ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
I’ve heard this term bandied about for years but never directly encountered someone who uses it.
Because people were using it back in the 80's and maybe late 70's, and when the term started attracting too much negative attention, they promptly started pretending it's a conspiracy theory.
Also, "never met someone who uses the term directly" is an argument that's applied extremely selectively.
Most of the “applied cultural marxists” and postmodernists seem to outright reject Marx and any similarities in their thinking (e.g., oppressor and oppressed) seem to pre-date Marx.
Critical Theory proudly takes inspiration from both Marx and postmodernism.
Some potential meanings I’ve considered and discarded:
Those are fairly decent nutshell descriptions, and there's no reason to reject them.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
10hr ago
I wouldn't say the US forced him to abdicate - he was couped in the 1970's by his Prime Minister. But if the question is "why did the US not put Zahir Shah on the throne as part of their policy of building not-the-Taliban?"
Then you'd be wrong, and that's not the question. They forced him to renounce all future claims the throne.
then per Wikipedia
Please, no.
That the US deep state still (wrongly) considered Pakistan an ally who might have a better sense of Afghan politics than they did was obvious if you were paying attention in the noughties.
Maybe, but given this, and the decision to rebuild Iraq as a democracy seems to indicate ideological commitment, and your theory that it was all cynical is far from obvious.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
11hr ago
But what the US was actually doing in Afghanistan was spending two trillion dollars to (unsuccessfully) spread not-the-Taliban,
So why did they force the king of Afghanistan to abdicate, instead if putting him on the throne?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
15hr ago
What the fuck is going on?
Certain key beliefs our society is based on are Noble Lies, and can't be sustained in an open, high quality, debate environment, leaving the believers only with the option of having a closed debate environment.
The establishment is likely also making sure that no open discussion takes place, because the wrong information coming out at the wrong time is often a direct threat to their power and their goals.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Police gun combat training begins and ends with point the gun at someone, hear Sibyl's judgement, shoot if Sibyl allows you to.
I don't know if I'd go that far. Every enforcer seems very proficient in hand to hand combat.
EDIT: Oh sorry, you said gun combat training specifically.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Why? The border crisis was solved overnight.
Step 1 would be to have competent and diligent people in charge, making decently intelligent decisions about prioritization and being dedicated to followthrough.
People tried that. The ones calling themselves diligent and competent refuse to implement the policies they campaign on, and proceed to invest their political capital into foreign wars that aren't ran diligently or competently.
And if diligence and competence gets us Biden's border crisis, perhaps these words don't mean that much to begin with.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
It's not a well regarded consensus at all. AI is very likely to be used in malicious ways by the powers that be, it is very likely to have second order effects that will make society dumber and people less resilient, but none of it is going to happen in the way the AI safety movement predicts. AGI / ASI / Whatever we're calling it today is unlikely to exist, not just in the next 5 years, but in the foreseeable future (I'll bet you money on this).
I don't see the deflection.
You don't? A straightforward answer to the question would give some indication of what you would think or do in the situation, but for some reason your actual answer only says what you think is likely to happen, and says nothing about your personal judgement of the outcome. Which is awfully convenient given your later argument about people rejecting the "overarching context" when it's suits them. That's a very peculiar kind of blindness that you have, for sure.
People arguing against pedo acceptance will be just as useless as people arguing against gay marriage if the progressive march ever wants to sexually liberate children.
Unless they lose that particular fight for a second time, in which case we'll come back to pretending they never wanted it again.
Besides, it's not about the arguments, as those did little to save marriage from homosexuals.
It's a good thing I'm not trying to save marriage from homosexuals during the course of this conversation, then.
If the majority of trans people weren't mentally ill or completely unpassable 40 somethings, there would be no backlash
Much like your totally not racist statement about which races it's ok to segregate from, this one sure takes the sting out of any talk of "transphobia". Unless you think that being trans is a mental illness in and of itself, these aren't the majority of trans people, and they cause more backlash than the mentally ill unpassable 40-somethings.
