2020 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - RULES IN OP

[babyfaceposey]

Originally Posted by rman112

For ?

Changed their policies to align with antifa. Still ok to dox police officers.

[xbignick]

Originally Posted by rman112

Was the ban legit?

His subreddit was abandoned months ago, so no posts to actually base a ban on. Before that it was pretty moderated for a huge subreddit with millions of unique posters. His twitch channel just showed his rally speeches.

I wouldn't say so, wonder if his twitter is next.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by xbignick

His subreddit was abandoned months ago, so no posts to actually base a ban on. Before that it was pretty moderated for a huge subreddit with millions of unique posters. His twitch channel just showed his rally speeches.

I wouldn't say so, wonder if his twitter is next.

Sounds legit.

[NeedChapmans]

Wow. That's a massive online community. 800,000 people.

[rcmb3220]

Originally Posted by calculusdork

It would be foolish for me (or any of us) to assume or claim that there is a singular cause for any of these phenomena we are observing (despite the media seeming to want people to think singularly). Critical thinking requires nuance, and complex problems demand it.

I'm still thinking my way through this, but here's how it appears to work:

- Many liberal arts colleges, and the economics/politics/sociology/etc departments of many public universities, were invaded with Gramscian thought (cultural Marxism) back in the 1960s, and these concepts pervaded these schools for the next ... well, probably until today (with some variations over time). The result of this is millions of Americans with college degrees who were taught not so much 'how' to think as 'what' to think. I believe you could probably seek out and find that these same Gramscian principles are being taught in many American public high schools today.
- Much of the news media (which -- together with professors, pop authors, and the like -- Thomas Sowell calls the 'intelligentsia' of our day), drawing from the same sources, perpetuates the same narratives that are being taught in schools.
- Much of social media -- composed of friends and family, people you are supposed to be able to trust! -- unknowingly draw from these same sources, perpetuating the same narratives found in the media.

So particular narratives have, in one way or another, worked their way into almost every corner of our culture, just as Gramsci indicated they would need to do. What results is a worldview that may or may not be an accurate depiction of how the world actually is (I would argue strongly that it is NOT), but regardless permits zero rigidity or critical thinking.

What are these narratives? Here are three important ones:

(1) Education = intelligence.
(2) There exist oppressive power structures that need to be dismantled.
(3) Capitalism is bad.


Not only are students taught what to think, but they are taught that because they are being taught, they have a secret knowledge that less-educated people do not have (#1), and therefore that people who disagree with them are just less intelligent.

Right now, you have millions of Americans throwing their weight behind #2.

You have fewer people putting their vocal support behind #3. At the moment, the oppressive power structures have other names. But make no mistake: #3 is being taught, and it is the man behind the curtain.


I do realize this appears to be a very "anti-liberal" analysis. I am not anti-liberal ... in fact, I would consider myself to be more of a "classical liberal" than anything else. I am, however, vehemently anti-Marxist, and it appears that we are today in America observing the fruits of a Marxist cultural revolution that has been in the works for over fifty years. "Right vs left", "Democrat vs Republican", "Trump is great", "Trump is bad" ... I have a strong feeling these things don't really even matter much anymore compared to what is happening at deeper levels in our society.

I don’t disagree. Where we disagree is how successful it is. I don’t think you can point to anything concrete and say it’s made much of a difference.

[Brobocop]

If the Twitter and Facebook accounts go, he has nobody to blame but himself. He has violated their terms of service. People may say, "What about........" or "Yeah, but........" Doesn't matter. I'm all for companies banning user who fragrantly violate terms of service. Is it too much to ask for a President who can be remotely civil? There are inherent responsibilities when wielding a tool like Twitter and Facebook in my mind. A lot of people violate that. I was happy to see Twitter and Facebook at least fact check some of the memes and posts people put out there.

[rcmb3220]

Originally Posted by Brobocop

If the Twitter and Facebook accounts go, he has nobody to blame but himself. He has violated their terms of service. People may say, "What about........" or "Yeah, but........" Doesn't matter. I'm all for companies banning user who fragrantly violate terms of service. Is it too much to ask for a President who can be remotely civil? There are inherent responsibilities when wielding a tool like Twitter and Facebook in my mind. A lot of people violate that. I was happy to see Twitter and Facebook at least fact check some of the memes and posts people put out there.

I bet Trump smells like old french fry oil when he violates terms of service.

[DegaBama]

Originally Posted by Brobocop

If the Twitter and Facebook accounts go, he has nobody to blame but himself. He has violated their terms of service. People may say, "What about........" or "Yeah, but........" Doesn't matter. I'm all for companies banning user who fragrantly violate terms of service. Is it too much to ask for a President who can be remotely civil? There are inherent responsibilities when wielding a tool like Twitter and Facebook in my mind. A lot of people violate that. I was happy to see Twitter and Facebook at least fact check some of the memes and posts people put out there.

