Left Wing Discussion Thread IV: Oh Hai Marx

[Questers]

As an academic who uses an intersectionality textbook in my Social Problems courses, it is blatantly obviously that most people who are criticizing the perspective have never read the primary sources by Crenshaw and Collins.

I don't know why someone who offer an uninformed critique, but I have, sadly, gotten used to it.

What if people have read it but don't agree with it? :thinking:

[The Parkus Empire]

jesus you guys are nerds

There is nothing nerdy about conservativism

[Ostroeuropa]

As an academic who uses an intersectionality textbook in my Social Problems courses, it is blatantly obviously that most people who are criticizing the perspective have never read the primary sources by Crenshaw and Collins.

I don't know why someone who offer an uninformed critique, but I have, sadly, gotten used to it.

What speed does the classroom floating in the vacuum of space not attached to the rest of the world go?
I'm curious.

And does it bother you that you study something that has no real world applications and isn't even fun to read?
Wouldn't you rather know lots about Tolkien?

After all, short hairy people at least exist in some places, and it's a fun book, but these adherents to books you talk about seem to have no actual impact on politics in the real world.

Is yours a study of anything that actually exists? Or just the study of various musings?

I would think that a politics course should, ideally, analyze, investigate, and quantify politics as it actually exists, but apparently that's just madness.

As an academic who uses an intersectionality textbook in my Social Problems courses, it is blatantly obviously that most people who are criticizing the perspective have never read the primary sources by Crenshaw and Collins.

I don't know why someone who offer an uninformed critique, but I have, sadly, gotten used to it.

What if people have read it but don't agree with it? :thinking:

>see's capitalism in action
>lives it every day
>decides it's shit and criticizes it

"Ah, but you aren't talking about Locke, so it doesn't count."

Just academia things.

For some reason, this type of nonsense suddenly applies when discussing feminism or whatever he's talking about. I doubt he'd accept such a ridiculous stance from capitalists.

[Dumb Ideologies]

As an academic who uses an intersectionality textbook in my Social Problems courses, it is blatantly obviously that most people who are criticizing the perspective have never read the primary sources by Crenshaw and Collins.

I don't know why someone who offer an uninformed critique, but I have, sadly, gotten used to it.

Daily statement of the obvious: praxis and living, evolving ideas are not reducible to their original textbook definition.

[The Parkus Empire]

As an academic who uses an intersectionality textbook in my Social Problems courses, it is blatantly obviously that most people who are criticizing the perspective have never read the primary sources by Crenshaw and Collins.

I don't know why someone who offer an uninformed critique, but I have, sadly, gotten used to it.

Daily statement of the obvious: praxis and living, evolving ideas are not reducible to their original textbook definition.

The Reformation called

[Ostroeuropa]

Daily statement of the obvious: praxis and living, evolving ideas are not reducible to their original textbook definition.

The Reformation called

This is a good point.
He's literally so out of date that the fucking protestant reformation already cottoned on to this concept.

[Ostroeuropa]

As an academic who uses an intersectionality textbook in my Social Problems courses, it is blatantly obviously that most people who are criticizing the perspective have never read the primary sources by Crenshaw and Collins.

I don't know why someone who offer an uninformed critique, but I have, sadly, gotten used to it.

Daily statement of the obvious: praxis and living, evolving ideas are not reducible to their original textbook definition.

"Clearly, you don't understand biology. There is only RNA, and anything else just hasn't properly read the original instructions. This "Human" you are talking about is not proper biology."

What's worse is it's a fundamental rejection of memetic evolution in more ways than one.

Hey dude.
Your understanding of the texts you are reading is not the one the author intended.
True communication is not possible.
Every meme mutates the second it transfers.

Your constant insistence that we haven't read the texts and so don't understand them "Properly" is fractally wrong in its underlying assumptions.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Ya that’s definitely not the case anymore. Egalitarianism is the word you are looking for

Problem is, Egalitarians have used the masquerade of egalitarianism to preach anti-feminist rhetoric, in an attempt to appeal to moderates. Thus, true egalitarians do not go by egalitarian anymore.

Can't you be an egalitarian and anti-feminist at the same time?

[Ostroeuropa]

Problem is, Egalitarians have used the masquerade of egalitarianism to preach anti-feminist rhetoric, in an attempt to appeal to moderates. Thus, true egalitarians do not go by egalitarian anymore.

Can't you be an egalitarian and anti-feminist at the same time?

It's a requirement to be a good one at least.