But it is inevitable so long as people don't reject the overarching context.
The conversation so far:
- The march of progress is inevitable!
- No it's not. There are several issues where "progress" was brought to a halt, we just pretend to not remember them, or that they weren't "progress".
- Ok, let's say I believe you, how is that relevant?
- Because it shows that the march of progress is not inevitable...
- But it is inevitable!!!
And as as far as I can tell the "overarching context" is the same thing as "the inevitable march of progress" so that argument was entirely circular.
A local preacher, known for fiery sermons, once said: You don't invite sin over for coffee. You say: Away with you! You disgust me!
My entire point is that you're not doing that. First you act like you want to have a rational conversation, when it's pointed out how your arguments and comparisons make no sense, you switch to religious proclamations and start playing the preacher bonking the unfaithful with a bible, and finally when I switch to questions more appropriate for a religious conversation and ask you about your sincerely held beliefs, you suddenly adopt a passive disembodied voice and act like the discussed beliefs aren't even yours. The only time when it looks like you might mention something about your beliefs, you talk about what you don't believe and immediately pivot to criticizing others.
I'm game for any kind of conversation sincere you want to have, but this is just trolling.
When you figure out how to have a rational conversation with a true believer, be that an Islamist or a transexual, let me know.
It's pretty easy. Both sides have to want it, and be aware of the inferential gaps between each other. You can't make someone do it though, and the entire point I was making is that you don't seem to be showing any desire for having one.
I don't think you could. I think it would come across as empty.
Maybe to you, but progressives wouldn't be making dissent a bannable offense if it felt empty do them.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
4d ago
I don't think they crippled the civilian infrastructure to the same extent as the Americans did.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
4d ago
That would imply the Russians care more than what he's portraying not less - even though most people would not care, they're not doing a fraction of what the US did in Iraq, or what Israel did is doing in Gaza.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
4d ago
Russia cares about worldwide public opinion to some small degree, it's just at a much lower level than you seem to think.
He seems to be portraying the Russians as caring about it to the extent it could cause an increase in support for Ukraine, why would their actual level of caring be lower than that? It's completely cynical basic strategic thinking.
If you asked the median Ukrainian if they thought Russia was fighting with "several hands tied behind its back", they'd almost certainly laugh at you.
That has no bearing on whether or not they are actually going all out on them. The US collapsed most of the Iraqi civilian infrastructure when they invaded back in the day, this is what not caring about international opinion looks like.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
4d ago
But ‘assisted in the death of, via second order effects on murder rates’ is a rather different phenomenon.
I don't know if I agree with that. If law and order collapses as a result of civil war, it's not going to be much comfort to me that technically the mob burning down my house is a second order effect.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
4d ago
And even the spicier FC post cited by others doesn't seem to be calling for violence
AvocadoPanic was asking "is there a way to express that some issues may not have satisfactory political solutions?", not "is there a way to directly call for violence?". The answer to the latter is obviously "no".
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
5d ago
That's mostly a rationalization for their lack of resistance. What do you think they will actually resist peso rights, instead of coming up with a similar rationalization?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
5d ago
Just how independent is that "independent" rediscovery? If progressives make an about face on trans issues and decide it's all abruse by evil capitalists to make money off of vurnelable gender non-conforming children, is that the leftist normies spearheading the pushback, or a copy-paste of an argument they were condemning as fascist five seconds ago?
If I look up that time when the US threatened to withdraw UN's funding, over it's associations with NAMBLA, am I going to see mostly conservative, or mostly progressive names attached to that? Is that a valid way to test your theory? If not, what would be?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
5d ago
Yes, I've seen it done, and I've seen prominent posters (who used to be mods) clutching their pearls over it, and leaving in a huff about it, and no disciplinary action being taken.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
5d ago
This is exactly correct. Yet people still support gay marriage. Even if, hyperbolically, that's the 'slippery slope' we are sliding on.
