Why Political Correctness (Cultural Marxism) Must End!

[Guard Dog]

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

Because trump, Clinton, Lack of sanders, two party system, electoral college 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.

Totalitarian does not just mean you don't get to pick you leaders. 

 

And no, tolerance means you get you say your peace and no one stops you or shouts you down for doing it. If the majority of the USA votes to hold a convention of states and alters the US Constitution to something like Marxism I'd tolerate it in that I'd not take up arms to fight it if it was done legally by the proper majorities. If it were done by fiat by a political faction in power there would be a civil war and you can bet I'd fight in it. See the difference?

 

I don't like abortion. I think it's cold blooded murder (after the 3rd trimester anyway) but I would never tell someone they can't have one because it's not my place to impose my morality on anyone else. They have to be free to choose for themselves. You mentioned guns. I have a lot of them. I won't tell anyone else they must have on and I won't suffer anyone else telling me I can't. Tolerance of behavior you disagree with is the price a free country demands of it's citizens. If you don't like guns you don't have to buy one but you don't get to tell someone else they can't. If you like communism you can talk about it, write about it, agitate about it and hell I'll even buy you poster board to make signs. And no one will stop you. But at the end of the day you can't make someone listen or agree or conform.

[Ben No.3]

But for example I support abortion. So, even though I tolerate your opinion, as in I won't punish you for having it, I will still oppose it and have the discussion about it (not on this thread). So, even though I tolerate the opinion, I don't need to not go against it, wouldn't you say,

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

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. 

Well then they got beaten to it by someone else a long time ago.

 

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.

It's shorter than "reactionaries who spend too much time on twitter and are obssesed with cuckolding".

[Ben No.3]

WHAT is "cultural Marxism" even supposed to mean? Has anyone here actually read Marx?

[algroth]

WHAT is "cultural Marxism" even supposed to mean? Has anyone here actually read Marx?

Nope, 'Marxism' in general nowadays is just a buzzterm being thrown about to encapsulate anything that is left of their beliefs. "Cultural Marxism" is just a crackpot term referring to some conspiracy about 'Marxists' pushing notions such as political correctness and what-have-you so as to destroy Western culture.

Edited November 13, 2016 by algroth

[Blarghagh]

Cultural-marxism is a broad term for anyone who disagrees with the alt-right, just like alt-right is a broad term for anyone who disagrees with cultural-marxists. Because everyone needs to put people they don't agree with into a box so they can generalize them away. The funny thing is that they're the same thing - people who are far too sensitive about people on the internet calling them names and both things don't actually exist at all.

Edited November 13, 2016 by TrueNeutral

[Ben No.3]

Guessing that is quite true... Guys, if you want to call me a Marxist (which to some extend is true I guess...), please know what that even means

[algroth]

Cultural-marxism is a broad term for anyone who disagrees with the alt-right, just like alt-right is a broad term for anyone who disagrees with cultural-marxists. Because everyone needs to put people they don't agree with into a box so they can generalize them away. The funny thing is that they're the same thing - people who are far too sensitive about people on the internet calling them names and both things don't actually exist at all.

Pretty much. It's very much a "pot calling kettle black" situation.

[Ben No.3]

 

And why is Marxism bad?

Well it depends on your view of wheter 90 millions killed for this idea is bad or not.

Wrong answer! The question is what is bad about Marxism, not what is bad about communistic regimes in the past

[Blarghagh]

 

Cultural-marxism is a broad term for anyone who disagrees with the alt-right, just like alt-right is a broad term for anyone who disagrees with cultural-marxists. Because everyone needs to put people they don't agree with into a box so they can generalize them away. The funny thing is that they're the same thing - people who are far too sensitive about people on the internet calling them names and both things don't actually exist at all.

Pretty much. It's very much a "pot calling kettle black" situation.

 

It's an irony I've found in stuff I've seen, even here, about the left losing because of their holier than thou demeanor. "I hate the left because they keep calling me names, those stupid SJW cucks". Makes me feel like they completely missed the lifetime of religious 'Murica decrying everything from rock music to race relations as deviant and satanist filth which bred that attitude in the first place. The right didn't win, the wheel is already turning away from them as steadily as it turned to them. Trump's red replaces Obama's blue replaced Bush's red replaced Clinton's blue. The wheel turns on and the American people still aren't moving as it comes to crush them.

