative man".... "there is no truth".... "reality is what we make of it".... smoke dope and drop out dude!!! .... we don't need money... cops are violent pigs (especially the white ones). Women are smarter and betteer than men, all men are rapists. "get in touch with your feelings".... "if it feels good then do it"... "she so empowered!!... you go girl!!"... "there is no god"... "Let's burn the bible" "don't criticize islam!!"... "you're a bigot" "a homophobe" "you're an agist classist pig"..... "think globally act locally".... "save the whales.. the trees... the poor african kids!!".... "drop out of school and rebell against your parents".... "Dad's are scum.... mum's are cool".... "go vegetarian" "the ufo's are comming!!" .... "don't teach kids math's and reading!!!!!..... you elitist pig!!!.... they need to learn to build a veggie patch and learn to recycle and wear gender nuetral clothes!!!" "we can all eat other's cuisines and enjoy each others religions from every nation in one smelting pot of peoples and get along together and intermarry" by Politically incorrect guy. January 02, 2014 ;D

No no, Swagman, you just said. It's all about totalitarian ideologies, single factor explanations of history and declaring certain groups virtuous and others evil.

You know, getting rid of civil rights and citizenship, the clash of civilizations (the end-point of history), and declaring Team Australia and the Death Cult.

PC gone mad, eh?

Kiron22 wrote on Dec 1^st, 2015 at 12:50pm:

No it isn't. Right wingers are often criticized but not outright attacked. You find that violent hate mobs online are almost always exclusively right wing and male dominated. Compare the two "Tech ethics" subs on Reddit, the left wing Ghazi and the right wing KiA. KiA has been implicated in recent shootings at BLM protesters and is being investigated by the FBI, Ghazi is a very mature community where information has sources and rare aggressive violent behavior (from left wingers) is moderated and they are banned. Look at Youtube, compare two popular channels say the left wing Tooltime to the right wing Sargon of Akkad. Sargon of Akkad doxxes people (releases their home/work details) is incredibly aggressive, calls minorities "Sp*cs", "N*ggers" etc etc, engages in outright quote mining and editing of footage to make it look like people said something they didn't say. Sargon of Akkad has hundreds of thousands of right wing subscribers on Youtube. Tooltime another large channel sources all his information to journals, has studied psychology and philosophy, is incredibly polite to people in his comment sections and tries to foment real discussion on issues. Censorship online and largely in the media is generally the domain as the right, as the appeal to status quo is easy and people don't like to be criticized. How about how that SBS reporter lost his job for decrying the absolute jingoistic disgrace ANZAC day has become. Yet Bolt still denies the Stolen Generation happened and nothing happens to him.

Do you know just how stupid and bigoted you sound when you make foolish statements like those?

Kiron22 wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2015 at 1:03pm:

"Cultural Marxism" is a retarded right wing conspiracy theory that doesn't even understand incredibly basic philosophy or sociology.

It's an entry on Wikipedia. No one actually calls themselves a cultural Marxist. The point of Marxism is economic determinism.

The closest anything comes to such a term is the Western European communists of the 60s and 70s - Reformist parliamentary Marxists like Gramsci. It was a reaction to the Soviet, Trotskyist and Maoist parties and factions of the past.

It lasted for about 5 minutes. These Marxists were essentially social democrats, which is where they all went: absorbed into the labour and social democratic parties, and later, the Greens. The rest gave up politics altogether, moving into various local struggles: the Green Bans in Sydney, environmentalism, prison reform, women's groups and feminism.

"Cultural" Marxism is contradiction in terms. It is, indeed, a retarded conspiracy theory that doesn't exist and never really has.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2015 at 3:21pm:

Kiron22 wrote on Dec 1st, 2015 at 12:50pm: No it isn't. Right wingers are often criticized but not outright attacked. You find that violent hate mobs online are almost always exclusively right wing and male dominated. Compare the two "Tech ethics" subs on Reddit, the left wing Ghazi and the right wing KiA. KiA has been implicated in recent shootings at BLM protesters and is being investigated by the FBI, Ghazi is a very mature community where information has sources and rare aggressive violent behavior (from left wingers) is moderated and they are banned. Look at Youtube, compare two popular channels say the left wing Tooltime to the right wing Sargon of Akkad. Sargon of Akkad doxxes people (releases their home/work details) is incredibly aggressive, calls minorities "Sp*cs", "N*ggers" etc etc, engages in outright quote mining and editing of footage to make it look like people said something they didn't say. Sargon of Akkad has hundreds of thousands of right wing subscribers on Youtube. Tooltime another large channel sources all his information to journals, has studied psychology and philosophy, is incredibly polite to people in his comment sections and tries to foment real discussion on issues. Censorship online and largely in the media is generally the domain as the right, as the appeal to status quo is easy and people don't like to be criticized. How about how that SBS reporter lost his job for decrying the absolute jingoistic disgrace ANZAC day has become. Yet Bolt still denies the Stolen Generation happened and nothing happens to him. Do you know just how stupid and bigoted you sound when you make foolish statements like those?

Not you, Maria. He was probably referring to Longy.

It seems to me that we would not need something like "political correctness" if people understood more about respectful behaviour. That's all people before you start!

Cultural Marxism may be a term coined by conservatives/libertarians/non-leftists, but this doesn't mean it's a conspiracy. It goes back to at least Gramsci, where he wanted to undermine and destroy the institutions and foundations of Western civilisation. You can trace this idea through the Frankfurt School, Critical theorists, deconstructionists (where it reaches its peak in Derrida), to today's post-structuralists. Post-structuralism is the dominant paradigm of thought in the academe and intellectual circles.

The term Cultural Marxism is used for two reasons (which are actually interconnected): 1. The old left realised they couldn't overthrow the bourgeois via appealing to the working classes, so they devised other ways of destroying the bourgeois: by subverting cultural institutions and values. 2. The simple paradigm of oppressor/oppressed (bourgeois/proletariat) used by Marx was adopted by Western dissidents, but used for the categories of race/ethnicity and gender/sex, among others.

Phemanderac wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2015 at 3:59pm:

It seems to me that we would not need something like "political correctness" if people understood more about respectful behaviour. That's all people before you start!

Yes, every individual is different, which is why socialism always fails.

Swagman wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2015 at 7:28pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Dec 2nd, 2015 at 3:59pm: It seems to me that we would not need something like "political correctness" if people understood more about respectful behaviour. That's all people before you start! Yes, every individual is different

Funny then how so many of your posts are full of crap that denies this.

Bam wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2015 at 8:38pm:

Swagman wrote on Dec 2nd, 2015 at 7:28pm: Phemanderac wrote on Dec 2nd, 2015 at 3:59pm: It seems to me that we would not need something like "political correctness" if people understood more about respectful behaviour. That's all people before you start! Yes, every individual is different Funny then how so many of your posts are full of crap that denies this.

That's just when I quote you.... :D

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2015 at 5:22pm:

Cultural Marxism may be a term coined by conservatives/libertarians/non-leftists, but this doesn't mean it's a conspiracy. It goes back to at least Gramsci, where he wanted to undermine and destroy the institutions and foundations of Western civilisation. You can trace this idea through the Frankfurt School, Critical theorists, deconstructionists (where it reaches its peak in Derrida), to today's post-structuralists. Post-structuralism is the dominant paradigm of thought in the academe and intellectual circles. The term Cultural Marxism is used for two reasons (which are actually interconnected): 1. The old left realised they couldn't overthrow the bourgeois via appealing to the working classes, so they devised other ways of destroying the bourgeois: by subverting cultural institutions and values. 2. The simple paradigm of oppressor/oppressed (bourgeois/proletariat) used by Marx was adopted by Western dissidents, but used for the categories of race/ethnicity and gender/sex, among others.

