The assault on the first amendment (and the return of McCarthyism)
I believe this merits its own thread now. The first amendment is definitely under assault.
I just watched the head of th
That's wholly inaccurate. It's a common notion and accepted as true, but it has it's roots in cold war propaganda. During the cold war, each side had an interest in labeling the Soviet Union as communist. The U.S. wanted the Soviet Union known as communist because communist was a curse word in America. Russia wanted to be known as communist because the associations with communi
Which part? Both the US and the Soviet Union have framed their ideological opponents for political advantage. You're just arguing from the other side - which is fine.
Yes, the state doesn't force everyone to where the same t shirt, and the state doesn't make everything itself (because it would struggle) but the state controlling the means of production being a core part of Marxist - Leninist systems is what the USSR practiced. Which is one important issue to discuss from a non-biased point of view because that system allowed them to build large scale industrial and military projects, but it failed to provide consistent and quality civilian demands without shortages and waste.
When you start looking at improving that particular system to fix the leaks of where it failed and to ensure that the most people are able to get the care that they need in a civilized society, it always points back to a mixed economy of free market, stronger labor protections, govt regulation and comprehensive social safety nets. What they did then is old school tried and failed experiences that we can learn from.
Lol. These idiots believe every conspiracy theory in existence, but this totally passes the smell test for them.
Why would a lefty shoot detainees?
I was expecting BLM et al to really mobilize if Trump won and tried to do what he said he would with immigration. I was half expecting it to get pretty bad with protests, riots and whatnot. Kinda sounds like Trump was too or hoping it would be.
Why would a lefty shoot detainees?
I was expecting BLM et al to really mobilize if Trump won and tried to do what he said he would with immigration. I was half expecting it to get pretty bad with protests, riots and whatnot. Kinda sounds like Trump was too or hoping it would be.
Bad shot
English maybe, not math. The latter are the brightest but also seem like a pretty passive and somewhat apolitical crowd. Then again by most accounts sounds like Robinson may have been part of that crowd.
It's been long understood that someone with a perfect verbal SAT score is very likely to be much greater than someone with a perfect math SAT score, way more productive and creative. There should be a term for people like you who think the world works like a clock or something and those good at math set the time, something better than libertard. The verbal people rule the world and they always will.
On the other hand, the battleground of modern Marxism at least in the West is hardly about economics anymore and mostly about linguistics. ThatÂ’s why so much of what passes for radical theory today comes straight out of Ivy League linguistics and literature departments, where redefining terms passes for praxis. Change the connotation, and eventually the denotation tags along.
Economic theory is pretty dead across the board. We have data we don't need theory and so the debate among Marxists is about the class war, who is in what class?, are these particular people a class?, which classe's participation is necessary to overthrow capitalism etc.
It's the right who freaks out about dictionaries and schoolbooks and of the power of symbols to tear away at the very essence of their identities.
Marxists really don't care about individuals, and whatever the confused ideology of the shooter was it wasn't Marxism. Assassination is a tool of the ruling class looking to cripple ascending movements. The ruling class are very protected against losing leaders as it has the money to replace anyone because they control incentives with their wealth. A Leftist leader, on the other hand, has to do it for other reasons because there is no money and so leaders are hard to come by. There are more Charlie Kirks in line to take over than you would think possible. Marxists understand this and they aren't out there killing people.
It's been long understood that someone with a perfect verbal SAT score is very likely to be much greater than someone with a perfect math SAT score, way more productive and creative. There should be a term for people like you who think the world works like a clock or something and those good at math set the time, something better than libertard. The verbal people rule the world
Well, in Kirk's case it is becoming increasingly clear he was an important presence in the GOP in keeping the antisemitic conspiritards in the Republican Party at bay, and now that he is gone they are running wild and Trump seems unable to control them on his own. I think losing Kirk is going to be more damaging to the GOP than anyone could have anticipated.
That being said, it seems the shooter was a 1 issue political assassin, and not any sort of political ideologue, and just killed Kirk for perceived transphobia.
It's been long understood that someone with a perfect verbal SAT score is very likely to be much greater than someone with a perfect math SAT score, way more productive and creative. There should be a term for people like you who think the world works like a clock or something and those good at math set the time, something better than libertard. The verbal people rule the world
I was using “brightest” in the iq sense, where the math side skews higher. But I agree with you re prominence but it's mostly occupational sorting where lawyers and verbal types naturally end up in more public roles than physicists. That doesn’t mean they’re “greater” in a deeper sense. If we’re talking greatness of achievement, Newton probably still sits at the top of the human list.
And if you go way back, Neanderthals were probably in our verbal intelligence range with large brains, symbolic culture, tools, maybe even art. What they lacked were the breakthroughs our ancestors made: bows and arrows, needles, complex fishing gear, and later the leap to agriculture, metallurgy, steam, chemistry. Those things don’t come through rhetoric; they took rare flashes of scientific genius. Without them, civilization grinds to a halt like a primitive fishing community.
Economic theory is pretty dead across the board. We have data we don't need theory and so the debate among Marxists is about the class war, who is in what class?, are these particular people a class?, which classe's participation is necessary to overthrow capitalism etc.
It's the right who freaks out about dictionaries and schoolbooks and of the power of symbols to tear away at the very essence of their identities.
Marxists really don't care about individuals, and whatever the confused ideology of the shooter was it wasn't Marxism. Assassination is a tool of the ruling class looking to cripple ascending movements. The ruling class are very protected against losing leaders as it has the money to replace anyone because they control incentives with their wealth. A Leftist leader, on the other hand, has to do it for other reasons because there is no money and so leaders are hard to come by. There are more Charlie Kirks in line to take over than you would think possible. Marxists understand this and they aren't out there killing people.
