Outrage culture - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Language, bias, ownership, influence; all media related topics.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14841794
Just to be clear, I am not suggesting emotions should be totally absent from discussions. Some issues require knowing the emotions involved, and of course we expect the young to be driven by emotional zeal. What we see now goes beyond that.
User avatar
By Politiks
#14841803
MB. wrote:If PoFo is any example to go by, the political discourse is currently toxified by what I call "outrage culture". This is hardly a new phenomenon and was probably first identified by George Orwell:



Today it seems to exemplified by the screaming antics of outrage pundits, most notable was Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck but evolving to include Alex Jones, the Young Turks, thousands of YouTube personalities and so on.

I'd like to have a frank discussion about this state of affairs and how it came about. Also if our user base sees any possible solutions.


I think is mixed with identity politics in such a extent on the internet isn't even trying to hide anymore. Youtubers that go against the establishment view receive way less money than the pro establishment ones with way less views than them.

While a demented non-binary who might identify as a banana has no criticism a person who criticizes or does some sort of investigative journalism in which the end result contradicts the blunt lies told by mainstream media will be thrown under the bus.

In another words you're allowed to support BLM torching cities, terrorizing people. You're allowed to make pro Sharia Law videos but you can't make white supremacist videos.

I'm obviously against Nazism, racism and white supremacy hence why I can't understand how someone who is pro Islam can be aint Nazis as both preach the end of Israel and death of Jews.

Antifa is a terrorist group in many countries: France, Brazil, Germany, Colombia, Greece and Italy. Of antifascism only has the name because is absolutely fascist and communist and is also very violent.

In USA for now they are a bunch of losers mostly middle class, but wait until that thing creates roots like it did in South America and Europe to see what you will have for dinner.

The outrage is very selective

By ness31
#14841818
One Degree wrote:Pofo supposedly represents those with higher than average intelligence


says who? :?:
By SolarCross
#14841871
Reichstraten wrote:Wow, this really makes me think of images I've seen from North-Korea.
I don't think the culture of the west today is relatable to the 1984 movie however.

Berkely?

The Origins of Political Correctness

February 5, 2000, Bill Lind, 324 Comments

An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind. Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA conferences including the 2000 Conservative University at American University

If you enjoy this speech, keep up with political correctness and how it continues to emerge on college campuses by following our Faculty Lounge blog.

Where does all this stuff that you’ve heard about this morning – the victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it – where does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or homophobic.

We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this has been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they would be afraid of what words they used. But we now have this situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses, but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Were does it come from? What is it?

We call it “Political Correctness.” The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.

If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.

First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted “victims” groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the college, they face formal charges – some star-chamber proceeding – and punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.

Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this philosophy certain things must be true – such as the whole of the history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women. Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and say, “Wait a minute. This isn’t true. I can see it isn’t true,” the power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.

Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past is about that one thing.

Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good – feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be “victims,” and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do. Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.

Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions. When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn’t as well qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation. White owned companies don’t get a contract because the contract is reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism.

And finally, both have a method of analysis that automatically gives the answers they want. For the classical Marxist, it’s Marxist economics. For the cultural Marxist, it’s deconstruction. Deconstruction essentially takes any text, removes all meaning from it and re-inserts any meaning desired. So we find, for example, that all of Shakespeare is about the suppression of women, or the Bible is really about race and gender. All of these texts simply become grist for the mill, which proves that “all history is about which groups have power over which other groups.” So the parallels are very evident between the classical Marxism that we’re familiar with in the old Soviet Union and the cultural Marxism that we see today as Political Correctness.

But the parallels are not accidents. The parallels did not come from nothing. The fact of the matter is that Political Correctness has a history, a history that is much longer than many people are aware of outside a small group of academics who have studied this. And the history goes back, as I said, to World War I, as do so many of the pathologies that are today bringing our society, and indeed our culture, down.

Marxist theory said that when the general European war came (as it did come in Europe in 1914), the working class throughout Europe would rise up and overthrow their governments – the bourgeois governments – because the workers had more in common with each other across the national boundaries than they had in common with the bourgeoisie and the ruling class in their own country. Well, 1914 came and it didn’t happen. Throughout Europe, workers rallied to their flag and happily marched off to fight each other. The Kaiser shook hands with the leaders of the Marxist Social Democratic Party in Germany and said there are no parties now, there are only Germans. And this happened in every country in Europe. So something was wrong.