True. They decided to destroy civilisation by running for parliament.

Good point, Mistie.

Show me a corporation and I'll find the person there in charge of giving sexual harassment seminars. McDonalds and Coke both like to put blacks and asians in their advertisements as to appeal to the widest audiences of racial super-friends... but is capitalism being looked at as the source of Multiculturalism, feminism, or political correctness?

NO. Because it makes sense that companies would want women to feel comfortable working for them. That advertisers want to seem appealing and friendly to everyone. That religion is going to fall away as the world of science gains explanatory power. These aren't expressions of Marxist theory infecting our culture - they're functions of capitalism and good will. Plain and simple, but those who push this Conservative conspiracy theory won't accept what I've said here as an explanation - because they are as much set in ideology as any hardcore Marxist Soviet could ever dream of being.

That the reds under the beds scaremongering is still being wheeled out in 2015 - 30 years since the fall of the USSR is more than a bit ridiculous.

Let's face it; Marxism isn't some dangerous and powerful boogieman anymore - it's just a very old criticism of capitalism. But so what? - who cares? Are conservatives really THAT afraid of it?

The only thing "Cultural Marxism" proves is how far downhill conservatism has gone.

Oh you want to protest black people being shot in America - YOU'RE A CULTURAL MARXIST! Oh you think there's still a lot of bullying of women - YOU'RE A CULTURAL MARXIST! Oh you don't believe in god? YOU'RE A CULTURAL MARXIST! Give us a break! We're not like that here in Oz - you wanna be a Marxist? Cool, here's your bottle of red - report to Centrelink comrade.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2015 at 5:22pm:

Cultural Marxism may be a term coined by conservatives/libertarians/non-leftists, but this doesn't mean it's a conspiracy. It goes back to at least Gramsci, where he wanted to undermine and destroy the institutions and foundations of Western civilisation. You can trace this idea through the Frankfurt School, Critical theorists, deconstructionists (where it reaches its peak in Derrida), to today's post-structuralists. Post-structuralism is the dominant paradigm of thought in the academe and intellectual circles. The term Cultural Marxism is used for two reasons (which are actually interconnected): 1. The old left realised they couldn't overthrow the bourgeois via appealing to the working classes, so they devised other ways of destroying the bourgeois: by subverting cultural institutions and values. 2. The simple paradigm of oppressor/oppressed (bourgeois/proletariat) used by Marx was adopted by Western dissidents, but used for the categories of race/ethnicity and gender/sex, among others.

Post-Structuralism was a criticism of both Marxism as well as of the west:

"The period was marked by political anxiety, as students and workers alike rebelled against the state in May 1968, nearly causing the downfall of the French government. At the same time, however, the support of the French Communist Party (FCP) for the oppressive policies of the USSR contributed to popular disillusionment with orthodox Marxism. Post-structuralism offered a means of justifying these criticisms, by exposing the underlying assumptions of many Western norms."

SOURCE: en.wikipedia org/wiki/Post-structuralism

Choat, however, rewrites this history by reexamining some of the central post-structuralist texts: Lyotard, Derrida, Foucault, and Deleuze. His intention is not to make post-structuralists into crypto-Marxists, or to argue that Marx was a post-structuralist avant la lettre, but to demonstrate that post-structuralism was constituted by an engagement with Marx; a critical engagement, but an engagement nonetheless.

SOURCE: ndpr.nd edu/news/24534-marx-through-post-structuralism-lyotard-derrida-foucault-deleuze/

Come to think of it the dreaded Frankfurt School also Criticized Marxism:

SOURCE: en.wikipedia org/wiki/Soviet_Marxism:_A_Critical_Analysis

quietthomas wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 1:19am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 2nd, 2015 at 5:22pm: Cultural Marxism may be a term coined by conservatives/libertarians/non-leftists, but this doesn't mean it's a conspiracy. It goes back to at least Gramsci, where he wanted to undermine and destroy the institutions and foundations of Western civilisation. You can trace this idea through the Frankfurt School, Critical theorists, deconstructionists (where it reaches its peak in Derrida), to today's post-structuralists. Post-structuralism is the dominant paradigm of thought in the academe and intellectual circles. The term Cultural Marxism is used for two reasons (which are actually interconnected): 1. The old left realised they couldn't overthrow the bourgeois via appealing to the working classes, so they devised other ways of destroying the bourgeois: by subverting cultural institutions and values. 2. The simple paradigm of oppressor/oppressed (bourgeois/proletariat) used by Marx was adopted by Western dissidents, but used for the categories of race/ethnicity and gender/sex, among others. Post-Structuralism was a criticism of both Marxism as well as of the west: "The period was marked by political anxiety, as students and workers alike rebelled against the state in May 1968, nearly causing the downfall of the French government. At the same time, however, the support of the French Communist Party (FCP) for the oppressive policies of the USSR contributed to popular disillusionment with orthodox Marxism. Post-structuralism offered a means of justifying these criticisms, by exposing the underlying assumptions of many Western norms." SOURCE: en.wikipedia org/wiki/Post-structuralism Choat, however, rewrites this history by reexamining some of the central post-structuralist texts: Lyotard, Derrida, Foucault, and Deleuze. His intention is not to make post-structuralists into crypto-Marxists, or to argue that Marx was a post-structuralist avant la lettre, but to demonstrate that post-structuralism was constituted by an engagement with Marx; a critical engagement, but an engagement nonetheless. SOURCE: ndpr.nd edu/news/24534-marx-through-post-structuralism-lyotard-derrida-foucault-deleuze/ Come to think of it the dreaded Frankfurt School also Criticized Marxism: SOURCE: en.wikipedia org/wiki/Soviet_Marxism:_A_Critical_Analysis

The quotes more or less support what I said. Post-structuralism is not about the working classes. It moved onto issues such as the deconstruction of race/ethnicity (when it suites them, of course, as they won't deconstruct non-white races/ethnicities) and gender/sex, as a way of critiquing Western culture.

quietthomas wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 12:30am:

Show me a corporation and I'll find the person there in charge of giving sexual harassment seminars. McDonalds and Coke both like to put blacks and asians in their advertisements as to appeal to the widest audiences of racial super-friends... but is capitalism being looked at as the source of Multiculturalism, feminism, or political correctness? NO. Because it makes sense that companies would want women to feel comfortable working for them. That advertisers want to seem appealing and friendly to everyone. That religion is going to fall away as the world of science gains explanatory power. These aren't expressions of Marxist theory infecting our culture - they're functions of capitalism and good will. Plain and simple, but those who push this Conservative conspiracy theory won't accept what I've said here as an explanation - because they are as much set in ideology as any hardcore Marxist Soviet could ever dream of being.

You'll actually find social conservatives, not libertarians, agreeing with a number of your points. Social conservatives (not economic conservatives) are fully aware that big business imports cheap labour to the detriment of domestic labourers. The thing is though, when people come to the defence of multiculturalism, feminism and political correctness, it's not the capitalists who are the most vocal - it's far-left trendy groups that speak up. Perhaps the capitalists are smart enough to let others do their work for them.