The similarity between feminism and religion also applies to re-crafting that argument:

"You're all anti-feminists, you just need to add one more type of feminism that you oppose."

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

progressive? Why wouldn't you use liberal?

Liberal is a pretty vague term that means different things in different places. Progressive is the more accurate and consistent label, imo.

Liberal a pretty vague term but the one thing it consistently signifies societal freedom, progressive, in my view generally means societal freedom but is less consistent at providing societal freedom.

[Questers]

"Liberal" means you vote for Bernie Sanders, your wife votes for HRC, and her boyfriend votes for Trump.

[The Liberated Territories]

Both feminists and meninists hate my views. That's how I know I'm doing it right.

I don't hate your views because there's little to no chance of them resulting in anybody being harmed by you espousing them.

*coughs*

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

"Liberal" means you vote for Bernie Sanders, your wife votes for HRC, and her boyfriend votes for Trump.

They should put that in the dictionary tbh.

[Ostroeuropa]

"Liberal" means you vote for Bernie Sanders, your wife votes for HRC, and her boyfriend votes for Trump.

Mostly I see it these days in opposition to quotas, progressive campaigns to discriminate in hiring, etc.

As an example, Huffington post actively decided to not hire as many whites and males (Despite being overwhelmingly women running the paper, probably because the concept of misandry is alien and anathema to their worldview), even beyond the usual goal by demanding "Less than 50% white writers", which is beyond proportional representation and is aiming to over-represent minorities at the paper.
This was a progressive move, and it's indistinguishable from racism and sexism.

A liberal would argue they should hire based on merit.

I view the progressive movement as Capitalist anxiety about the blatant lack of meritocracy. The social progressive routinely ignores class in their evalaution, and how classes have remained largely unchanged for hundreds of years. (See the pinker study.).

Consequently any efforts to address racial disparity that don't include working class whites discriminates against those whites.

But superficiality is the whole point. Capitalists are anxious that their system isn't seen as producing meritocracy, and so want to shove a few minorities into the spotlight to make that less blatant. The moment representation is proportional, it will calcify and minorities will be told that everything is fine and there's proper representation now, effectively rendering all their effort to build up organizations and institutions useless and a waste of time for all of them except those willing to be class traitors and collaborators.

Working class minorities who didn't manage to take advantage of the Capitalists mad rush to make their propaganda seem less obviously at odds with reality will then be left in the gutter, having also alienated the fuck out of the white working classes.

This is also why feminism is pushed. Because our system doesn't actually care about sexism, there is no concern for more men being homeless or domestic violence and such, the concern is, women aren't in positions where they can serve as mouthpieces for capitalism and pretend it's a meritocracy. That's why there's focus on that issue, above any others.

Further, this explains most progressives lack of subtlety and nuance, engaging in authoritarian and racist/sexist methods to achieve that outcome, more than
say, "We need more women in this field, we should continue to hire based on merit, but specifically campaign to encourage more women to join."

Because the concern is not actually fairness or justice or long term solutions or whatever.
It is a mad rush to address capitalisms image problem and give off the pretense of meritocracy.

In this sense, Liberals ignore the reasons for why this is occuring, because they often don't oppose capitalism. They dislike progressives for their racism, sexism, and authoritarianism, but don't understand that those things are merely "Capitalism in decay" as usual.
When capitalism is threatened, it always resorts to these methods.

So a Liberal is someone who doesn't see the underlying reasons this progressive shit is occurring, but opposes it occurring.

A progressive is someone who isn't skeptical enough to wonder why their ideology is being boosted by the same media that is totally in hoc to corporate influence and note the underlying reasons. They're framing it as hip and cool and such, along with demonizing opposition, not out of legitimate concern, but out of a mad rush to patch up capitalisms image. It is not a coincidence they started this shit after the great recession.
It also serves the purpose of polluting political discourse and preventing discussion of class and such, as well as seeks to redefine left-right in ways that don't involve class economics. (Hence the progressive impulse to call things alt-right or right wing, the purpose is to balkanize the left.)

This is also why the MRM is struggling. Because men are already in positions where they can serve as mouthpieces for capitalism, as this is not the form of sexism they face, they face another form of sexism, and fixing it doesn't align with capitalist interests.

The capitalists probably believe it, and they get so hysterical and angry when you oppose progressivism not because they care about racism, but because if that's not the problem, there's only one other thing it could be, and they are psychologically terrified of admitting it to themselves, because their ego is wrapped up in the idea that they are superior to others and that's why they earn so much money.

