The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

**Cope** · December 05, 2020, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by pacifism

Out of curiosity, was the civil rights movement in the ‘50s and ‘60s also Marxist? There were socialists among the organizers and leaders in that movement too.

To put it briefly, Marxists tend to view America’s cultural revolution (which includes the civil rights movement) as a Gramscian offensive against the “cultural hegemony” of the ruling elite. This, and not the Frankfurt conspiracy, is often referred to as cultural Marxism by conservatives. As per Gramsci’s actual view, the revolution was/is the product of a quasi-consensus within civil society on social issues which was curated by the elite to serve the elite. In a contemporary context, this is very much evidenced by the ruling class's curation of "anti-racist" rhetoric and the quid pro quo relationship between BLM and the liberal establishment.

In other words, according to Marxian reasoning, those calling themselves radicals who bang the drum of social justice are often acting as puppets of the very power structures they claim to oppose (even though this is precisely what most self-identifying Marxists/socialists do.)

In my opinion, the most reasonable and concrete thing that can be said about the ethical State, the cultural State, is this: every State is ethical in as much as one of its most important functions is to raise the great mass of the population to a particular cultural and moral level, a level (or type) which corresponds to the needs of the productive forces for development, and hence to the interests of the ruling classes. The school as a positive educative function, and the courts as a repressive and negative educative function, are the most important State activities in this sense: but, in reality, a multitude of other so-called private initiatives and activities tend to the same end—initiatives and activities which form the apparatus of the political and cultural hegemony of the ruling classes.

Hegel’s conception belongs to a period in which the spreading development of the bourgeoisie could seem limitless, so that its ethicity or universality could be asserted: all mankind will be bourgeois. But, in reality, only the social group that poses the end of the State and its own end as the target to be achieved can create an ethical State—i.e. one which tends to put an end to the internal divisions of the ruled, etc., and to create a technically and morally unitary social organism.

Selections from the Prison Notebooks, Antonio Gramsci, 1999, pp. 526-27.

Anyway, postmodernism can mean a lot of things to a lot of people in a lot of fields, but in philosophy it’s broadly defined as a rejection of Modernism. It’s not really influenced by Marx in particular. Postmodernists are also skeptical the Enlightenment rationality and ideology or meta-narratives in general. Marxism is only one example of a modernist philosophy. Postmodernists that are Marxist can exist, but their willingness to criticize concepts of Marxism is really upsetting to people in more classical Marxist schools of thought. Critical theory on the other hand is partly inspired by Marxism, yes, as well as Kant. It’s basically just literary criticism, but on society instead of literature. If you think that’s the end of the world and a dangerously Marxist idea, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

My main criticisms of Prof. Jordan “Lobster Dad” Peterson are that he denounces relativism as being nihilistic but incorporates subjective concepts into his own beliefs. I’m not talking about his politics beliefs, I’m talking about his beliefs and advice in his self-help books, so I think there is a tension between some of his political and non-political statements. It seems like you aren’t really concerned with that one, so I’ll elaborate on why I think Lobster Dad’s descriptions of the Left is inaccurate.

Peterson, like many right-wing pundits, tends to clump everyone left of the center into some kind of homogenous, unified whole. Why anyone could trust someone on the right to describe the left over someone on the left themselves is beyond me. To be clear, I find the left/right binary to be one-dimensional, but in the spirit of meeting people where they are at, I hope it’s obvious that pointing out the competing factions of an extremely broad political philosophy called “leftism” is not obfuscating. If anything, the real obfuscation is acting like the left or the right are remotely monolithic. Jordan Peterson often talks about Marxism, identity politics activists, and postmodernists, so let’s start with that.