Are you really a new member who signed up just to post those 3 posts?

The OP is spot on. The right attempts to gag debate by playing the victim, falsely claiming that genuine criticism of racism, sexism, homophobia etc is an outrageous conspiracy to persecute the poor white man and take away his freedom.

You don't need to look far to see proof of this - just look at how many times you hear "we're not allowed to say [insert bigoted slur] anymore" - which of course really means "its outrageous that people are now standing up to our bigotry - whereas previously we got a free pass".

Karnal wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2015 at 3:26pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 2nd, 2015 at 3:21pm: Kiron22 wrote on Dec 1st, 2015 at 12:50pm: No it isn't. Right wingers are often criticized but not outright attacked. You find that violent hate mobs online are almost always exclusively right wing and male dominated. Compare the two "Tech ethics" subs on Reddit, the left wing Ghazi and the right wing KiA. KiA has been implicated in recent shootings at BLM protesters and is being investigated by the FBI, Ghazi is a very mature community where information has sources and rare aggressive violent behavior (from left wingers) is moderated and they are banned. Look at Youtube, compare two popular channels say the left wing Tooltime to the right wing Sargon of Akkad. Sargon of Akkad doxxes people (releases their home/work details) is incredibly aggressive, calls minorities "Sp*cs", "N*ggers" etc etc, engages in outright quote mining and editing of footage to make it look like people said something they didn't say. Sargon of Akkad has hundreds of thousands of right wing subscribers on Youtube. Tooltime another large channel sources all his information to journals, has studied psychology and philosophy, is incredibly polite to people in his comment sections and tries to foment real discussion on issues. Censorship online and largely in the media is generally the domain as the right, as the appeal to status quo is easy and people don't like to be criticized. How about how that SBS reporter lost his job for decrying the absolute jingoistic disgrace ANZAC day has become. Yet Bolt still denies the Stolen Generation happened and nothing happens to him. Do you know just how stupid and bigoted you sound when you make foolish statements like those? Not you, Maria. He was probably referring to Longy.

All violent mobs are right-wing???  Just take a look around here?  Kat - leftwinger has literally called for right-wingers to be killed. Kiron is not a lot better.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 6:41am:

The OP is spot on. The right attempts to gag debate by playing the victim, falsely claiming that genuine criticism of racism, sexism, homophobia etc is an outrageous conspiracy to persecute the poor white man and take away his freedom. You don't need to look far to see proof of this - just look at how many times you hear "we're not allowed to say [insert bigoted slur] anymore" - which of course really means "its outrageous that people are now standing up to our bigotry - whereas previously we got a free pass".

Hmm  'Isms' and 'phobias' Gandalf?

As soon as you mention "the Right" you are committing 'politics-ism' or would it be better described as 'ideology-ism'...... which is no better than racism, sexism, homophobia, fatism, dumbism ManlySeaEagleism or whatever.... ;D :D

"People that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...."  :D

...and before you go on...I'm guilty as well.  ;)

Progressive ochlocrats conveniently leave 'politics-ism' / 'ideology-ism' off their list of nasty behaviours, due to the fact that whinging and bitching about the rich and successful is their best means of getting other people to pay for their way in life....  :(

The 'Right' which mostly represents "the rich and successful" don't care as much because they pay their own way in life....  :D

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 4:39am:

The quotes more or less support what I said. Post-structuralism is not about the working classes. It moved onto issues such as the deconstruction of race/ethnicity (when it suites them, of course, as they won't deconstruct non-white races/ethnicities) and gender/sex, as a way of critiquing Western culture.

So your complaint is that leftists have political discourses on things other than the working classes?... and yet THEY'RE the ones you're calling Marxists?

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 6:41am:

The OP is spot on. The right attempts to gag debate by playing the victim, falsely claiming that genuine criticism of racism, sexism, homophobia etc is an outrageous conspiracy to persecute the poor white man and take away his freedom.

It's the left who does that, they try to silence anyone who has an opinion that differs from the narrative they are trying to construct.

Maryam has never incited hatred against muslims her mother is still a muslim, doesn't stop the leftists trying to block free speech.


Quote:

Student Union blocks speech by inflammatory anti sharia activist. A human rights campaigner has been barred from speaking at Warwick University after organisers were told she was highly inflammatory and could incite hatred. Maryam Namazie, an Iranian born campaigner against religious laws, had been invited to speak at the Warwick Atheists,Secularists and Humanists Society next month,but the student union blocked the event. theguardian.com/education/2015/sep/26/student-union-blocks-speech-activist-maryam-namazie-warwick

quietthomas wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 12:42am:

That the reds under the beds scaremongering is still being wheeled out in 2015 - 30 years since the fall of the USSR is more than a bit ridiculous. Let's face it; Marxism isn't some dangerous and powerful boogieman anymore - it's just a very old criticism of capitalism.

Marxism is not just a criticism of capitalism, it's actually the most precise definition of capitalism.

Later Marx changed tack. He moved on from the Communist Manifesto, becoming a social democrat. This is the career progression of many revolutionaries. Nelson Mandela, Xanana Guzmao, Vaclav Havel, even the Dali Lama. Once in power, people tend to realize how important finance is, and how crucial consensus is. The importance of Marxism is understanding the interdependence of labour and capital.

Marxism is useful to define capitalism, even if you don't want to change it. Marxist historians, for example, are hardly out to change history. What they show is history's economic determinants. Without such a focus, you only get part of the picture. Without a look at class, it's impossible to understand what makes history happen.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 7:17am:

Karnal wrote on Dec 2nd, 2015 at 3:26pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 2nd, 2015 at 3:21pm: Kiron22 wrote on Dec 1st, 2015 at 12:50pm: No it isn't. Right wingers are often criticized but not outright attacked. You find that violent hate mobs online are almost always exclusively right wing and male dominated. Compare the two "Tech ethics" subs on Reddit, the left wing Ghazi and the right wing KiA. KiA has been implicated in recent shootings at BLM protesters and is being investigated by the FBI, Ghazi is a very mature community where information has sources and rare aggressive violent behavior (from left wingers) is moderated and they are banned. Look at Youtube, compare two popular channels say the left wing Tooltime to the right wing Sargon of Akkad. Sargon of Akkad doxxes people (releases their home/work details) is incredibly aggressive, calls minorities "Sp*cs", "N*ggers" etc etc, engages in outright quote mining and editing of footage to make it look like people said something they didn't say. Sargon of Akkad has hundreds of thousands of right wing subscribers on Youtube. Tooltime another large channel sources all his information to journals, has studied psychology and philosophy, is incredibly polite to people in his comment sections and tries to foment real discussion on issues. Censorship online and largely in the media is generally the domain as the right, as the appeal to status quo is easy and people don't like to be criticized. How about how that SBS reporter lost his job for decrying the absolute jingoistic disgrace ANZAC day has become. Yet Bolt still denies the Stolen Generation happened and nothing happens to him. Do you know just how stupid and bigoted you sound when you make foolish statements like those? Not you, Maria. He was probably referring to Longy. All violent mobs are right-wing???  Just take a look around here?  Kat - leftwinger has literally called for right-wingers to be killed. Kiron is not a lot better.