For all intents, Marxism in the West is Academic Marxism. It lives in journals and seminars, not shop floors or strike committees. The battles aren’t over surplus value anymore but over who gets to redefine terms. It’s less class war than word war, and the front lines run through Ivy League lit departments. And honestly, there aren’t that many of them. I follow Jacobin and can name just about every prominent voice. It’s an intellectual scene, not a mass movement.
And everyone obsesses over dictionaries and schoolbooks because everyone knows how powerful those levers are. Call it “critical theory” or “radical critique,” it’s still just word games trickling down into slogans. But at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter they took their shot, they lost, and now it’s over. What this generation hasn't experienced is how deep it cuts when you start a cultural war and lose it: if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao… you aren't getting laid.
For all intents, Marxism in the West is Academic Marxism. It lives in journals and seminars, not shop floors or strike committees. The battles aren’t over surplus value anymore but over who gets to redefine terms. It’s less class war than word war, and the front lines run through Ivy League lit departments. And honestly, there aren’t that many of them. I follow Jacobin and can
I think that this is a very good analysis of Marxism save for one important point. There is still splits within the Marxist movement that separate the class analysis from the other social analysis. In that sense there was always a tension between critical theory and classical marxist-leninism and even maoist third worldism. They just failed to ever get behind one narrative and unify. That’s why the most predictable thing in the world is that the far left will fracture.
In some ways it is a feature of the dialectical analysis. They always are thinking in these opposing forces fighting for power. It plays out in how they treat each other.
I think that this is a very good analysis of Marxism save for one important point. There is still splits within the Marxist movement that separate the class analysis from the other social analysis. In that sense there was always a tension between critical theory and classical marxist-leninism and even maoist third worldism. They just failed to ever get behind one narrative and
As I said, there just aren't that many of them. Maybe if they picked up some series political momentum other groups would ally with them. We've seen that in Europe. But over here most of the communists moved on to socialism. I believe Bernie when he says he's not a communist. Like a lot of that generation they're more into the here and now than an ideal a century away. But outside of the technical definition and the hardcores, Democratic Socialism as it means to most people who do or would support it isn't socialism at all, at least in terms of what they want to do and how they want to do it. Actual socialism starts with "let's tear up the Constitution." None of the prominent figures out there are seriously calling for that. That's forum stuff. Instead they're mostly ultra-liberals at the far end of the classical liberal schema. And that's by definition. In actuality their - along with the overwhelming percentage of their follower's - ideological framework is basically The Robin Hood Party.
This is a pretty effective graphic in my estimation. It's clever, but your numbers just aren't adding up. What you have as the most common opinion is actually a fractional minority opinion and those who hold it are unquestionably on the higher IQ side. I mean, why can't we just be honest about these things? We aren't practicing politics in here. No one is being influenced. You
Race realist antisemites actually argue that Jews are only intelligent along verbal dimensions, which is why they control the world, but not actually very good along math/spacial dimensions and hence inferior to true whites. But then I watched The Manhattan Project and most of the physicists were Jews, so not sure how that fits into the theory.
I love how everyone switched sides on the free speech debate between 2020 and 2025. Looking forward to even more fun when they switch again after President Newsom takes office.
I love how everyone switched sides on the free speech debate between 2020 and 2025. Looking forward to even more fun when they switch again after President Newsom takes office.
As opposed to nations like Britain and Canada where the right never got control, so the left has spent the last 5 years speed running complete control of speech.
As opposed to nations like Britain and Canada where the right never got control, so the left has spent the last 5 years speed running complete control of speech.
Uhh, you realise the right-wing Conservative party were in power for 14 of the last 15 years in Britain right? It's only the last year that the at best centre-left Labour party have been in power.
Uhh, you realise the right-wing Conservative party were in power for 14 of the last 15 years in Britain right? It's only the last year that the at best centre-left Labour party have been in power.
No one in Britain or anywhere else in the world considers the Conservatives a "right wing" party.
No one in Britain or anywhere else in the world considers the Conservatives a "right wing" party.
This made me genuinely laugh out loud. I am British. I know how the Tories are considered. A large minority consider the current version of the Labour party to be right of centre and the Tories are significantly further to the right than Labour are. I would guess a super majority of the public in Britain consider the Tories to be right-wing.
Yes, conservative are so unseriously right wing they have been completely supplanted by reform, and your weird past the post system is the only reason they are even politically relevant at all anymore.
Yes, conservative are so unseriously right wing they have been completely supplanted by reform, and your weird past the post system is the only reason they are even politically relevant at all anymore.
Reform have grown in popularity due to reactionary anti-immigration policies and polling is always wildly different when there's no election in site. Ironically the current immigration issues fuelling Reform's popularity are, to a very large extent, caused by Brexit meaning we're not able to return asylum seekers back to the EU country they came from and it was the same party (technically it was a different party but it's the same leaders) that pushed for Brexit in the first place.
On topic though, if you asked a random person in the UK to name the right-wing politcal parties I reckon at least 90% would include Conservatives in their list (and probably ~20% would include Labour in its current form). They are not the furthest right, but to claim nobody in Britain considers them to be right-wing is just utter nonsense.
I don't understand how any Americans are OK with this. He's essentially saying he can assign this label to anyone and shut them down, while also saying that right-wing violence is OK.
Trump says he will sign executive order to dismantle left-wing groups he claims incite violence
Looks like it.
We might be seeing a new school/mass shooter sort of thing. Profiles are pretty close. Difference being a lot of shootings likely didn't happen because the shooter didn't want to kill genuinely 'innocent' people. With the added bonus of if you're smart enough you might be able to get away with it, especially with lower profile targets. IEDs are popular terrorist weapons too.