Then ban it all, that's the problem, they pick and choose who to ban.

[calculusdork]

Originally Posted by rcmb3220

I don’t disagree. Where we disagree is how successful it is. I don’t think you can point to anything concrete and say it’s made much of a difference.

I'm surprised to hear you say that. Mine is only a theory, but seeks to explain what I feel is clearly happening in the world around us, empirically. Do you genuinely not feel like a surprising percentage of people are spouting anti-capitalistic rhetoric today? (Sorry, don't mean for that to sound like such a loaded question.)

I'd have been less surprised if you agreed with the conclusion/observation but disagreed with the premise.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by Brobocop

If the Twitter and Facebook accounts go, he has nobody to blame but himself. He has violated their terms of service. People may say, "What about........" or "Yeah, but........" Doesn't matter. I'm all for companies banning user who fragrantly violate terms of service. Is it too much to ask for a President who can be remotely civil? There are inherent responsibilities when wielding a tool like Twitter and Facebook in my mind. A lot of people violate that. I was happy to see Twitter and Facebook at least fact check some of the memes and posts people put out there.

If Reddit's booting a forum that no one posts in, it's not about simply violating terms of service.

[pac213up]

Reddit bans hate speech. 2000 accounts and counting.

https://variety.com/2020/digital/new...mp-1234692898/

[Astros19]

Originally Posted by Brobocop

If the Twitter and Facebook accounts go, he has nobody to blame but himself. He has violated their terms of service. People may say, "What about........" or "Yeah, but........" Doesn't matter. I'm all for companies banning user who fragrantly violate terms of service. Is it too much to ask for a President who can be remotely civil? There are inherent responsibilities when wielding a tool like Twitter and Facebook in my mind. A lot of people violate that. I was happy to see Twitter and Facebook at least fact check some of the memes and posts people put out there.

Be careful for what you ask for.
A while back on my facebook feed I put up a video of Lee Greenwood's Proud to be an American song in which the duration of the video had a US flag blowing in the breeze during the song. Nothing else, just the flag blowing in the breeze.
Of course my post was censored with the message that it was graphic and violent.
Seriously?
Who gets to determine what's offensive and what's not?
We'll see how you feel when it happens to you. Of course you'd have to be conservative to experience it.

[rcmb3220]

Originally Posted by calculusdork

I'm surprised to hear you say that. Mine is only a theory, but seeks to explain what I feel is clearly happening in the world around us, empirically. Do you genuinely not feel like a surprising percentage of people are spouting anti-capitalistic rhetoric today? (Sorry, don't mean for that to sound like such a loaded question.)

I'd have been less surprised if you agreed with the conclusion/observation but disagreed with the premise.

Not really. They’ve always existed but now they have Twitter. As a collective, they aren’t really moving the needle or shifting the balance of power politically.

I think it’s more of a cumulative effect. Like how when you hear of another violent crime in your area and think it’s getting worse when the rate is actually improving or staying the same.

[Astros19]

From 2016 but I doubt it's changed much, and if so I'd guess it's worse now.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...rvatives-12-1/

[budd2222]

Originally Posted by Astros19

From 2016 but I doubt it's changed much, and if so I'd guess it's worse now.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...rvatives-12-1/

What would you do take a Wall Street job or take a position as a teacher at the base pay they get now/. Most conservatives jump at the promise of a big pay day.

[calculusdork]

Originally Posted by rcmb3220

Not really. They’ve always existed but now they have Twitter. As a collective, they aren’t really moving the needle or shifting the balance of power politically.

I think it’s more of a cumulative effect. Like how when you hear of another violent crime in your area and think it’s getting worse when the rate is actually improving or staying the same.

I'm just going to say "Bernie Samders" and move on.

[TheFrenzy]

Originally Posted by calculusdork

- Many liberal arts colleges, and the economics/politics/sociology/etc departments of many public universities, were invaded with Gramscian thought (cultural Marxism) back in the 1960s, and these concepts pervaded these schools for the next ... well, probably until today (with some variations over time). The result of this is millions of Americans with college degrees who were taught not so much 'how' to think as 'what' to think. I believe you could probably seek out and find that these same Gramscian principles are being taught in many American public high schools today.

Originally Posted by hairysasquatch

As a guy familiar with the context ithat s being discussed here, I can attest. Private universities are not immune, just for the sake of clarification.

Originally Posted by calculusdork

Mine is only a theory, but seeks to explain what I feel is clearly happening in the world around us, empirically.

Want a rabbit hole to fall down? Just check out the bizarre way that the very term "cultural Marxism" has been policed and politicized. To hit the highlights:

- Public-facing philosophers avoid the term, but they are comfortable using the term among themselves. When facing the public they will use the term "critical theory" or (when specifically discussing Gramsci) "cultural hegemony."