Sure, but Longy's the master. He called for terrorist attacks to ramp up security and (presumably) initiate a military coup, or at the very least, a police state.

I don't know if this is left or right wing, dear. I just know Longy is that good. 

Swagman wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 7:36am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 6:41am: The OP is spot on. The right attempts to gag debate by playing the victim, falsely claiming that genuine criticism of racism, sexism, homophobia etc is an outrageous conspiracy to persecute the poor white man and take away his freedom. You don't need to look far to see proof of this - just look at how many times you hear "we're not allowed to say [insert bigoted slur] anymore" - which of course really means "its outrageous that people are now standing up to our bigotry - whereas previously we got a free pass". Hmm  'Isms' and 'phobias' Gandalf? As soon as you mention "the Right" you are committing 'politics-ism' or would it be better described as 'ideology-ism'...... which is no better than racism, sexism, homophobia, fatism, dumbism ManlySeaEagleism or whatever.... ;D :D "People that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...."  :D ...and before you go on...I'm guilty as well.  ;) Progressive ochlocrats conveniently leave 'politics-ism' / 'ideology-ism' off their list of nasty behaviours, due to the fact that whinging and bitching about the rich and successful is their best means of getting other people to pay for their way in life....  :(

Good point, Swagman. People can't change their sex and race. How could they possibly change their wealth?

These people can be so mean.

Karnal wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 2:17pm:

Marxism is useful to define capitalism, even if you don't want to change it. Marxist historians, for example, are hardly out to change history. What they show is history's economic determinants. Without such a focus, you only get part of the picture. Without a look at class, it's impossible to understand what makes history happen.

I guess that's why Marx is considered one of the very first Sociologists (along with Durkheim, Comte and others).

But I get the feeling that the kinds of Conservatives who use the term "Cultural Marxism" to defend racists and push for traditionalism would also call Sociology a form of "Cultural Marxism".

There's a particular kind of American conservative using this term - the most iconic being William S. Lind (who gets a mention on the Wikipedia).

But yeah, this William S. fellow has a book you can read online: traditionalright com/victoria

It's all about PC thugs taking over America, has quotes like this in it:


"The flow of yen also brought the federal army new recruits, mostly black gang members from the inner city, immigrants straight off the banana boat, and women. The gangs demanded they be accepted whole and designated as military units, with names like the Bad Boyz Battalion and the West Philly Skullsuckers, on the grounds that “forcing them into a white male structure would deny their unique cultural richness.” The result was units that spread drugs and mayhem throughout the federal army but ran as soon as someone shot at them. The immigrant outfits had Spanish as the language of command, and their officers would do anything for a bribe and nothing without one. The all-female infantry battalions were issued cardboard penises so they could take a leak in the field without wetting their drawers."

Quote:

I guess that's why Marx is considered one of the very first Sociologists (along with Durkheim, Comte and others). But I get the feeling that the kinds of Conservatives who use the term "Cultural Marxism" to defend racists and push for traditionalism would also call Sociology a form of "Cultural Marxism". There's a particular kind of American conservative using this term - the most iconic being William S. Lind (who gets a mention on the Wikipedia). But yeah, this William S. fellow has a book you can read online: traditionalright com/victoria It's all about PC thugs taking over America, has quotes like this in it: "The flow of yen also brought the federal army new recruits, mostly black gang members from the inner city, immigrants straight off the banana boat, and women. The gangs demanded they be accepted whole and designated as military units, with names like the Bad Boyz Battalion and the West Philly Skullsuckers, on the grounds that “forcing them into a white male structure would deny their unique cultural richness.” The result was units that spread drugs and mayhem throughout the federal army but ran as soon as someone shot at them. The immigrant outfits had Spanish as the language of command, and their officers would do anything for a bribe and nothing without one. The all-female infantry battalions were issued cardboard penises so they could take a leak in the field without wetting their drawers."

What a load of krap. Can you imagine the US army taking in gangs and giving them their own military units?

The cultural Marxism thing is Amerikan propaganda. It relies on porkies like the above to spread krap. Sociology is seen as leftist because it looks at the cause of social issues like poverty and crime, rather than proscribing black and white knee-jerk reactions.

This ideology is so strong, it's become un-PC to even mention capitalism, class, etc.

Remember, ideology disguises the social cause of things as inherently natural or biological; as if the way we distribute wealth is completely outside our control. As if our societies and our lives are driven by natural forces - like the weather.

Ideology is one thing, but porkies are another. Lies fuel ideology, and ideology fuels lies. The purpose of knowledge is to expose this.

The cultural Marxist thing is not an attack on "the left", it's an attack on knowledge.

Karnal wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 3:37pm:

The cultural Marxist thing is not an attack on "the left", it's an attack on knowledge.

I tend to agree with this, by declaring these loosely related academic movements "Cultural marxism" American conservatives are attempting to distance themselves from having to interact with the ideas of the past half century.

It's an ignorant kind of traditionalism that Christian Conservatives in America are trying to push.

That said, to play devils advocate, the previous linked book "Victoria: A novel of 4th Generation Warefare" by William S. Lind is knowingly a work of fiction - it's kind of his paranoid predictions about the future of America (it's quite comical in parts, a bit like Ayn Rand with all the leftists being absolutely evil and all the right wingers being flawless paragons of virtue).

However his "factual" writings aren't much better:

"Today, when the cultural Marxists want to do something like “normalize” homosexuality, they do not argue the point philosophically. They just beam television show after television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual"


...yep, I knew it all along - Television is making everyone gay.


SOURCE: marylandthursdaymeeting com/Archives/SpecialWebDocuments/Cultural.Marxism.htm

quietthomas wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 1:18pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 4:39am: The quotes more or less support what I said. Post-structuralism is not about the working classes. It moved onto issues such as the deconstruction of race/ethnicity (when it suites them, of course, as they won't deconstruct non-white races/ethnicities) and gender/sex, as a way of critiquing Western culture. So your complaint is that leftists have political discourses on things other than the working classes?... and yet THEY'RE the ones you're calling Marxists?

Is that what you got from that post? The cognitive force is strong in this one.

Karnal wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 3:37pm:

Sociology is seen as leftist because it looks at the cause of social issues like poverty and crime, rather than proscribing black and white knee-jerk reactions.

No. Only certain sociology. Durkheim would hardly be considered leftist. It's also ironic you consider non-leftist sociology black and white when Marxists themselves divide people into the simple categories of bourgeois and proletariat.


Quote:

Remember, ideology disguises the social cause of things as inherently natural or biological; as if the way we distribute wealth is completely outside our control. As if our societies and our lives are driven by natural forces - like the weather.

Who argues along purely biological lines?


Quote:

Ideology is one thing, but porkies are another. Lies fuel ideology, and ideology fuels lies. The purpose of knowledge is to expose this. The cultural Marxist thing is not an attack on "the left", it's an attack on knowledge.

Utter rubbish. Exposing the hyper-criticism of cultural Marxism is not an attack on knowledge. One could even calling it critical thinking.

Additionally, what the left and cultural Marxists engage in could hardly be called knowledge. It's closer to moral posturing than anything else. Leftist critiques are driven by their own values and morals. They aren't impartial assessors of knowledge; rather, they are merely criticisers of certain values and morals. Any knowledge gained along the way is purely accidental.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 6:41am:

The OP is spot on. The right attempts to gag debate by playing the victim, falsely claiming that genuine criticism of racism, sexism, homophobia etc is an outrageous conspiracy to persecute the poor white man and take away his freedom. You don't need to look far to see proof of this - just look at how many times you hear "we're not allowed to say [insert bigoted slur] anymore" - which of course really means "its outrageous that people are now standing up to our bigotry - whereas previously we got a free pass".