Postmodernists, identity political activists, and Marxists usually have different interests and goals. There is no unifying dogma behind these left-wing ideologies, except that the current society has problems. People often treat identity politics as some kind of left-wing dogma, but that’s actually not an accurate description of large segments of the center-left and the far-left. So when Lobster Dad makes them into one monolithic movement all over our society, it overlooks that there isn’t just debate between leftists, but there is also a lot of fighting between the three:

Marxists think that identity political activists care more about representation and are acquiescing to the unjust capitalist order, and an hour spent discussing women’s rights or something is an hour that should have been spent advancing the class struggle. ¡Viva la revolución!
On the other hand, identity politics activists (SJWs, basically) think that too many Marxists are white brocialists that are basically unconcerned with minority issues and are about as anti-intersectional as your average conservative.
Then you throw postmodernists into the mix, and they keep trying to be skeptical about binaries in general and keep deconstructing and subverting our concepts of Marxist/non-Marxist, bourgeoisie/proletariat, male/female, and so on. Identity politics assumes that group identity exist and are useful for organization in politics. Postmodernists would say that these group identities of different races, genders, etc. are socially constructed and possibly even oppressive ways of thinking.
Around this time. More classically minded Marxists and identity politics activists will turn on the postmodernists, because they think that they need these concepts to understand, organize, and advancement their causes, and postmodernists are actually doing much in the way of policy proposals.

With those three perspectives put together, it’s easy to see how infighting can quickly become a problem for the Left as a whole, and why they lose often. This even came up in a smaller scale during the last two Democratic parties, where there were people so caught up in their little movement within a movement that they were legitimately going for Bernie or bust.

A similar phenomenon exists in right-wing factions too. Libertarians, neoconservatives, social conservatives, and anti-democracy authoritarians are all at odds with each other too. It's just not as obvious because most conservatives basically like the status quo, so they have more common ground, but there is still the occasional that loses in the primaries for being insufficiently conservative in some way. That’s why I find it pointless to lump such disparate groups into one instead of merely evaluating whatever issue is at hand. People who say that the Left does this or the Right that might work on an audience that already agrees with them, but it’s not particularly convincing to anyone else. That kind of technique is usually more of an appeal to biases more than an actual argument for or against anything.

Accusing Peterson of being too casual with his references to the left/leftism isn’t a substantive criticism. The crudeness of the left-right spectrum is well understood, but in conversation pragmatic concerns take priority; it is rarely necessary to offer a detailed breakdown of all political factions in order to make a general point(s).

A further complication is the ambiguity of factional boundaries and instances of ideological intersection. For example, the initial bullet point which suggests that Marxists view identity activists as distracting from the revolution sits in contradiction to the prior claim that there were socialists among the organizers and leaders of the civil rights movement.

Finally, when Peterson (or others) do attempt to specify particular factions (i.e. neo-Marxists), they're falsely accused of peddling "nonsense terms".

Of course I agree that natural hierarchies exist. Who disagrees with that? That’s a very uncontroversial truth, but he uses it to imply ... what, exactly? The problem with that tactic is that if someone doesn’t make the implication clear, we just have to guess what he’s trying to advocate and get accused of putting words in his mouth all along the way. Classic motte-and-bailey.

But no one has ever claimed that all hierarchies are the product of the Western patriarchy, not even that person you googled (I think that the Middle East in the second millennium BC predates most definitions of the West anyway.). No one wants to abolish all hierarchies because that makes no sense. Even anarchists only want to abolish coercive hierarchies. People on the Left – broadly speaking – are most often concerned with the current social hierarchies of class, race, or gender, in which change is obviously possible. Lobsters have nothing to do with any of that. If it’s supposed to be useful information, then at that point, why not use the natural hierarchy of lobsters to defend the every human hierarchy that’s ever existed?

It would certainly be accurate to claim that "every human hierarchy that's ever existed" is a product of our species' evolutionary history (unlike the counter claim that hierarchies are solely or mostly a product of malign social construction).

**athanaric** · December 05, 2020, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by Legio_Italica

And so it begins:

It's incredible, isn't it? Also, I can't help but see the parallels between the people supporting this kind of legislation and the original National Socialists. They use the same kind of reasoning and racial "logic". I hope Oregon gets sued into bankruptcy.

**PointOfViewGun** · December 06, 2020, 06:17 AM

Originally Posted by athanaric

It's incredible, isn't it? Also, I can't help but see the parallels between the people supporting this kind of legislation and the original National Socialists. They use the same kind of reasoning and racial "logic". I hope Oregon gets sued into bankruptcy.

What a malicious wish that would cause real harm to thousands of people who have nothing to do with a piece of inconsequential funding campaign.