 

In terms of the internet, you're an idiot whether you steal your opinions wholesale from NeoGAF or 8-Chan.

Edited November 13, 2016 by TrueNeutral

[213374U]

If the majority of the USA votes to hold a convention of states and alters the US Constitution to something like Marxism I'd tolerate it in that I'd not take up arms to fight it if it was done legally by the proper majorities.

 

Wow. That's certainly not something I'd expect from you, though perhaps I'm simply not fully understanding your meaning. What you're saying is if a sufficient* amount of your fellow Americans agreed to impose a social transformation that is anathema to you, on everyone including yourself, you'd just shrug and bend over? Why not simply ask for, nay, demand the right to opt out of a social contract whose terms are being radically redefined?

 

Seems to me that you either undervalue your own core beliefs, or place an undue importance on "legality". Laws, like markets, money and all that, are man-made things, meant to serve humans. Not the other way around.

 

*remember: governance 101 is about making sure you have the necessary "majority" to get away with whatever. Jurisdictions, voting calendars, quorum, judicial obstructionism, and so on and so forth. It doesn't take legitimacy, just political savvy.

Edited November 13, 2016 by 213374U

[Guard Dog]

 

If the majority of the USA votes to hold a convention of states and alters the US Constitution to something like Marxism I'd tolerate it in that I'd not take up arms to fight it if it was done legally by the proper majorities.

 

Wow. That's certainly not something I'd expect from you, though perhaps I'm simply not fully understanding your meaning. What you're saying is if a sufficient* amount of your fellow Americans agreed to impose a social transformation that is anathema to you, on everyone including yourself, you'd just shrug and bend over? Why not simply ask for, nay, demand the right to opt out of a social contract whose terms are being radically redefined?

 

Seems to me that you either undervalue your own core beliefs, or place an undue importance on "legality". Laws, like markets, money and all that, are man-made things, meant to serve humans. Not the other way around.

 

*remember: governance 101 is about making sure you have the necessary "majority" to get away with whatever. Jurisdictions, voting calendars, quorum, judicial obstructionism, and so on and so forth. It doesn't take legitimacy, just political savvy.

 

No I'd probably move elsewhere. But we are being really hypothetical here. It's easy for me to say how I'd react over something so unlikely to ever happen. I probably have better chance of becoming Pope... and I'm not catholic. Plus remember in the US it would take a 3/4 majority to do something like that.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

Ben this whole "cultural Marxism" sounds like a made up term to me. Marxism is an economic theory. It doesn't really translate to social mores. The countries that practices the economics of Marx were just garden variety totalitarian states. But then they would have to be because who in their right minds would practice Marxist economics voluntarily. 

[Meshugger]

 

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.

 

 

Conservatism in general is like that. You want to preserve a past that possibly didn't even existed to begin with. What that past exactly is up to debate, but it is too broad as i would see these subgroups be quickly in war with each other if they were big enough.

 

 

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. 

Well then they got beaten to it by someone else a long time ago.

 

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.

It's shorter than "reactionaries who spend too much time on twitter and are obssesed with cuckolding".

 

 

As social interaction has pretty much moved from every day life into social media on the 'net, i would have to admit that they have been quite succesful on that platform. But as soon as they have created their own sacred cows that cannot be made fun of, the pendelum will turn back. Authority that cannot be satirized will fall on its very head. When something can be satirized is more interesting in itself.

 

Case in point from the other side a while back:

 

Edited November 13, 2016 by Meshugger

[Oerwinde]

And why is Marxism bad?

It advocates for bloody revolution to steal the property of others to enforce poverty.

[Meshugger]

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?

 

It's origins is different, it has been switched back and forth during the years:

 

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/287100.html 

 

Roger Ebert describes it as fascism since it promotes self-censorship:

 

[Ben No.3]

Ben this whole "cultural Marxism" sounds like a made up term to me. Marxism is an economic theory. It doesn't really translate to social mores. The countries that practices the economics of Marx were just garden variety totalitarian states. But then they would have to be because who in their right minds would practice Marxist economics voluntarily.