You are correct in one sense that certain people of the right now play the victim card, which was originally devised and used very successfully by the left. Many on the right have fallen to left wing propaganda rather than affirming their own strengths and achievements. 

quietthomas wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 5:21pm:

William S. Lind. However his "factual" writings aren't much better: "Today, when the cultural Marxists want to do something like “normalize” homosexuality, they do not argue the point philosophically. They just beam television show after television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual" ...yep, I knew it all along - Television is making everyone gay. SOURCE: marylandthursdaymeeting com/Archives/SpecialWebDocuments/Cultural.Marxism.htm

What's not true about what he said? Tv and media in general is very good at converting people to a cause, simply through repeating the narrative they want.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 7:33pm:

Leftist critiques are driven by their own values and morals.

That's true of all political critiques. So this accusation of "Cultural Marxism" seems a bit like sour grapes.

That's the nature of ideas - some are reasonable enough to be listened to. Others don't get listened to as much and fall by the wayside. That's how a free society should work.

quietthomas wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 5:20pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 3:37pm: The cultural Marxist thing is not an attack on "the left", it's an attack on knowledge. I tend to agree with this, by declaring these loosely related academic movements "Cultural marxism" American conservatives are attempting to distance themselves from having to interact with the ideas of the past half century. It's an ignorant kind of traditionalism that Christian Conservatives in America are trying to push.

Good point. You don’t have to agree with ideas or certain points of view, but you do need to understand them in the context of our history of ideas.

Labelling certain ideas as unreadable - unthinkable - is political correctness of the worst possible kind.

And yes, it’s just as bad as banning climate skeptics or even David Irving from speaking in public.

quietthomas wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 7:50pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:33pm: Leftist critiques are driven by their own values and morals. That's true of all political critiques.

Yes. Which is why Karnal's claim it's about knowledge is either deceitful or ignorant.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 7:33pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 3:37pm: Sociology is seen as leftist because it looks at the cause of social issues like poverty and crime, rather than proscribing black and white knee-jerk reactions. No. Only certain sociology. Durkheim would hardly be considered leftist. It's also ironic you consider non-leftist sociology black and white when Marxists themselves divide people into the simple categories of bourgeois and proletariat.

Er, the French revolution divided people into the simple categories of bourgeois and peasants, Mistie. Marx wrote during the industrial revolution, hence the proletariat.

No one has called "non leftist" sociology black and white. Tele columnists, shockjocks and One Nation candidates are never sociologists.

There’s a PhD in that one, eh?

Karnal wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 8:05pm:

No one has called "non leftist" sociology black and white.

Quote:

Sociology is seen as leftist because it looks at the cause of social issues like poverty and crime, rather than proscribing black and white knee-jerk reactions.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 8:01pm:

Yes. Which is why Karnal's claim it's about knowledge is either deceitful or ignorant.

I think you've misread the situation. I read it as Karnal calling the "Cultural Marxism" paranoia an attack on knowledge... not saying that The Frankfurt School's critiques were above reproach. Just that the Conservative Conspiracy theory about The Frankfurt School being some kind of Marxist brainwashing super-group - is kind of well.... stupid.

That's kind of the point, the people framing "Cultural Marxism" don't want to discuss ideas - they want to demonize thought.

In this way I totally agree that such conspiracy theories are an attack on knowledge, an attack on intellect, and ultimately and attack on the audience. We (the audience) should be respected to be able to make up our own minds on ideas - stigmatizing ideas as to sweep them out of view has never been something I'm for - and likely never will be.

But that's what "Cultural Marxism" seems to be an attempt at. It's a sort of "don't read this you'll catch Marxism" ploy.

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 1:31pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 6:41am: The OP is spot on. The right attempts to gag debate by playing the victim, falsely claiming that genuine criticism of racism, sexism, homophobia etc is an outrageous conspiracy to persecute the poor white man and take away his freedom. It's the left who does that, they try to silence anyone who has an opinion that differs from the narrative they are trying to construct. Maryam has never incited hatred against muslims her mother is still a muslim, doesn't stop the leftists trying to block free speech. Quote: Student Union blocks speech by inflammatory anti sharia activist. A human rights campaigner has been barred from speaking at Warwick University after organisers were told she was highly inflammatory and could incite hatred. Maryam Namazie, an Iranian born campaigner against religious laws, had been invited to speak at the Warwick Atheists,Secularists and Humanists Society next month,but the student union blocked the event. theguardian.com/education/2015/sep/26/student-union-blocks-speech-activist-maryam-namazie-warwick

It's always the lefties who want to ban speakers like Maryam,Aayan Hirsi Ali,etc at universities.

Loonwatch says extreme left wing groups are responsible for 24% of all terrorist attacks in the USA, that's four times higher than Islamic extremists.
The right wingers don't even rate a mention. ;D
loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims

watch out for butthurt lefties, they can be terrorists. ;D

quietthomas wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 9:50pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 8:01pm: Yes. Which is why Karnal's claim it's about knowledge is either deceitful or ignorant. I think you've misread the situation. I read it as Karnal calling the "Cultural Marxism" paranoia an attack on knowledge... not saying that The Frankfurt School's critiques were above reproach. Just that the Conservative Conspiracy theory about The Frankfurt School being some kind of Marxist brainwashing super-group - is kind of well.... stupid. That's kind of the point, the people framing "Cultural Marxism" don't want to discuss ideas - they want to demonize thought. In this way I totally agree that such conspiracy theories are an attack on knowledge, an attack on intellect, and ultimately and attack on the audience. We (the audience) should be respected to be able to make up our own minds on ideas - stigmatizing ideas as to sweep them out of view has never been something I'm for - and likely never will be. But that's what "Cultural Marxism" seems to be an attempt at. It's a sort of "don't read this you'll catch Marxism" ploy.

İt is brainwashing if they don't teach alternative perspectives. The Humanities and Social Sciences, generally, teach two schools of thought: Marxism and Foucauldianism (post-structuralism). Liberalism and Conservatism are only mentioned in critique or for ridicule. İt's little wonder 95% of students turn out to be Marxists and/or Foucauldians. How does this count as critical or analytical thinking? İt's not critical thinking when you absorb the theories taught verbatim.

Don't get me started on their pessimism and nihilism parading as enlightenment.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 6:17am:

quietthomas wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 9:50pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 8:01pm: Yes. Which is why Karnal's claim it's about knowledge is either deceitful or ignorant. I think you've misread the situation. I read it as Karnal calling the "Cultural Marxism" paranoia an attack on knowledge... not saying that The Frankfurt School's critiques were above reproach. Just that the Conservative Conspiracy theory about The Frankfurt School being some kind of Marxist brainwashing super-group - is kind of well.... stupid. That's kind of the point, the people framing "Cultural Marxism" don't want to discuss ideas - they want to demonize thought. In this way I totally agree that such conspiracy theories are an attack on knowledge, an attack on intellect, and ultimately and attack on the audience. We (the audience) should be respected to be able to make up our own minds on ideas - stigmatizing ideas as to sweep them out of view has never been something I'm for - and likely never will be. But that's what "Cultural Marxism" seems to be an attempt at. It's a sort of "don't read this you'll catch Marxism" ploy. İt is brainwashing if they don't teach alternative perspectives. The Humanities and Social Sciences, generally, teach two schools of thought: Marxism and Foucauldianism (post-structuralism). Liberalism and Conservatism are only mentioned in critique or for ridicule. İt's little wonder 95% of students turn out to be Marxists and/or Foucauldians. How does this count as critical or analytical thinking? İt's not critical thinking when you absorb the theories taught verbatim. Don't get me started on their pessimism and nihilism parading as enlightenment.