**alhoon** · December 06, 2020, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun

What a malicious wish that would cause real harm to thousands of people who have nothing to do with a piece of inconsequential funding campaign.

It would also hit progressive agenda hard though. So ... perhaps it can be seen as a acceptable collateral damage. Sure, a lot of people that have nothing to do with it will suffer hardship if Oregon gets sued into bankruptcy and they don't deserve that. But on the other hand, neither do the future generations deserve to suffer for the mistakes of the progressives.
The tree of sanity has to be watered with tears of financially struggling people from time to time.

**PointOfViewGun** · December 06, 2020, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by alhoon

It would also hit progressive agenda hard though. So ... perhaps it can be seen as a acceptable collateral damage. Sure, a lot of people that have nothing to do with it will suffer hardship if Oregon gets sued into bankruptcy and they don't deserve that. But on the other hand, neither do the future generations deserve to suffer for the mistakes of the progressives.
The tree of sanity has to be watered with tears of financially struggling people from time to time.

That is truly a sick sentiment, or you truly do not understand the financial weight a state carries for thousands of people, police officers, firefighters, doctors, nurses, garbage collectors, so on and on. Just because you can't stand to see a few million dollars be used for a particular group shouldn't justify calls to bankrupt the whole system.

**alhoon** · December 06, 2020, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun

That is truly a sick sentiment, or you truly do not understand the financial weight a state carries for thousands of people, police officers, firefighters, doctors, nurses, garbage collectors, so on and on. Just because you can't stand to see a few million dollars be used for a particular group shouldn't justify calls to bankrupt the whole system.

As someone from a country that would have been nearly bankrupt, I can tell you that nooope, even if Oregon goes bankrupt the rest of the USA would pay to keep it afloat. There will be a hit, but even less severe than what Greece, Ireland or Portugal went through from the EU as USA is the same country not a supernational economic union.
This will not be like Argentina, it won't be like Greece or Ireland either.

It will be like Florida, which has been nearly bankrupt a few times and had to be financially rescued by other states. Or like Detroit, the city, that has been bankrupt in 2013. Not nearly bankrupt, but bankrupt.

**PointOfViewGun** · December 07, 2020, 12:41 AM

Originally Posted by alhoon

As someone from a country that would have been nearly bankrupt, I can tell you that nooope, even if Oregon goes bankrupt the rest of the USA would pay to keep it afloat. There will be a hit, but even less severe than what Greece, Ireland or Portugal went through from the EU as USA is the same country not a supernational economic union.
This will not be like Argentina, it won't be like Greece or Ireland either.

It will be like Florida, which has been nearly bankrupt a few times and had to be financially rescued by other states. Or like Detroit, the city, that has been bankrupt in 2013. Not nearly bankrupt, but bankrupt.

So, it won't go bankrupt... Sigh... Whoring around terms like that to piggy back from deplorable thoughts is really boring.

**athanaric** · December 07, 2020, 12:49 AM

That is truly a sick sentiment,

To each his own, I guess.

or you truly do not understand the financial weight a state carries for thousands of people, police officers, firefighters, doctors, nurses, garbage collectors, so on and on. Just because you can't stand to see a few million dollars be used for a particular group shouldn't justify calls to bankrupt the whole system.

Fun fact: Oregon is part of another country. If a US member state decides to institunionalize racism, the rest of the union can act against that.
And now I'm waiting for one of the resident to explain how I'm dumb and racial discrimination is totally in line with the US constitution.

Other fun fact: some people don't understand the ramifications of state authorities awarding special privileges on the basis of the colour of their skin.

**pchalk** · December 07, 2020, 05:07 AM

Originally Posted by athanaric

To each his own, I guess.

Fun fact: Oregon is part of another country. If a US member state decides to institunionalize racism, the rest of the union can act against that.
And now I'm waiting for one of the resident smartasses to explain how I'm dumb and racial discrimination is totally in line with the US constitution.

Other fun fact: some people don't understand the ramifications of state authorities awarding special privileges on the basis of the colour of their skin.

There are Federal laws against discrimination, meaning applicable to all states regardless of their own policies. I am only aware of those involving labor opportunities though.

**alhoon** · December 07, 2020, 05:07 PM

Here's an article, written by a transexual btw, not an evil transphobic white male, about how the transgender identity is pressed on some kids.