Marxists knew by definition it couldn’t be the theory. In 1917, they finally got a Marxist coup in Russia and it looked like the theory was working, but it stalled again. It didn’t spread and when attempts were made to spread immediately after the war, with the Spartacist uprising in Berlin, with the Bela Kun government in Hungary, with the Munich Soviet, the workers didn’t support them.

So the Marxists’ had a problem. And two Marxist theorists went to work on it: Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary. Gramsci said the workers will never see their true class interests, as defined by Marxism, until they are freed from Western culture, and particularly from the Christian religion – that they are blinded by culture and religion to their true class interests. Lukacs, who was considered the most brilliant Marxist theorist since Marx himself, said in 1919, “Who will save us from Western Civilization?” He also theorized that the great obstacle to the creation of a Marxist paradise was the culture: Western civilization itself.

Lukacs gets a chance to put his ideas into practice, because when the home grown Bolshevik Bela Kun government is established in Hungary in 1919, he becomes deputy commissar for culture, and the first thing he did was introduce sex education into the Hungarian schools. This ensured that the workers would not support the Bela Kun government, because the Hungarian people looked at this aghast, workers as well as everyone else. But he had already made the connection that today many of us are still surprised by, that we would consider the “latest thing.”

In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about because the very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist and has lots of money to spend. He is disturbed by the divisions among the Marxists, so he sponsors something called the First Marxist Work Week, where he brings Lukacs and many of the key German thinkers together for a week, working on the differences of Marxism.

And he says, “What we need is a think-tank.” Washington is full of think tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back quite a ways. He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt University, established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be known as the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly identified as Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is for people to figure out it’s a form of Marxism. So instead they decide to name it the Institute for Social Research.

Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1917, he wrote to Martin Jay the author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the Institute for Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he said, “I wanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to its contributions to Marxism.” Well, he was successful. The first director of the Institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist, concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, “by clearly stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific methodology.” Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the Institute, and that never changed.
The initial work at the Institute was rather conventional, but in 1930 it acquired a new director named Max Horkheimer, and Horkheimer’s views were very different. He was very much a Marxist renegade. The people who create and form the Frankfurt School are renegade Marxists. They’re still very much Marxist in their thinking, but they’re effectively run out of the party. Moscow looks at what they are doing and says, “Hey, this isn’t us, and we’re not going to bless this.”

Horkheimer’s initial heresy is that he is very interested in Freud, and the key to making the translation of Marxism from economic into cultural terms is essentially that he combined it with Freudism. Again, Martin Jay writes, “If it can be said that in the early years of its history, the Institute concerned itself primarily with an analysis of bourgeois society’s socio-economic sub-structure,” – and I point out that Jay is very sympathetic to the Frankfurt School, I’m not reading from a critic here – “in the years after 1930 its primary interests lay in its cultural superstructure. Indeed the traditional Marxist formula regarding the relationship between the two was brought into question by Critical Theory.”

The stuff we’ve been hearing about this morning – the radical feminism, the women’s studies departments, the gay studies departments, the black studies departments – all these things are branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you’re tempted to ask, “What is the theory?” The theory is to criticize. The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that. They say it can’t be done, that we can’t imagine what a free society would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we’re living under repression – the repression of a capitalistic economic order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression – we can’t even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not the 1960s.

Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno, and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political Correctness, and that’s the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse, who in his own writings calls for a society of “polymorphous perversity,” that is his definition of the future of the world that they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm’s view, masculinity and femininity were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined.” Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct.

Another example is the emphasis we now see on environmentalism. “Materialism as far back as Hobbes had led to a manipulative dominating attitude toward nature.” That was Horkhemier writing in 1933 in Materialismus und Moral. “The theme of man’s domination of nature,” according to Jay, ” was to become a central concern of the Frankfurt School in subsequent years.” “Horkheimer’s antagonism to the fetishization of labor, (here’s were they’re obviously departing from Marxist orthodoxy) expressed another dimension of his materialism, the demand for human, sensual happiness.” In one of his most trenchant essays, Egoism and the Movement for Emancipation, written in 1936, Horkeimer “discussed the hostility to personal gratification inherent in bourgeois culture.” And he specifically referred to the Marquis de Sade, favorably, for his “protest…against asceticism in the name of a higher morality.”