Geez, more weapons-grade crap. 95%? Where did you get this number from? Most likely, you just made it up on the spot to convey false authority. And as for what schools teach, you haven't a clue.

Bam wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 8:33am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 6th, 2015 at 6:17am: quietthomas wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 9:50pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 8:01pm: Yes. Which is why Karnal's claim it's about knowledge is either deceitful or ignorant. I think you've misread the situation. I read it as Karnal calling the "Cultural Marxism" paranoia an attack on knowledge... not saying that The Frankfurt School's critiques were above reproach. Just that the Conservative Conspiracy theory about The Frankfurt School being some kind of Marxist brainwashing super-group - is kind of well.... stupid. That's kind of the point, the people framing "Cultural Marxism" don't want to discuss ideas - they want to demonize thought. In this way I totally agree that such conspiracy theories are an attack on knowledge, an attack on intellect, and ultimately and attack on the audience. We (the audience) should be respected to be able to make up our own minds on ideas - stigmatizing ideas as to sweep them out of view has never been something I'm for - and likely never will be. But that's what "Cultural Marxism" seems to be an attempt at. It's a sort of "don't read this you'll catch Marxism" ploy. İt is brainwashing if they don't teach alternative perspectives. The Humanities and Social Sciences, generally, teach two schools of thought: Marxism and Foucauldianism (post-structuralism). Liberalism and Conservatism are only mentioned in critique or for ridicule. İt's little wonder 95% of students turn out to be Marxists and/or Foucauldians. How does this count as critical or analytical thinking? İt's not critical thinking when you absorb the theories taught verbatim. Don't get me started on their pessimism and nihilism parading as enlightenment. Geez, more weapons-grade crap. 95%? Where did you get this number from? Most likely, you just made it up on the spot to convey false authority. And as for what schools teach, you haven't a clue.

Considering I have studied, researched and worked in this sector for 13 years, I am fully cognizant of what is taught and the political leanings of students and staff. What's your f***ing experience, pal?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 6:17am:

İt is brainwashing if they don't teach alternative perspectives.

No it's not, they're teaching the field of "Cultural Studies" in which they teach the theories that make up "Cultural Studies" - your quote could have been taken from the scopes monkey trials, George Bush's position on teaching EVOLUTION in schools, or even Fox News on Climate Change. It's the typical thinking of someone who doesn't understand what "balanced" means: It means considering all positions; NOT giving equal time to all positions.

I wouldn't expect Men's Rights Advocacy to be taught in classes that are about Feminism (although it may rate a mention) - I wouldn't expect Craniology to be taught in the Neurosciences, and I wouldn't expect Religion to be taught as part of a Science course.

Worst of all, your claim - that there are invisible elements to ideology is EXACTLY what Critical Theory studies... and your claim that there is a top down Cultural Hegemony teaching through a hidden curriculum is EXACTLY what The Frankfurt School believed (way back in the 1940s and 50s) but we all moved on from that when The Birmingham School theorists came along - as this video explains:

youtube com/watch?v=RacLjmOSKtQ

Maybe it's time you moved on too, and realized that no one is stopping you from ranting, no one is censoring you, no one is out to destroy your race, or your culture, or your nation - we're all participating in a discussion about where we go from here. That's it - that's all that's happening; and you're just pissed because EVERYONE is now getting to have their say; Australian Marxists, Australian Women, and Australian Islamics included. Other people getting a say in our constitutionally secular Australian democratic discourse  - isn't some conspiracy theory and it doesn't constitute censorship - it is in fact a sign that our Democracy is functioning as it should!

People like you need to develop better explanations of why the world is how it is. Might I suggest that taking your opposition as genuine, and reading people as giving their honest opinions rather than mentally distorting their position would be a great starting point; with Feminists really believing they're oppressed by male violence, with Islamics really just wanting to practice their religion, and with gays really just wanting equal rights in the eyes of the law - I mean - it's not THAT difficult to imagine that other people are being equally as honest with their opinions, is it?

This fact shouldn't be a threat to you - and to claim that others are simply "brainwashed" denigrates the conversation and all participants as a whole.

I don't know what kind of fantasy world you live in, but, as I've stated numerous times, universities - particularly in the Humanities and Social Sciences - are dominated by Marxism and post-structuralism. There are no courses analysing issues through a conservative or liberal (as in liberalism or classical liberalism) lens, or anything else non-leftist. You are correct, however, that conservatives and liberals can "rant" on the issues they desire (to an extent). However, not in universities. On boards such as this perhaps, but not in universities.

Universities have the duty to teach numerous perspectives. As stated previously, you do not produce critical, analytical or independent thinkers by bombarding them with only one or two perspectives. All such an approach does is sell students short and produce mindless drones.

Anyway, there will be no reform in the universities, as those who make the decisions to teach students "progressivism" have authoritarian personalities. The only way to change it is to withdraw the funding, starve the "progressives" of tax payers money. In case you haven't noticed, "progressivism" survives largely on the tax payer, through government funded programs. Withdraw the money and watch it slowly die or be little more than a bunch of small lunatic groups like the Socialist Alliance.

quietthomas wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 1:42pm:

you're just pissed because EVERYONE is now getting to have their say

Do you really believe this?  Put aside your petty left/right point scoring exercise and ask yourself if this supposed "voice" that the poor, the oppressed and the downtrodden now (supposedly) have is changing anything.  People from all walks of life whinge more than ever. Here you are, revelling in the complaints of "the right" - but you're miserable too!  So far everyone but the 1% is a loser and the only "progress" is in creating division and conflict. 

It seems "da people" have been given the microphone, but their overseers have turned off the power.

I think mistie just got owned on what he thought was 'his' topic  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 8:45pm:

I think mistie just got owned on what he thought was 'his' topic  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Expand.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 7:47pm:

Universities have the duty to teach numerous perspectives.

....and I'm sure when conservatives do some important Academic work in the field of Cultural Studies - Cultural Studies courses will include their work as part of course content.

Just as I'm sure that when Men's Rights Activists do some important work in Feminism; I'm sure they'll be included in the discourses of Feminism...

...and when religious people prove God scientifically - the sciences will include religion as part of science courses.

That's the nature of academia, that's why we have terms like 'peer reviewed' - because "fair and balanced" has nothing to do with "teaching both sides" - and you'd have to be a real fool to believe it does. But hey - maybe 2 + 2 = 5, and that should be taught equally along side '= 4' in Maths classes; maybe the still current Flat Earth movement should be taught in Geography. With your arguments anything is possible.

quietthomas wrote on Dec 8^th, 2015 at 3:21pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 7:47pm: Universities have the duty to teach numerous perspectives. ....and I'm sure when conservatives do some important Academic work in the field of Cultural Studies - Cultural Studies courses will include their work as part of course content. Just as I'm sure that when Men's Rights Activists do some important work in Feminism; I'm sure they'll be included in the discourses of Feminism... ...and when religious people prove God scientifically - the sciences will include religion as part of science courses.