"In the cases of Phoenix, age 4, and Avery, age 9, it was clear to me that the transgender identity was being pushed on them when it wasn’t necessarily applicable."
Really? Are you telling us that 4 years old are not mature enough to make life-defining decisions? Who would have thought...

"Avery’s mother is seen fully monetizing her transgender child’s life. [...] While it’s possible Avery truly feels transgender and will identify that way later in life, the film has very few moments in it where Avery expresses such feelings without the mother interrupting or speaking for her. "

"Phoenix’s parents had made up their minds before he was even in Kindergarten that he was a transgender child on the path toward transition.
[...]
Phoenix went back to living as a boy. His parents essentially realized they had made a huge mistake labelling their child so young."

"I applaud the film for including the story of Phoenix, because it reveals what many with common sense understand about many of these “transgender child” stories- If given enough time, a certain percentage of these kids will grow out of it. Many of us still remember a world where feminine boys or boyish girls existed without the need for medical intervention." <=== words that if a white book author uttered, would have ended with calls to have her canceled by the PC thugs.

**pchalk** · December 08, 2020, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by alhoon

Here's an article, written by a transexual btw, not an evil transphobic white male, about how the transgender identity is pressed on some kids.

"In the cases of Phoenix, age 4, and Avery, age 9, it was clear to me that the transgender identity was being pushed on them when it wasn’t necessarily applicable."
Really? Are you telling us that 4 years old are not mature enough to make life-defining decisions? Who would have thought...

"Avery’s mother is seen fully monetizing her transgender child’s life. [...] While it’s possible Avery truly feels transgender and will identify that way later in life, the film has very few moments in it where Avery expresses such feelings without the mother interrupting or speaking for her. "

"Phoenix’s parents had made up their minds before he was even in Kindergarten that he was a transgender child on the path toward transition.
[...]
Phoenix went back to living as a boy. His parents essentially realized they had made a huge mistake labelling their child so young."

"I applaud the film for including the story of Phoenix, because it reveals what many with common sense understand about many of these “transgender child” stories- If given enough time, a certain percentage of these kids will grow out of it. Many of us still remember a world where feminine boys or boyish girls existed without the need for medical intervention." <=== words that if a white book author uttered, would have ended with calls to have her canceled by the PC thugs.

As a father, I hear about these type of stories. I cannot understand why a parent would do something like this. I have no problem if adults want to label themselves, but with children ... this is really bad parenting.

**Lord Thesaurian** · December 08, 2020, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by athanaric

It's incredible, isn't it? Also, I can't help but see the parallels between the people supporting this kind of legislation and the original National Socialists. They use the same kind of reasoning and racial "logic". I hope Oregon gets sued into bankruptcy.

Unfortunately that’s not even the worst of it.

Companies listed on Nasdaq's US stock exchange will have to have "at least two diverse directors" on their board under a new proposal, Nasdaq said on Tuesday.

If companies don't meet the diversity requirements, they could be delisted.

Under the proposal, the 3,249 companies listed on Nasdaq's main US stock exchange would have to have at least one female director and at least one director who identifies as an underrepresented minority or LGBTQ+, The New York Times' DealBook first reported.

If they don't, they would have to publicly explain why they have not met the requirement or face being delisted, Nasdaq said.

https://www.businessinsider.com/nasd...isting-2020-12

I wonder how many more of these facially illegal and unconstitutional measures will come to fruition before SCOTUS has the opportunity and will to step in. It’s all the more disgusting when you consider the exchange is all too happy to host Chinese state-owned firms while Beijing routinely engages in ethnic cleansing. But not having female and minority board members? That, sir, is where they draw the line.

**Lord Thesaurian** · December 11, 2020, 03:48 PM

And then everyone clapped.

**alhoon** · December 11, 2020, 04:05 PM

Who the hell is Dana Nessel and why is she lying about what her son said?

**Lord Thesaurian** · December 11, 2020, 04:48 PM

Michigan AG. Apparently she felt it necessary to virtue signal her intersectional identities as a Facebook mom, Jew, liberal and loyal Democrat, perhaps in hopes of getting a shoutout from Biden’s Twitter account.