Why Political Correctness (Cultural Marxism) Must End!

[Valsuelm]

 

TLDR: It's fundamentally dishonest and evil.

But really... this was a good discussion. Worth a listen to no matter one's point of view.

 

 

Note: Milo is easily the most qualified person on the planet to be Trump's Press Secretary. If only....

[algroth]

I'm still not sure why people assume political correctness to be a Marxist thing. Here's a Marxist vision to it:

 

 

Edited November 13, 2016 by algroth

[Hurlshort]

The Zizek stuff is great, but the Milo video got boring fast.  It seems like much ado about nothing.  Which I do have to give him credit for crafting an entire career around nothing, much like Sarkeesian.  

[Malcador]

The Zizek stuff is great, but the Milo video got boring fast. It seems like much ado about nothing. Which I do have to give him credit for crafting an entire career around nothing, much like Sarkeesian.

Makes me wonder if the Internet was worth it.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Well if someone's already posted Zizek half my work is done.

 

The other half is pointing out that the Frankfurt School's "Cultural Marxism" was bitching about how Capitalism will devalue culture and produce crap, which AAA games and Romcoms sort of prove I guess. The "Cultural Marxism" of (insert whatever SJW is currently triggering the alt-right)that is producing content for countless youtube videos and opinion articles to rave against is the product of social liberals raiding literature for cool words that make their empty lectures and opinion articles seem to have more content than they do. If it's a Marxist scheme to destroy capitalism, then it looks like Marxism-Leninism isn't the most ineffective leftist ideology after all.

 

 

The Zizek stuff is great, but the Milo video got boring fast. It seems like much ado about nothing. Which I do have to give him credit for crafting an entire career around nothing, much like Sarkeesian.

Makes me wonder if the Internet was worth it.

The ability to order food without talking to people and have access to free porn is definitely worth it.

[Malcador]

True, will stick with my rote blaming of Twitter.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Twitter being destroyed would be a great thing.

[algroth]

A new video of Zizek on political correctness and Trump's win, which I guess is worth posting here:

 

[Zoraptor]

I'd literally lol if Milo were appointed Donald's press secretary. Any interactions of flamboyantly gay men with Mike "Christian Taleban" Pence would be priceless.

 

I have a pretty strong aversion to both 'cultural marxism' and 'alt right' as terms since they're usually used lazily. Though I'd admit that if consistent I should probably feel the same about 'SJW' as well, but don't.

[Leferd]

 

TLDR: It's fundamentally dishonest and evil.

 

 

But really... this was a good discussion. Worth a listen to no matter one's point of view.

 

 

Note: Milo is easily the most qualified person on the planet to be Trump's Press Secretary. If only....

 

It'd be lazy for me to dismiss Milo as a caustic reactionary to liberal feminazism, but then I'm no authority to do so. Valsuelm absolutely has never been more right.

 

...Atleast not since the last time.

[Meshugger]

Well if someone's already posted Zizek half my work is done.

 

The other half is pointing out that the Frankfurt School's "Cultural Marxism" was bitching about how Capitalism will devalue culture and produce crap, which AAA games and Romcoms sort of prove I guess. The "Cultural Marxism" of (insert whatever SJW is currently triggering the alt-right)that is producing content for countless youtube videos and opinion articles to rave against is the product of social liberals raiding literature for cool words that make their empty lectures and opinion articles seem to have more content than they do. If it's a Marxist scheme to destroy capitalism, then it looks like Marxism-Leninism isn't the most ineffective leftist ideology after all.

 

 

The Zizek stuff is great, but the Milo video got boring fast. It seems like much ado about nothing. Which I do have to give him credit for crafting an entire career around nothing, much like Sarkeesian.

Makes me wonder if the Internet was worth it.

The ability to order food without talking to people and have access to free porn is definitely worth it.

 

 

I see Cultural-Marxism not as a plot to destroy Capitalism, but rather to destroy culture, directly and indirectly as it forces unity from the top through inclusivety. 

 

The Alt-Right is just another lazy attempt to categorize anyone outside the mainstream rightwing as i see very little in common between catholic monarchists and american neo-nazis.

[Oerwinde]

 

Well if someone's already posted Zizek half my work is done.

