Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
I made a thread about whether or not protesters in the USA who chant “Death to America” are violating the implicit social contract among citizens. My conclusion was I’m okay with it as long as, when asked, they’re open to the idea of America redeeming itself in their eyes.
"The implicit social contract among citizens"? I've only ever heard this in regard to taxes. What do you mean? Is there an implicit social contract among citizens to, what, be polite to each other? That's the world's most broken contract.
Anyway, Death to America.
MAGA has marxist components yes, i said that before several times. "the poor oppressed white men" is cultural marxism.Tucker Carlson and Bannon have explicit marxist thought processes and i always said that. Trump is different, he rarely refers to identity politics in the intersectional sense.In fact you can find the worst MAGA tendencies to be all based on marxism, as you woul
No.
Actually, nevermind, what I meant to say is Yes. Keep talking about the Marxist thought processes of Tucker and Bannon. The inanity of it is pretty entertaining. Like 5 different people have already dunked on this. I genuinely think you're a good poster, because every forum needs at least one high-volume crank to act as a forum's foil.
Lol. Craig, in the history of forums, has anyone ever replied to a single one of your posts and not said some variation of "what do you mean?" or "what the **** are you talking about?"
I think it's absolutely hilarious that you are quite clearly, plainly, unequivocally incapable of communicating your thoughts in a coherent manner, yet you have somehow managed to convince yourself that this is an "everyone else" problem.
"Cultural Marxism" is just word salad, WTF is that even supposed to mean? Modern technology will create class struggle over the means of producing culture? It's all just Fon News gibberish that people parrot out.
I told you what it means. It means using the logic of "oppressor-oppressed" of (material) class struggle applied to ethnicity, gender, sexual preference (and maybe in the future other sectionalities).
It's the kind of claim that goes like "ethnicity X has lower incomes than the average THUS it is oppressed THUS it is a moral imperative to oppress the oppressor and restore the oppressed outcomes".
Just like (material) marxists claimed the workers were exploited, the cultural marxists claim women are exploited, blacks are exploited, and so on.
They want to treat whites (and asians, in the USA), men, heterosexuals as material marxists want to treat capitalists or their bourgoise upper middle class employees.
For the MAGA cultural marxists, they consider white heterosexual uneducated men the oppressed, and they want to treat the oppressor (black trans women ideally, but there are all other variants) as marx wants to treat capitalists.
the Labor Theory of Value is what (material) marxists use to justify the claim of oppression. Racism, mysoginy and "transphobia" is what the cultural marxists on the left use to justify the claim of oppression in cultural marxism. Wokism is what the MAGA cultural marxists use to justify the claim of oppression against white uneducated men.
Mind, racism et al can and do exist. It's just that they are very far from justifying the claim of oppression. Same as some kind of exploitation of workers can actually exist in capitalism (the opposite as well ofc), but it doesn't justify the claim of oppression at all.
Identify a divide in society, check outcomes, check some groups have better outcome than others, claim THAT is PROOF of oppression (which means systemic violence, which means systemic immorality to fix), pretend to care about the oppressed, get power purporting to fix the outcomes, you cannot because your whole model as to why the outcomes were worse was completly false, keep power anyway.
That's marxism.
Cultural Marxism is just the nazi ideology of cultural Bolshevism which is why I am so confident to make the claims I do about the people who are fanatical about the ideology
It’s literally just anti semitism that’s been repackaged as white nationalism
I dont think Cultural Marxism is directed at Israel so I dont think its got anything to do with antisemitism. I am pretty sure Israel is one of the most anti-Marxist/anti-Communist places in history.
There are communes literally all over Israel
I dont think Cultural Marxism is directed at Israel so I dont think its got anything to do with antisemitism. I am pretty sure Israel is one of the most anti-Marxist/anti-Communist places in history.
What if I told you that antisemitism pre-dates Israel by a few thousand years, give or take? In fact, it wasn't even around during the time of the actual, real Nazis. I guess they weren't antisemitic then?
The opposite philosphy (anti-marxism) goes in the opposite way. Start by accepting the fact that outcomes are overwhelmingly dependant on talent and luck, both for individuals and for groups.
Talent is either inheritable (culturally or genetically), or luck-based as well.
If no oppression occurs, outcomes are extremely differentiated among individuals and groups, however you slice those groups.
*Even if some oppression occurs, there is no moral reason to side with the oppressed* . Oppression is just in some quantity an ineliminable part of all human societies, at least as defined as "there will be a status hierarchy and some people INEVITABLY WILL BE AT THE BOTTOM".
After you accept all the above, you want a society that AT LEAST allows talent to flourish as much as possible. That's a libertarian leaning one which maximizes the rewards of effort and ambition. Details can vary, from optimistic dreams of "anarchy" to significant degree of state force being used to avoid the losers of society become violent against the succesful ones, but the core elements will be little resources spent on the losers (by the state: private people can and will do charity), strong enforcement of the protection of body and property and so on.