Basically, progressivism is capitalists looking around and seeing only white people, freaking the fuck out, and deciding the problem has to be racism, because they believe capitalism is a meritocracy.
Whereas the pinker studies show, actually, there isn't much social mobility at all, for anyone, and hasn't been for hundreds of years.
This is the truth they are desperate to deny and stop discussion of.

The capitalists then shill for this in the media, and some people fall for it.

As an added bonus, the process selects for minorities and women chiefly concerned with this type of politics, and not class politics.

Notably, most progressive efforts don't include class in their attempts. This supports my impression that most of the attempts to help minorites/women aren't born of sincere egalitarian sentiment.

Compare/contrast the efforts to get more people into university, which explicitly DOES take class into consideration and heavily favors it, and this measure pre-dates modern progressives by decades.
Not a coincidence.

Further evidence that it's merely capitalism in decay;
Blair and his shifting the party away from socialism.

The Labour party had quotas for women before there was even a discussion on quotas for class.
The class of Labour MPs is vastly disproportionate to the country, more so than the disproportionate representation in sex. (Though i'll add, this doesn't change much, as almost all of them are feminists and so serve womens interests while ignoring male issues.).
In effect, the quota seeks to frame putting Middle and Upper Class women into positions of power as "Progress."

...
That is not progress.
It is shifting deck chairs on the titanic.

Most women are less represented by a middle class woman than they would be by a working class man. This is ignored, and it is framed as a victory for women when a middle class woman is elected.
It isn't. The majority of women will see zero benefit from it. This is also a way in which feminism is in effect, preventing progress by misframing the issue. If you want women better represented, demand more working class mps. Not more women ones.

Ben Carson is not progress for black people, either.

[Bakery Hill]

Equality in a socialist (or at least Marxist) context is about equality of access and opportunity, not outcome.

And yet it most often fails at that. Public Schools are the most clear example of that. When you're trying to provide for everyone equally, you're forced to lower the level and it ends up denying people opportunities in the name of equality.

Or you just ban private schools.

[Bakery Hill]

modern lefists cant breathe without exhaling radical feminism afterwards so this is going to be difficult.

Sadly, it's sickening how feminism has infected the left.

Considering Engels was writing feminist tracts, it's been round for a while.

[Proctopeo]

As an academic who uses an intersectionality textbook in my Social Problems courses, it is blatantly obviously that most people who are criticizing the perspective have never read the primary sources by Crenshaw and Collins.

I don't know why someone would offer an uninformed critique, but I have, sadly, gotten used to it.

wow it turns out you don't have to be an expert on something to criticize it

[Democratic Communist Federation]

wow it turns out you don't have to be an expert on something to criticize it

Is there a law? No. However, should leftists be cautious about critiquing a leftist theory they have not carefully studied? Yes, I believe so.

[Proctopeo]

wow it turns out you don't have to be an expert on something to criticize it

Is there a law? No. However, should leftists be cautious about critiquing a leftist theory they have not carefully studied? Yes, I believe so.

But why should they be?

[Irona]

As an academic who uses an intersectionality textbook in my Social Problems courses, it is blatantly obviously that most people who are criticizing the perspective have never read the primary sources by Crenshaw and Collins.

I don't know why someone would offer an uninformed critique, but I have, sadly, gotten used to it.

wow it turns out you don't have to be an expert on something to criticize it

Of course not. But perhaps experts know more than people who aren't experts. It's almost like that's the definition of expert

[Proctopeo]

wow it turns out you don't have to be an expert on something to criticize it

Of course not. But perhaps experts know more than people who aren't experts. It's almost like that's the definition of expert

That's completely correct but doesn't change anything.

[Irona]

Of course not. But perhaps experts know more than people who aren't experts. It's almost like that's the definition of expert

That's completely correct but doesn't change anything.

You don't think knowing more about something makes your views more likely to be correct?

[Ostroeuropa]

That's completely correct but doesn't change anything.

You don't think knowing more about something makes your views more likely to be correct?

Knowing more about theory doesn't mean your views on a movement and its activities are more likely to be correct, and if you insist on viewing criticism of a movement purely through the lens of theory it makes you almost guaranteed to be wrong.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Different types of expertise relate differently to different situations and a particular ideological commitment to the theory without much life experience or knowledge of the praxis as it actually operates may be the worst combination of all.

[Jackania yugo]

Should we abolish religion?