 

The other half is pointing out that the Frankfurt School's "Cultural Marxism" was bitching about how Capitalism will devalue culture and produce crap, which AAA games and Romcoms sort of prove I guess. The "Cultural Marxism" of (insert whatever SJW is currently triggering the alt-right)that is producing content for countless youtube videos and opinion articles to rave against is the product of social liberals raiding literature for cool words that make their empty lectures and opinion articles seem to have more content than they do. If it's a Marxist scheme to destroy capitalism, then it looks like Marxism-Leninism isn't the most ineffective leftist ideology after all.

 

 

The Zizek stuff is great, but the Milo video got boring fast. It seems like much ado about nothing. Which I do have to give him credit for crafting an entire career around nothing, much like Sarkeesian.

Makes me wonder if the Internet was worth it.

The ability to order food without talking to people and have access to free porn is definitely worth it.

 

 

I see Cultural-Marxism not as a plot to destroy Capitalism, but rather to destroy culture, directly and indirectly as it forces unity from the top through inclusivety. 

 

The Alt-Right is just another lazy attempt to categorize anyone outside the mainstream rightwing as i see very little in common between catholic monarchists and american neo-nazis.

 

 

One point Stefan Molyneux made that I liked was how when he was younger he believed culture was bad, and by removing culture as a barrier, it would lead people to philosophy and reason, but as he gets older he sees the far left trying to wipe out culture and instead of leading people to reason and philosophy it instead leads to groupthink and hostility.

 

His best stuff comes out of his discussions with guests and his call in show. He's at his best when he is speaking from the heart and being a philosopher rather than doing his presentations.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Oerwinde

[Barothmuk]

Cultural Marxism: the conspiracy that somewhere in the margins of Adorno's critiques of how capitalism degenerates culture he secretly advocated the abolition of western society through sodomy and transgenderism.

 

The Alt-Right is just another lazy attempt to categorize anyone outside the mainstream rightwing as i see very little in common between catholic monarchists and american neo-nazis.

Perpetual virginity as political ideology. Edited November 13, 2016 by Barothmuk

[Blarghagh]

The alt-right is just a term for people who hide obvious hatred because they're ashamed of it with terms like "narrative"*.

 

*Actually, the alt-right is just a term for those who read a comment like that and then get angry at SJWs because they assume it's about them. Why do they think it's about them, though? Why do they hear a word like "racist" and think "they must be talking about me?"
 

 

Actually, the real racists are anyone who felt the urge to respond to my obvious trolling. If this offended you, guess what, you're a racist. :D

 

WHAT IS THE REAL TRUTH. SOMEONE CALLED ME A RACIST ON THE INTERNET ONCE, MUST BE THE LIBRULS.

 

EDIT: God, this election brought out my cynical side a bit too much.

Edited November 13, 2016 by TrueNeutral

[213374U]

The Alt-Right is just another lazy attempt to categorize anyone outside the mainstream rightwing as i see very little in common between catholic monarchists and american neo-nazis.

Well, maybe look harder then. The common element is their longing for a return to a past they see as better, characterized by blind discipline, nationalism (with or without racialist tints), little tolerance for deviation from the social norms, political authoritarianism in diverse forms, etc. It's important to note that this representation of the past may or may not be accurate, but accuracy is less important than the feels from romantizicing the past.

 

In short: reactionarism. The necessary and sufficient condition to be considered part of the alt-right.

[HoonDing]

[Ben No.3]

I can't see the videos, can I have the links please? And how do you connect political correctness to Marxism? And why is Marxism bad?

 

I do see the problem with SJWs... They're... Not great and often counterproductive to they're own cause

Edited November 13, 2016 by Ben No.3

[Ben No.3]

Found it... Not even ten minutes in and already some heavy mistakes, most prominently: if a bad student says he got a bad grade due to prejudice and he uses the system, therefore the system is bad, right? No, he ABUSES the system! But you can do that with every system, and I'd rather have a system that calls for equality actively rather than trusting us not to create prejudice.

[Guard Dog]

I found it! Since this topic started I remembered an excellent article on this very point. Found it:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/the-emergence-of-orwellia_b_7688758.html

[Ben No.3]

But what does ANY of this have to do with the philosophy of Karl Marx?