 

I'm happy that we can have a civilised debate on this subject

As a person that is generally more in favour than against Marx, let me try to answer that. First of all, some historical background: Marx created his theory during the time of the industrial revolution. It was a time of extreme class division between wealthy and poor, an extreme injustice towards the poor. 16 work hours a day with little pay and no security whatsoever was common. Insurance or workers rights were unheard of. So, in this situation there comes Marx. And he is against this injustice and comes up with something he considers a better system. Now, extreme circumstances create extreme opinions, and so he created the idea of communism and the absence of such things as say private property.

Now, I agree with you that Marx concrete ideas are not viable. They are to extreme, and for them to work they'd require "better" humans (and Marx even admits pretty much exactly this) without any sense of egotistical motivations. But that doesn't mean that the underlying thought is bad. Now, I like to refer to "everyone according to his abilities, to everyone according to his needs". It basically means that everyone contributes as much as he can to society, and everyone is given as much as he needs by society. And to be honest, if Marx would have been around in for example today's Germany, I think he probably would be quite happy and would not have come up with similarly extreme thoughts. BUT as I said, I still support the underlying thought. And to realise especially the second part (everyone is given as much as he needs), you need government intervention to protect workers rights or society. I'm not saying all capitals is bad (that's a ridiculous claim), but I'm saying a fusion of the two is great, something we in Germany would refer to as "social market economy".

 

Free market is great! But society should do two things:

1. Give everyone as much as he needs, so I heavily support such things as free healthcare, free education (both school and university), good welfare and so on (I'm also a supporter of guaranteed basic income, an idea where everyone gets a small number of money every month regardless of everything; the money is to assure a certain standard of living for everyone)

 

2. Every member of society needs to contribute as it is necessary to support the system in place: basically means high taxes

[Ben No.3]

 

And why is Marxism bad?

It advocates for bloody revolution to steal the property of others to enforce poverty.

What do you think is the link between equity and poverty?

[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?

 

 

It's origins is different, it has been switched back and forth during the years:

 

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/287100.html 

 

Roger Ebert describes it as fascism since it promotes self-censorship:

 

First it is inspired by Marx, now by Mussolini? I recommend you set your mind on what it is

[Azdeus]

First it is inspired by Marx, now by Mussolini? I recommend you set your mind on what it is

It's very multicultural, you would'nt understand.

[Meshugger]

 

 

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?

 

It's origins is different, it has been switched back and forth during the years:

 

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/287100.html 

 

Roger Ebert describes it as fascism since it promotes self-censorship:

 

First it is inspired by Marx, now by Mussolini? I recommend you set your mind on what it is

 

 

Wasn't i clear? It changes, and has historically changed, depending what the current political standards are at place.

[Ben No.3]

 

First it is inspired by Marx, now by Mussolini? I recommend you set your mind on what it is

 

It's very multicultural, you would'nt understand.

Then explain... How do such polar opposites combine?

[Ben No.3]

Wasn't i clear? It changes, and has historically changed, depending what the current political standards are at place.

wait, what? You lost me there... Are you seriously saying that Marx and Mussolini both followed the same ideology only in different times? Edited November 13, 2016 by Ben No.3

[Meshugger]

 

Wasn't i clear? It changes, and has historically changed, depending what the current political standards are at place.

wait, what? You lost me there... Are you seriously saying that Marx and Mussolini both followed the same ideology only in different times?

 

 

No.

 

As the etymology of the word describes, it is the voicing of an opinion that goes against the current political dogma. In the 80's and 90's it was fit to call it a form of fascism because of the conservatives in the US enforcing moral purity everywhere. Today it is political incorrect to go against equality.

[Ben No.3]

 

 

Wasn't i clear? It changes, and has historically changed, depending what the current political standards are at place.

 

wait, what? You lost me there... Are you seriously saying that Marx and Mussolini both followed the same ideology only in different times?

 

No.

 

As the etymology of the word describes, it is the voicing of an opinion that goes against the current political dogma. In the 80's and 90's it was fit to call it a form of fascism because of the conservatives in the US enforcing moral purity everywhere. Today it is political incorrect to go against equality.

Isn't going against equality against the very foundation of the US? "That all men are created equal, that they have been endowed by their creator with with certain unalienable rights" and so on.... Going against equality is a much more serious issue than the overuse of political correctness