How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled. They fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished there in 1933 with help from Columbia University. And the members of the Institute, gradually through the 1930s, though many of them remained writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German society, destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to Critical Theory directed toward American society. There is another very important transition when the war comes. Some of them go to work for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.

These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels needed theory of some sort. They couldn’t just get out there and say, “Hell no we won’t go,” they had to have some theoretical explanation behind it. Very few of them were interested in wading through Das Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for them, and unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the university, Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School relocated back to Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there – when the student rebels come into Adorno’s classroom, he calls the police and has them arrested – Herbert Marcuse, who remained here, saw the 60s student rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the New Left in the United States.

One of Marcuse’s books was the key book. It virtually became the bible of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist), repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person Freud describes – the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses, because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can envision a future, if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of “polymorphous perversity,” in which you can “do you own thing.” And by the way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They’re students, they’re baby-boomers, and they’ve grown up never having to worry about anything except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy writing in a way they can easily follow. He doesn’t require them to read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to hear which is essentially, “Do your own thing,” “If it feels good do it,” and “You never have to go to work.” By the way, Marcuse is also the man who creates the phrase, “Make love, not war.” Coming back to the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines “liberating tolerance” as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes back to the 1930s.

In conclusion, America today is in the throes of the greatest and direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power of the state. In “hate crimes” we now have people serving jail sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it. The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on campus is part of it. It’s exactly what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it’s coming here. And we don’t recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it off. My message today is that it’s not funny, it’s here, it’s growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.
By Reichstraten
#14841876
SolarCross wrote:Berkely?


I’ve studied only two years, ten years ago, on a university in Holland and I experienced nothing that could be explained with the term political correctness. The University of Amsterdam however is famous for its leftism and a student appeared in the media a year ago because he made a Facebook-group called “Leftist indotrination on my university.” Do you know how things have changed in those ten years? Because a lot can happen in a decade. Articles are nice, but what’s your personal experience?
#14841887
The Sabbaticus wrote:Where is the mention of CNN? Even other left-leaning media outlets are calling them out. In fact, you've failed to mention the entire mainstream media.

This is about 'outrage culture' - go and check the thread title if you're unsure - not about whether media channels are criticised. It's about emotional broadcasts designed to stir up outrage in viewers. And, just to keep you happy, Glenn Beck was mentioned. Here he is, on CNN Headline News (he spent nearly 3 years there), getting outraged:



I'd have to add radio to this - Rush Limbaugh and many others have spent over 2 decades ranting on air to get listeners mad (my first encounter with Limbaugh was when, a bit after I moved to the USA, I heard a radio report saying "talk radio's Rush Limbaugh weighed in today on ..." something or other, and they played a clip of a crazy man ranting. So it was obviously a phone-in with the usual nutters calling about their obsessions. I waited for this Limbaugh to reply and ... nothing. The lunatic was Limbaugh. I had never known anyone so unhinged to be given a media job in the UK, let alone be well-known enough to get talked about on other programs).

The problem is that stirring up the audience sells. The millions many of these people have made proves this. There is a significant sector of the public who enjoy hating, and these professional haters give them regular targets. It's been successful in the USA since the 1930s at least:



(odd - the above was just meant to be a link to a CSPAN page, which includes a recording of 'Father Coughlin' in a discussion about him. Try
Code: Select allhttps://www.c-span.org/video/?73853-1/radio-priest-charles-coughlin&start=1221
)


and before mass broadcasting, it was just what demagogues did in speeches. Or in sermons.

Any possible solutions? Improve the general well-being of people. It's when they think they have valid grievances that they want scapegoats. And gradual education of people on how to be members of society who don't depend on there being an 'Other' to looks down on. It'll takes decades, or more likely centuries.
By Pants-of-dog
#14841927
I am still thinking about this.

I think part of it has to do with videos, memes, and other images that take a snapshot of a position but lack nuance.

I think another part of it echo chambers, and the resultant outrage when you then encounter what is seemingly an outrageous position but is actually quite rational or mainstream, because you have normalised your own position in the echo chamber.