[Ben No.3]

I found it! Since this topic started I remembered an excellent article on this very point. Found it:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/the-emergence-of-orwellia_b_7688758.html

I read through that... The first thing I noticed was simply a mistake: the article says "totalitarian aka police state". That is simply not true. A police state is a totalitarian system, but not all totalitarian systems are police states. The author is either intentionally or unintentionally working with placative yet wrong images, whatever it is, he does not exactly earn my favour.

 

Anyway, here is the thing about free speech: In a society, you need to play by the rules. In the case of many western countries such as the US that rules are the constitution. And any speech that goes against that constitution will obviously be prohibited, because the constitution is the foundation of the society we live in. And let's say your view is technically not against the constitution but is very controversial: if you are contriversial, you can not not expect backlash. If I go on the streets in the US praising Marx, then I will have the right to do that, yes, but society will be against me. And that is because my view is against the common believe. It is not a question of right or wrong. If I rebel against a popular believe, I should expect nothing but backlash. Maybe I will find some agreement, and maybe I am even right, but I will still get that backlash because I go against common beliefs. I just made the same point several times, but that's okay.

[Guard Dog]

But what does ANY of this have to do with the philosophy of Karl Marx?

In and of itself? Nothing. Political correctness is a tool. It's terrible in that it's only function is dominate and suppress free speech. But like any tool the real evil is in the hands that use it.

[Ben No.3]

political correctness is a tool that purpose it is to protect minorities. It has been overused and in some cases even abused, but that makes ONLY te abusers bad, not the tool. That is the case for anything, really. No philosophy is actually evil, it is just a thought. It is only evil if it is used to harm other humans. But that can be done with literally anything.

 

And if Marxism has nothing to do with it (with I also would say), then what on earth does the title mean?

Edited November 13, 2016 by Ben No.3

[Guard Dog]

 

I found it! Since this topic started I remembered an excellent article on this very point. Found it:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/the-emergence-of-orwellia_b_7688758.html

I read through that... The first thing I noticed was simply a mistake: the article says "totalitarian aka police state". That is simply not true. A police state is a totalitarian system, but not all totalitarian systems are police states. The author is either intentionally or unintentionally working with placative yet wrong images, whatever it is, he does not exactly earn my favour.

 

Anyway, here is the thing about free speech: In a society, you need to play by the rules. In the case of many western countries such as the US that rules are the constitution. And any speech that goes against that constitution will obviously be prohibited, because the constitution is the foundation of the society we live in. And let's say your view is technically not against the constitution but is very controversial: if you are contriversial, you can not not expect backlash. If I go on the streets in the US praising Marx, then I will have the right to do that, yes, but society will be against me. And that is because my view is against the common believe. It is not a question of right or wrong. If I rebel against a popular believe, I should expect nothing but backlash. Maybe I will find some agreement, and maybe I am even right, but I will still get that backlash because I go against common beliefs. I just made the same point several times, but that's okay.

 

The only way a totalitarian state is not also a police state is is if everyone in it agrees 100% of the time. We are humans, not ants. We think for ourselves. Totalitarian by definition does not tolerate dissent. And dissent is often treated to bullet-in-the-head therapy in totalitarian countries. 

 

If you go on the streets praising Marx in the US half the people will have no idea what you are doing and the other half will avoid you because they they'll think you're asking for money or something. No one will stop you and no one give you any "backlash". You'll likely be ignored. We're pretty tolerant of opinions here. Except on college campuses. But if you go there spouting Marx you'll probably get laid. 

[Ben No.3]

I am? Well why on earth am I still in Germany???

Because trump, Clinton, Lack of sanders, two party system, electoral college, poor welfare and poor state healthcare, far to expensive colleges, to much racism for my taste and guns I'm guessing...

 

Are a autocratic state, a monarchic, sometimes a theocratic state not totalitarian systems? None of these a a police state.

 

You can switch Marxism for any technical legal yet highly controversial opinion. And if no one stops by to discuss with me, that's a sign of disinterest, not tolerance. Tolerance means you oppose something, but let it happen. It does not mean you agree with it.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Ben No.3