This seems like it's deflecting from the argument we were debating all this time. You were saying that anyone against trans rights is using the same type of argument as people arguing against Civil Rights. By analogy, this would mean you have to focus on the people arguing against pedo acceptance, and say that they are using the exact same arguments, that homophobes used to. If you believe there is a flaw in this reasoning, then you now see the flaw in your original argument.
I'm not following. What ties progressivism together, for lack of a better term, is not just the breakdown of boundaries but also a perversion of them.
That's an interesting take, but for me to accept it would require the kind of outgroup-mindreading that is discouraged here. In any case I don't think this can be derived from the progressive movement's own statements about themselves. Even in private they seem to be more about abolishing boundaries than perverting (unless there are even more super-secret forums, than the ones I'm aware of).
I don't think there is anything wrong with that perspective if you accept enough of their priors.
That's not very helpful, because it's true of nearly every single perspective, possibly including those of clinical schizophrenics. What I'm saying here is if you personally don't believe things like "being against trans rights is the same as being against morality, rationality and reason" phrase it as "X believe that being against trans rights is the same as being against morality, rationality and reason" or else I will assume you are stating a personal opinion.
I'll take your word that this is true, but what's the relevance?
Well, you were just telling me how inevitable the march of progress is, and how, from the perspective of the structures of power, opposing them is "the same as being against morality, rationality and reason". But if the march of progress is not inevitable, than it is not irrational to oppose the structures of power that promote it.
Should I consider your or myself a different species from the rest? Just ride my individualist ego to the heavens rather than assume that I just fell for a different religion?
You've completely misunderstood me. I don't set myself apart from the rest, and if I did, I'd be putting myself below the religious, not above. My point, though, is that you're conflating a religious conversation with a rational one. It's perfectly possible to have rational conversation with a believer, it's even possible to have one about the core tenets of their religion, but religious conversations often devolve into simply reciting doctrine and expecting the other person to instantly bow down, or something. I think this is what happened here. If a religious person wants a rational conversation about the core tenets of their beliefs, they need to come to the conversation with the awareness of the inferential gap between the participants.
You started this conversation casting judgement on the unbelievers. The tone has already markedly changed, to the point where it's not clear if you're even talking about your own opinions or someone else's, but if I approached the conversation with the same religious zeal as you did, I'd be simply condemning you the same way you did me.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
5d ago
I don't think so? It wasn't until several years after the enstunnening and enbravening of Caitlyn Jenner, and the general topic of bathroom drama, that I even heard of drag queen story hour. Maybe in some deep-blue strongholds?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
5d ago
Rdrama mocks us for words, words, words, but it do be like that though, and it's a good thing.
Explain why a political solution won't work, explain what might work instead, try to keep a relatively morally neutral tone. It's not that hard, you can literally boogaloopost if you put enough effort.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
5d ago
Am I the only one that wants to go back in time with a tablet, and show the American founders a few videos?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
5d ago
So how do you explain the normie core happily going along with the mastectomies? They involve teenage girls as well. Was the pushback against pedo acceptance even driven by leftist normies, or was it a result of conservatives being stronger and better organized?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
5d ago
Russia has been more than happy to bomb historic buildings and civilian targets like shopping malls, apartment complexes, and hospitals. It hasn't moved the needle.
Israel doing it many more times over might have helped their PR. Wouldn't surprise me if they even pulled some strings to trigger 10/7.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
5d ago
I shouldn't need to go to church to defer my kid's sexual awakening until they have a meaningful boner.
Or, perhaps, we were the ones missing the point, and no matter how much we believe we shouldn't, we do need to?
Emily Hicks, Richard R. Weiner, Douglas Kellner.
That Cultural Marxists themselves thought that they are taking inspiration from Marx:
More options
Context Copy link