I also think that there is an unwillingness to see nuance in the positions of others that then creates a projection of unreasonableness.
#14841946
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:This is about 'outrage culture' - go and check the thread title if you're unsure - not about whether media channels are criticised. It's about emotional broadcasts designed to stir up outrage in viewers. And, just to keep you happy, Glenn Beck was mentioned. Here he is, on CNN Headline News (he spent nearly 3 years there), getting outraged:



I'd have to add radio to this - Rush Limbaugh and many others have spent over 2 decades ranting on air to get listeners mad (my first encounter with Limbaugh was when, a bit after I moved to the USA, I heard a radio report saying "talk radio's Rush Limbaugh weighed in today on ..." something or other, and they played a clip of a crazy man ranting. So it was obviously a phone-in with the usual nutters calling about their obsessions. I waited for this Limbaugh to reply and ... nothing. The lunatic was Limbaugh. I had never known anyone so unhinged to be given a media job in the UK, let alone be well-known enough to get talked about on other programs).

The problem is that stirring up the audience sells. The millions many of these people have made proves this. There is a significant sector of the public who enjoy hating, and these professional haters give them regular targets. It's been successful in the USA since the 1930s at least:



(odd - the above was just meant to be a link to a CSPAN page, which includes a recording of 'Father Coughlin' in a discussion about him. Try
Code: Select allhttps://www.c-span.org/video/?73853-1/radio-priest-charles-coughlin&start=1221
)


and before mass broadcasting, it was just what demagogues did in speeches. Or in sermons.

Any possible solutions? Improve the general well-being of people. It's when they think they have valid grievances that they want scapegoats. And gradual education of people on how to be members of society who don't depend on there being an 'Other' to looks down on. It'll takes decades, or more likely centuries.


Yes, this is about outrage culture, e.g. the MSM constantly stirring up controversy and outrage over Trump's presidency, to the point where the MSM is hemorrhaging credibility and people are turning to alternative media for political insight.

The most recent 'incident' is when the MSM capitulated en masse and had to concede that Antifa was a problem. It was like a line of domino pieces, all of them suddenly shifting narrative in order to salvage what was left of the reputation of the DNC.
By SolarCross
#14841954
Pants-of-dog wrote:I think another part of it echo chambers, and the resultant outrage when you then encounter what is seemingly an outrageous position but is actually quite rational or mainstream, because you have normalised your own position in the echo chamber.

Echo chambers may exist in ivy league colleges but not here in pofo which is the first venue pointed by @MB 's OP. Here on pofo we have every kind of extremist flicking spittle at each other.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I also think that there is an unwillingness to see nuance in the positions of others that then creates a projection of unreasonableness.

Yeah like just calling everyone racist or fascist to the point where those words don't mean anything anymore, that's a fair point.
#14841962
SolarCross wrote:Echo chambers may exist in ivy league colleges but not here in pofo which is the first venue pointed by @MB 's OP. Here on pofo we have every kind of extremist flicking spittle at each other.


Right. That whole thread you guys have specifically about SJWs and the crazy things they do is totally not a place for you guys to all reaffirm each other's viewpoints.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

Yeah like just calling everyone racist or fascist to the point where those words don't mean anything anymore, that's a fair point.


Or, reducing something like anti-racism activism to a single point about poor right wingers being called "racist". Both are examples of a refusal to see nuance.
By SolarCross
#14841964
Pants-of-dog wrote:Right. That whole thread you guys have specifically about SJWs and the crazy things they do is totally not a place for you guys to all reaffirm each other's viewpoints.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

No pro-SJWs are kicked out of that thread though, and some like Special Olympian are at least as active defending SJWs as anyone else is of laughing at them. They are pretty funny though why not have a thread about it? Besides that is just one thread, pofo as a whole has all sorts.
#14841969
My point was that the mere existence of ideological opponents is not enough to guarantee that places become echo chambers.

The thread still acts as a echo chamber in that the function is not to provide a critical analysis of your position but to reinforce a stereotype about a certain ideology or set of ideologies.
By SolarCross
#14841970
Pants-of-dog wrote:My point was that the mere existence of ideological opponents is not enough to guarantee that places become echo chambers.

The thread still acts as a echo chamber in that the function is not to provide a critical analysis of your position but to reinforce a stereotype about a certain ideology or set of ideologies.


