foxdemon wrote:Is it the case that the West is becoming increasingly unequal? Yes or no?
When there is a trend to inequality, there is a need to justify it.
Why? No one has been trying justify it, beyond idiotic BS about "job creators" and "wealth creators" to convince gullible right wingers that votes for rich people's parties will somehow benefit them personally.
Justification depends on a system of belief.
The universities produce the system of belief that explains who can use power and under which circumstances.
No, they don't, unless you're learning economics at Chicago or somewhere else they train the PR people necessary to make the economic system look attractive enough to vote back into power. Those PR people won't give a shit about transgender pronouns.
It doesn’t matter that the issue is trans politics. It could have been any of a kaleidoscope of anti discrimination causes. Note I didn’t target trans issues but rather set up for an attack on the concept of human rights.
It doesn't matter to you, because you have this kneejerk "anything anyone does must be woven into the story of my hobbyhorse of the oppression of white male workers" reaction. For proper discussion, yes, it does matter.
It is about who has the power to form ideas. Acedemic freedom is a threat to an establishment presiding over rising inequality because it might lead to ideas detrimental the status quo. The universities are a battle ground that those who have benefited from rising inequality can not afford to lose. Hence the over reaction illustrated by the OP article.
You give the universities too much weight in western ideology. Most voters aren't basing their support on what academics say. It's a battle of media spokesmen and employees, social media and political advertising.
Naturally the bourgeoisie reaction is to trivialise the matter and attempt to compartmentalise it. Wouldn’t want to see the big picture, right? That would be disturbing for some.
No, the bourgeoisie reaction is to say that what the middle classes view in a lecture is what controls the direction of western society. To claim that the big picture consists of the students' thoughts.
If so, then how has the dominant classes contrived to control any possible reaction from those who are being progressively excluded? Is it conceivably the case that they might be using moral politics to politically marginalise their potential opponents, that is the white male worker?
Potential opponents are far more than just "white male workers". This is the 21st century, not the 19th. White males are no more excluded than anyone - still less so, in most countries. Jesus, your reaction isn't just bourgeoisie, it's Trumpian.
Or is it simply coincidence that Political correctness latches on to any cause that legitimated the marginalisation of that demographic?
I guess you are a white male, like me. If so, stop throwing yourself a pity party. Yes, it's coincidence that your demographic has benefited from having the same racial and gender makeup as the most powerful in society, and there's a gradual move away from that privilege, but which is not remotely "marginalised".
Well, white male workers were where the power was.
And then the First World War started ...
Why does PC target that group? That’s where the power must be taken from.
Unions had some power. They were targeted with labour laws, not over-earnest discussions about pronouns and safe spaces.
@Decky what do you think?
Let's ask Dave Spart and Citizen Smith while we're at it. I never thought I'd see anyone here think the Decky account could add to a conversation.