Some people want to use the existence of luck in outcome to justify redistribution, and on paper it sounds reasonable morally, but you cannot ex post differentiate between talent and luck almost ever, so in order to avoid punishing talent (which is kinda the worst thing you can do for society wellbeing) you accept that luck will generate unequal outcomes, unless in those rare cases where luck is clearly the source of the outcome (like land values).
Classic liberal /rightwing libertarian.
It's not marxism if it's not state policy that forces others to participate even if they disagree, that's kinda the whole point.
Marxism is a politically philosophy not a lifestyle. It's about how you want to direct state power.
A libertarian can create a co-op or open source software. A marxist can invest in the stockmarket until the revolution comes.
I told you what it means. It means using the logic of "oppressor-oppressed" of (material) class struggle applied to ethnicity, gender, sexual preference (and maybe in the future other sectionalities).
You're just replacing gibberish with different gibberish. What exactly is "the logic of oppressor-oppressed?" "Sectionalities" isn't even a word?
Try again in your own words.
Death is the worst outcome of an encounter with a bear. It is not the worst outcome of an encounter with a man. That's what lots of people ignore in these discussions.
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8jkR2FU/
Check mate, you silly broads 😃
The opposite philosphy (anti-marxism) goes in the opposite way. Start by accepting the fact that outcomes are overwhelmingly dependant on talent and luck, both for individuals and for groups.Talent is either inheritable (culturally or genetically), or luck-based as well.If no oppression occurs, outcomes are extremely differentiated among individuals and groups, however you slic
In your mind, how do convince the leftist masses to say no to the revolutionary impulse (especially when they notice corruption) and to deny themselves the dream of acquiring state power?
Still wanting to know how white males are oppressed.
It's going to be something something oppressed people want to be treated equal to me something something.
This seems like the classic coming to the defense of a fellow MOD. Nobody is melting down. This is a reasonable concern. Do you think it's a conflict of interest for a girl who openly hates men to be a MOD of an all men thread?
MOD's should not be bigots period.
You said elsewhere that if someone is racist it’s ok and we should just suck it up and not try to change their mind.
So suck it up buttercup. Tired of the right trying to have it both ways. Either be a liberal or a reactionary but what you’re doing right now is dumb.
White people are the only group of people you can openly be racist against. I don’t know if that makes them oppressed, but I also don’t like the oppressor-oppressed paradigm.
I would just say that if you need a socially acceptable racial punching bag, white men are always an option.
Asian men (and asians in general) if we want to talk about power in society in relation to their merit to power are a more paradigmatic group. They were actually discriminated against because their racial group is too smart on average.
Either be a liberal or a reactionary
There's a trend in bien-pensant social comment, and to some extent in Western government policy in recent decades, where white working-class men are held to be the root of all evil and must be smacked down. I don't know whether they've noticed, though it has probably been made apparent to white working-class boys in certain schools with a certain staff cohort, and the outcome will probably not be positive.
"The implicit social contract among citizens"? I've only ever heard this in regard to taxes. What do you mean? Is there an implicit social contract among citizens to, what, be polite to each other? That's the world's most broken contract.
Anyway, Death to America.
I mean, of course this is your reaction because you don’t value national identity and persuasion in general.
Your vision is your leftist group acquires power and forces compliance on everyone else through state power and violence if necessary. Correct me if I’m wrong.
In fact, you seem eager to use violence on your opponents.
the vulgate goes like this: with the same SAT score , a white is refused from a top tier college while a black is admitted.
that's systemic racism against whites, provenly happened a lot.
it's not oppression (because you can live a very good life going to another college) but for cultural marxists it is.
that's for the white (and asian) part.
now for the man part, it's more nuanced. education rewards feminine traits these days because all the system has been constructed and is manned by women basically.
if you check what is rewarded in education these days, that's traits that are much more common in females.
that's obviously true, still not oppression. you can charge back against it and live well anyway as a man. but it's a systemic discrimination against male tendencies.
a violent attitude, arrogance, rebellious character, elements that aren't morally negative inherently and massively more common among men, are punished much more today vs 50+ years ago.
lol the whole existence of "micro aggressions" being negative as a concept is proof of the complete feminization of a sector.
men do that all the times (including in this forum) , it's what we do in stead of pissing around like dogs males do.
so its fairly obvious that society is explicitly discriminating against whites and asian currently in college admissions (a crucial step in life), and against men in education and increasingly in the office.
still that's not "oppression", you **** them and you do you and fight, or you don't deserve anything in life.
then there is the topic of uneducated men , and men going to college less, which again isn't oppression for me but for anyone who claims blacks are probenly oppressed because of their lower incomes then... well men go to college less so that's oppression in that framework as well