It is a focused data dump rather than an echo chamber. Most content on the thread is just direct evidence of SJWs being crazy without even any comment or interpretation. Just show and tell.
User avatar
By MB.
#14841972
I think Pants-on-Dog is correct. I imagine this is why the aforementioned "SJW" thread is in Gorkiy Park. Clearly it's function is not critical analysis, if that were the purpose, it would be in a relevant subforum (and subject to ontopic moderation). Rather said thread strikes me as an excellent example of outrage culture. As SolarCross observed, the thread acts as a concentrated "datadump" of outrage.
By RhetoricThug
#14841979
...while code-name Big-Bird (threat treat level yellow blue, canary in a coal-mine) circles signals intelligence and monitors their ignorance.


I'm ecstatic! RT will now stop by and remind everyone- love is the missing link. Please continue, constructive dialogue will lighten the dark night of the soul.

Please folks (I have a secret to tell from my electrical well), Rhetoricthug is a purely titular image, I would like to be anagrammatically identified as Retouch Girth, Trice Through, Grocer Hit Hut, Echo Trig Hurt~ Hector Rug Hit~Tech Rigor Hut~ Critter Ugh Oh~ Truce High Tor~ Cure Thigh Rot~ Grouch Her Tit~ Chi Goer Truth~ Chit Her Grout~ Chit Retro Hug~ Touch Her Grit~ Ouch Err Tight~ Cot Truer High~ Rec High Tutor, or Choir Get Hurt, and to (th)ink, I'm all these things and more. (Y)our story is infinite, we never rest. :excited:
Image
Last edited by RhetoricThug on 08 Sep 2017 21:45, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By MB.
#14841983
Are we going to take on McLuhan and Finnegan's wake here? That might be ambitious even for this thread.
By Pants-of-dog
#14841984
@SolarCross

Sure. If that is what you wish to believe.

The right wing blogosphere (for example) does the same thing. It gets enough people all saying the same thing that it creates a paradigm of reality, and when someone encounters an opinion outside this paradigm, it is treated as irrational or extreme.
By SolarCross
#14842007
Pants-of-dog wrote:@SolarCross

Sure. If that is what you wish to believe.

The right wing blogosphere (for example) does the same thing. It gets enough people all saying the same thing that it creates a paradigm of reality, and when someone encounters an opinion outside this paradigm, it is treated as irrational or extreme.

You know the left is this x1000 right?

Ask a leftist about capitalism and endure a full ten minutes of being sprayed in spittle as they rave, bug eyed, about stuff normal people consider well... normal.

The right is literally nothing in itself but simply all those who are not left, so mostly it's just ordinary non-ideological people.
Last edited by SolarCross on 09 Sep 2017 01:16, edited 1 time in total.
By foxdemon
#14842013
SolarCross wrote:Berkely?



Regarding the article about Cultural Marxism and political correctness. Yes it is true that PC derives it's ideas from that school of thought. But the article attributes far too much agency to the Cultural Marxists. As the article mentions, but doesn't elaborate on, the 1960's students needed a system of belief to legitimate their actions. And what better than a vacuous system of belief that offers no solutions and thus doesn't present an alternative to established power.

Those students, which include the Clintons, were America's young elites, mostly WASPs. The Cultural Marxists couldn't have gotten anywhere if their services weren't in demand. And that is the thing about Cultural Marxism, it is basically a bunch of Marxists who gave up on the class struggle and sold out to the liberal bourgeois by providing the liberal elite with tools to aid that class in consolidating wealth and power.

Apart from student radicalism in the '60's, there was a need to justify or obscure the rise in socio-economic inequality from the '70's through to the present. It is not that Cultural Marxists, or indeed Jews, control society like some puppet master, but rather that Cultural Marxists and market dominate minorities are useful to the dominate elite. Which is mainly WASP in America. PC is a system of ideological control that the establishment use to preserve their status (which is of course the aim of any form of PC in history). As to the Cultural Marxists, well they are basically a bunch of sell outs. Overrated by conservatives in my opinion.

I commend @SolarCross for posting it as it is more interesting than his usual outrage posts. I am eagerly awaiting the opportunity to read his own opinions on the article presented.

I apologise, it was a misunderstanding. More tha[…]

Not true, but you can not do anything about the[…]

Harry does not have a drop of Windsor blood in him[…]

Do you see the game good faith donna's playing […]