Non-leftists have been writing in the domain of 'cultural studies' for years, decades, centuries even: Roger Scruton, Richard Dawkins, Russell Kirk, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Edmond Burke, Kevin McDonald, Keith Windschuttle, Frank Salter ... 


Quote:

That's the nature of academia, that's why we have terms like 'peer reviewed' - because "fair and balanced" has nothing to do with "teaching both sides" - and you'd have to be a real fool to believe it does. But hey - maybe 2 + 2 = 5, and that should be taught equally along side '= 4' in Maths classes; maybe the still current Flat Earth movement should be taught in Geography. With your arguments anything is possible.

Well, when publishing companies are stacked with people with "progressive" viewpoints, then obviously you're going to get a "progressive" journal/book. Despite that, there's still plenty of non-leftist articles/books out there.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 8^th, 2015 at 5:45pm:

Non-leftists have been writing in the domain of 'cultural studies' for years, decades, centuries even: Roger Scruton, Richard Dawkins, Russell Kirk, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Edmond Burke, Kevin McDonald, Keith Windschuttle, Frank Salter ...

... Robert Nozick

Come on guys, what is this - a reading list for undergrads?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 6:17am:

quietthomas wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 9:50pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 8:01pm: Yes. Which is why Karnal's claim it's about knowledge is either deceitful or ignorant. I think you've misread the situation. I read it as Karnal calling the "Cultural Marxism" paranoia an attack on knowledge... not saying that The Frankfurt School's critiques were above reproach. Just that the Conservative Conspiracy theory about The Frankfurt School being some kind of Marxist brainwashing super-group - is kind of well.... stupid. That's kind of the point, the people framing "Cultural Marxism" don't want to discuss ideas - they want to demonize thought. In this way I totally agree that such conspiracy theories are an attack on knowledge, an attack on intellect, and ultimately and attack on the audience. We (the audience) should be respected to be able to make up our own minds on ideas - stigmatizing ideas as to sweep them out of view has never been something I'm for - and likely never will be. But that's what "Cultural Marxism" seems to be an attempt at. It's a sort of "don't read this you'll catch Marxism" ploy. İt is brainwashing if they don't teach alternative perspectives. The Humanities and Social Sciences, generally, teach two schools of thought: Marxism and Foucauldianism (post-structuralism). Liberalism and Conservatism are only mentioned in critique or for ridicule. İt's little wonder 95% of students turn out to be Marxists and/or Foucauldians. How does this count as critical or analytical thinking? İt's not critical thinking when you absorb the theories taught verbatim. Don't get me started on their pessimism and nihilism parading as enlightenment.

That’s strange. My humanities degree taught a subject called Theories of the Right. We had no such subject for the left. These theories weren’t ridiculed at all.

I went on to do a cleaning grad dip, Mistie, so it’s all good.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 8^th, 2015 at 5:45pm:

Non-leftists have been writing in the domain of 'cultural studies' for years, decades, centuries even: Roger Scruton, Richard Dawkins, Russell Kirk, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Edmond Burke, Kevin McDonald, Keith Windschuttle, Frank Salter ...

This is the most ridiculous list of "academic" Cultural Theorists I've ever seen.

Dawkins a biologist, Milton Friedman & Friedrich Hayek a couple of extremely outdated free market economists (Hayek doesn't even have a concept of Macroeconomics), and Kevin McDonald & Keith Windschuttle a couple of race baiting historical revisionists... what a joke. Sorry, I won't be able to take anything you say seriously from here on - you just blew any credibility you might have had. Get real.

quietthomas wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 3:33am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 8th, 2015 at 5:45pm: Non-leftists have been writing in the domain of 'cultural studies' for years, decades, centuries even: Roger Scruton, Richard Dawkins, Russell Kirk, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Edmond Burke, Kevin McDonald, Keith Windschuttle, Frank Salter ...  This is the most ridiculous list of "academic" Cultural Theorists I've ever seen. Dawkins a biologist, Milton Friedman & Friedrich Hayek a couple of extremely outdated free market economists (Hayek doesn't even have a concept of Macroeconomics), and Kevin McDonald & Keith Windschuttle a couple of race baiting historical revisionists... what a joke. Sorry, I won't be able to take anything you say seriously from here on - you just blew any credibility you might have had. Get real.

They all contribute to cultural "theory" and/or human behaviour in one way or another. Dawkins' The Selfish Gene is the flip side argument to all the 'social construction' theories floating about; Friedman and Hayek were both influenced by classical liberalism, who both happened to write on economics (economics is related to culture, remember, as your Marxist buddies would agree); McDonald and Windschuttle merely interpret history and culture differently (conservatively) to the dominant left-wing narrative.

See, I was right the first time. You leftists have zero tolerance for alternative perspectives. You think your Marxist and post-structural garbage should be the only things taught. No wonder you clowns attract the ire of every non-leftist. As I stated before, you cultural Marxists are too authoritarian for there to be any reform in the academe, so only by stripping you of funding can you be removed.

Don't think I am letting you go this easy either. What you nihilists have done to higher education in the last 50 years I consider a crime against humanity. Cultural Marxists in the academe are the most dangerous of all leftists. While violent clowns like antifada may seem like the most dangerous type, they are merely over-emotional adolescents who have about the same amount of brain cells as a chimpanzee. The quiet, patient, calm, scholarly types are the most dangerous, as they invent and proliferate the pessimism, self-loathing and nihilism that is destroying the health and pride of the West. You remove these types, you remove source of the problem.

The world is currently turning right at the moment, in case you haven't noticed. How do you feel? Nervous?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 6:43am:

The world is currently turning right at the moment, in case you haven't noticed. How do you feel? Nervous?

I personally don't feel nervous, the world will no doubt realise the it's erroneous poor judgement soon enough...

We are human, we often get it wrong, part of being flawed.

Arguably as well, only some of the world are turning Right, most of the world are hard pressed enough just feeding themselves...

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 6:43am:

They all contribute to cultural "theory" and/or human behaviour in one way or another.

Hmm, yes, so do I....

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 6:43am:

You leftists have zero tolerance for alternative perspectives. You think your Marxist and post-structural garbage should be the only things taught. No wonder you clowns attract the ire of every non-leftist. As I stated before, you cultural Marxists are too authoritarian for there to be any reform in the academe, so only by stripping you of funding can you be removed. Don't think I am letting you go this easy either. What you nihilists have done to higher education in the last 50 years I consider a crime against humanity. Cultural Marxists in the academe are the most dangerous of all leftists. While violent clowns like antifada may seem like the most dangerous type, they are merely over-emotional adolescents who have about the same amount of brain cells as a chimpanzee. The quiet, patient, calm, scholarly types are the most dangerous, as they invent and proliferate the pessimism, self-loathing and nihilism that is destroying the health and pride of the West. You remove these types, you remove source of the problem. The world is currently turning right at the moment, in case you haven't noticed. How do you feel? Nervous?

Look at you, talking about me as if you know me - as if you know anything about me, then talking about how I should be "removed".