- The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (I'm a history guy, not a trained philosopher, so this has been one of my go-to resources through grad school) does not have an entry for the term "cultural Marxism" and does not use the term in its entries for either Gramsci (who originated it) or the Frankfurt School (who further developed it). However, their entry for "critical theory" basically describes the idea without using the phrase.

- The media has been on a crusade for almost two decades now (maybe longer) to tie the specific term "cultural Marxism" to Alt-Right anti-Semitism. The Southern Poverty Law Center wrote about it in 2003 as "a conspiracy theory with an anti-Semitic twist." The NYT recently called it a "100 year old meme with a toxic history." It's even being tied to specific figures like Jordan Peterson in a guilt-by-association means of discrediting it.

- All of which is mind-blowing because if "cultural Marxism" is an anti-Semitic conspiracy, then we certainly wouldn't expect to find the respected Jewish philosopher and Chair of Jewish Social and Educational History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem to be writing about it and spelling it out in exactly the same terms as.......the Alt-Right? Wexler wrote in Critical Theory Now (1991—before the project of policing the term began) wrote the following:

"Finally, the example of critical theory’s relation to cultural studies will be used as the basis for illustrating both these more general theses about critical theory and to develop more specific arguments about its continuing contributions to cultural studies. First, its resilience and openness as a theoretical tradition will be analyzed with respect to its response to three fundamental challenges: structuralist Marxist and related semiotic theories; the subsequent Gramscian turn in British cultural studies; and to various more recent currents associated with the concept of poststructuralism. Second, the outcome of these theoretical transformations will be considered as suggesting signs of, and the basis for, a broad convergence between critical theories and neo-Gramscian cultural Marxism in the domain of cultural studies...

...The focus of this essay will be upon the ongoing re-interpretation of cultural theory in those forms of critical theory which retain some self-conscious identification with the Frankfurt tradition. That tradition included a critique of positivism derived from the materialist epistemology of Marx; a political economic analysis of post-liberal capitalism which recognized the primacy of the state as a new source of stability; social psychological research on the foundations of social order in personality structures; and a theoretical analysis of the role of mass culture in the construction of cultural domination." p. 27-28

So Wexler spells out how Gramsci's "cultural Marxism" has blended with other forms of structuralism to produce the "Critical Theory" that public-facing philosophers adhere to all while denying that cultural Marxism even exists. Wexler even spells out everything that we're being told are the conspiratorial fever dreams of the Alt-Right: Marxism, anti-capitalism, the state replacing the family as the source of stability, identity politics, the hunt for oppression and domination everywhere in western culture.

It's all right here.

[rcmb3220]

Originally Posted by calculusdork

I'm just going to say "Bernie Samders" and move on.

The Daily Worker begat Bernie Sanders. This was at a time when Marxism actually was kinda sorta successful in the US.

[calculusdork]

Originally Posted by rcmb3220

The Daily Worker begat Bernie Sanders. This was at a time when Marxism actually was kinda sorta successful in the US.

I don't follow what you're saying.

[rman112]

The Daily Worker has personal ads? .. And they say appearance is not important! .. Yours, or hers?

[rcmb3220]

Originally Posted by calculusdork

I don't follow what you're saying.

Marxism has a history in the US that’s even older than Bernie Sanders. And it was much more successful way back then compared to now. It’s not new and it’s not getting worse.

[TheFrenzy]

Originally Posted by rcmb3220

Marxism has a history in the US that’s even older than Bernie Sanders. And it was much more successful way back then compared to now. It’s not new and it’s not getting worse.

I think you may be conflating cultural Marxism with communism.

These are separate things.

[calculusdork]

Originally Posted by rcmb3220

Marxism has a history in the US that’s even older than Bernie Sanders. And it was much more successful way back then compared to now. It’s not new and it’s not getting worse.

Originally Posted by TheFrenzy

I think you may be conflating cultural Marxism with communism.

These are separate things.

What he said. "Cultural Marxism" and communism are very different.

When I say "Bernie Sanders", all I mean is we were one corrupt Democratic party away from a real socialist being a real candidate for U.S. president.

[tpeichel34]

On the positive side, 80% of the mail-in ballots were not fraudulent.

https://dailycaller.com/2020/06/26/n...ts-fraudulent/

[blackbears86]

Originally Posted by calculusdork

I'm surprised to hear you say that. Mine is only a theory, but seeks to explain what I feel is clearly happening in the world around us, empirically. Do you genuinely not feel like a surprising percentage of people are spouting anti-capitalistic rhetoric today? (Sorry, don't mean for that to sound like such a loaded question.)

I'd have been less surprised if you agreed with the conclusion/observation but disagreed with the premise.

Sorry calculus. I didn't see it when I went to college. I don't really see it now, but who knows, maybe I'm out of touch.


It seems to me, it's a dog eat dog world more than ever, work hard and long and be rewarded.