What a piece of work, just another armchair Mussolini preaching "death to the intellectuals" like all fascists have done from Stalin to Hitler.

In answer to your question; no I don't feel Nervous. A turn to the right would be just another chance for the world to see how foolish and hate fueled the right side of politics can be. From right-wingers like Trump, all the way down to people like you.  :)

Funny how the alt-right are like that. Working away hard in forums like this one. I wonder how many people here have come across you and not thought too much about it - ah well, here you are - true colours shining through.

quietthomas wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 11:24am:

"death to the intellectuals" like all fascists have done from Stalin to Hitler

Hmm what about comrades Stalin and Pol Pot.  They used their hammer and sickle to crop a few tall poppy intellectuals in their time ...especially those that didn't quite agree with their political ideologies ......a bit like your earlier post ayyyyyyyyyy Tommy?  :D :D :D :D


quietthomas wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 3:33am:

This is the most ridiculous list of "academic" Cultural Theorists I've ever seen.  Dawkins a biologist, Milton Friedman & Friedrich Hayek a couple of extremely outdated free market economists (Hayek doesn't even have a concept of Macroeconomics), and Kevin McDonald & Keith Windschuttle a couple of race baiting historical revisionists... what a joke.

..... :D

PS ... you left out Robert Nozick... :(

Swagman wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 1:22pm:

quietthomas wrote on Dec 9th, 2015 at 11:24am: "death to the intellectuals" like all fascists have done from Stalin to Hitler Hmm what about comrades Stalin and Pol Pot.

...Yeah, good pick up - I must have forgotten to mention Stalin when I mentioned... Stalin.

quietthomas wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 11:24am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 9th, 2015 at 6:43am: You leftists have zero tolerance for alternative perspectives. You think your Marxist and post-structural garbage should be the only things taught. No wonder you clowns attract the ire of every non-leftist. As I stated before, you cultural Marxists are too authoritarian for there to be any reform in the academe, so only by stripping you of funding can you be removed. Don't think I am letting you go this easy either. What you nihilists have done to higher education in the last 50 years I consider a crime against humanity. Cultural Marxists in the academe are the most dangerous of all leftists. While violent clowns like antifada may seem like the most dangerous type, they are merely over-emotional adolescents who have about the same amount of brain cells as a chimpanzee. The quiet, patient, calm, scholarly types are the most dangerous, as they invent and proliferate the pessimism, self-loathing and nihilism that is destroying the health and pride of the West. You remove these types, you remove source of the problem. The world is currently turning right at the moment, in case you haven't noticed. How do you feel? Nervous? Look at you, talking about me as if you know me - as if you know anything about me, then talking about how I should be "removed". What a piece of work, just another armchair Mussolini preaching "death to the intellectuals" like all fascists have done from Stalin to Hitler. In answer to your question; no I don't feel Nervous. A turn to the right would be just another chance for the world to see how foolish and hate fueled the right side of politics can be. From right-wingers like Trump, all the way down to people like you.  :) Funny how the alt-right are like that. Working away hard in forums like this one. I wonder how many people here have come across you and not thought too much about it - ah well, here you are - true colours shining through.

I've never advocated death to intellectuals, or anyone for that matter. Read correctly what I stated: removal from the academe.

I thought you cultural Marxists were supposed to hermeneutical experts?

That aside, there are many on the right who do wish for the intellectual left to pass away. This is why it's in most people's interests that moderate conservative governments come to power.

quietthomas wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 2:04pm:

Swagman wrote on Dec 9th, 2015 at 1:22pm: quietthomas wrote on Dec 9th, 2015 at 11:24am: "death to the intellectuals" like all fascists have done from Stalin to Hitler Hmm what about comrades Stalin and Pol Pot. ...Yeah, good pick up - I must have forgotten to mention Stalin when I mentioned... Stalin.

......yeah, good pick up Tommo.....so you believe Stalin was a fascist?  :-? 

Glad you hold with the viewpoint that fascism is just another form of socialism, like communism is?

Commies being left wing socialists, and Nazis being right wing Socialists..... :-?

Kat, the resident socialist, won't like that too much?

Swagman wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 5:58pm:

Glad you hold with the viewpoint that fascism is just another form of socialism, like communism is?

No, that would be a ridiculous position to hold.

Fascism (the antithesis of which is anarchism) is a state of rigid governance that can come from any ideology.

Fascism as a term comes from "Fasces" which was a weapon or axe - whose handle was strengthen by tightly binding dowels or sticks together to form and/or strengthen the handle. This is the metaphor which is at the core of fascist ideology - to violently restrict thought, or action, or race, or whatever the pet project of the government ideology is at the time - in order to simulate a coherent society (by taking away the freedom to be anything other than compliant).

Your idea of Fascism however is clearly based on your own political biases, hence why it can't factor in people like Pinochet, or any of the far right traditionalist fascists the Islamic world has to offer.

But don't worry - there's a word to describe a person like you too: Ideologue.

quietthomas wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 7:03pm:

No, that would be a ridiculous position to hold

Only if one is an Ideologue.... :D

Phemanderac wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 6:49am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 9th, 2015 at 6:43am: They all contribute to cultural "theory" and/or human behaviour in one way or another. Hmm, yes, so do I....

And so does Mistie. He teaches "cultural studies" in the faculty of Health & Hygiene.

quietthomas wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 7:03pm:

Swagman wrote on Dec 9th, 2015 at 5:58pm: Glad you hold with the viewpoint that fascism is just another form of socialism, like communism is? No, that would be a ridiculous position to hold. Fascism (the antithesis of which is anarchism) is a state of rigid governance that can come from any ideology. Fascism as a term comes from "Fasces" which was a weapon or axe - whose handle was strengthen by tightly binding dowels or sticks together to form and/or strengthen the handle. This is the metaphor which is at the core of fascist ideology - to violently restrict thought, or action, or race, or whatever the pet project of the government ideology is at the time - in order to simulate a coherent society (by taking away the freedom to be anything other than compliant). Your idea of Fascism however is clearly based on your own political biases, hence why it can't factor in people like Pinochet, or any of the far right traditionalist fascists the Islamic world has to offer. But don't worry - there's a word to describe a person like you too: Ideologue.

Actually, the symbol of fascism you describe represents people coming together as a force. Fascist is based on the root word for fist - five fingers are stronger than one.

I’m with Swagman. Fascism is indeed a model of socialism. The Nazis were National Socialists. Mussolini was a former high-ranking member of the Italian Socialist Party.

Fascism was designed to be a socialist alternative to communism.

Karnal wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 8:26pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Dec 9th, 2015 at 6:49am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 9th, 2015 at 6:43am: They all contribute to cultural "theory" and/or human behaviour in one way or another. Hmm, yes, so do I.... And so does Mistie. He teaches "cultural studies" in the faculty of Health & Hygiene.

Is now a good time for my picture?

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 8:34pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 9th, 2015 at 8:26pm: Phemanderac wrote on Dec 9th, 2015 at 6:49am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 9th, 2015 at 6:43am: They all contribute to cultural "theory" and/or human behaviour in one way or another. Hmm, yes, so do I.... And so does Mistie. He teaches "cultural studies" in the faculty of Health & Hygiene. Is now a good time for my picture?

I think so, Greggery. We need to put a face to this. We need to see the Roland Barthes of Human Sanitation Studies.

Semiotics, innit.