ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Not "did people who are freaking out about this have anything to say about the comments on Charlie Kirk"?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Joke's on you, most of this applies to modern liberals as well.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Now I have to disagree with our vice president here, I don't think it is pearl clutching to oppose support of Hitler.
I probably should write something more elaborate, in the spirit of cjet's post, but I'm sorry I cant be arsed to take any of this seriously anymore. I believe all this is, in fact, pearl clutching, that there is no actual moral outrage expressed by people trying to make a mountain of this particular molehill, and it's just a cynical attempt to make the outgroup jump through the ingroup hoops.
I refuse, and I will need material evidence that anyone is actually bothered by any if this, before addressing it seriously.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Top level comment is filtered.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Those are exactly the same things that, for instance, conservatives seek to obtain. Does that make conservatism a form of Marxism?
There is a sense in which feminism, among other priorities, seeks to redistribute various goods in society towards women, on the premise that the current distribution favours men in a way that is both unequal and unjust. But to say that that shows some connection to Marxism obviously proves too much.
I agree, but you'll notice that the comment I was responding to didn't say "Not all redistribution is Marxism." It said "What is feminism redistributing? Reproduction? Family? Male attention? Social status?", implying that it's ridiculous to say feminism redistributes anything material, or worse that the opposition to feminism stems from a desire to force them to reproduce. The implication itself would have been bad enough, but the immediate change of the argument upon the slightest amount of questioning is even worse.
Any movement advocating any action whatsoever is going to demand some kind of redistribution, because action is inherently redistributive - action requires resources, and resources need to be distributed from somewhere.
You're the one proving too much. Even within feminism, there were postulates that didn't require redistribution, like lifting restrictions on access to bank accounts, various trades, or property.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Social status?
Yes. Also jobs, influential positions in institutions, government contracts, and public resources.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
I haven't heard that specific one. While it wouldn't surprise me if someone did say something like that, it's not exactly hard to come up with examples that would contradict, unless the revolution is supposed to happen all by itself.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Frankly, MAGA has a lot more in common with fascism than being right-wing nationalist.
Taking Eco's definition
Most left wingers have a lot more in common with fascism, if you take Eco's definition.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
but I don't see what anyone else gains.
I'm at a loss myself, but I think the status thing might be a big part of the equation. Some people built their entire philosophy around "Uncle Roy is wrong".
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Not "just", "partially inspired by", the same way it was by Marx.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Someone should have probably said that when cultural Marxists started calling themselves that.
I don't think it's quite so bad as you say. I wasn't referring to 19th century industrialists when I said "liberal", I was referring to the American center-left of the 1960's, the architects of the Civil Rights Act.
Critical Race Theorists were explicitly opposed to them, claiming that the liberal / center-left approach doesn't go far enough. A lot of their ideas gained prominence recently in the forms of BLM, DEI, "racism = prejudice + power", "colorblind racism", etc. These people's scholarly lineage draws a straight line through generations of Marxist thinkers, and straight back to Marx himself.
You can call it a bastardization of his thought, if you want, I think Marx himself told one of his descendants "bro, if this is Marxism, than I'm not a Marxist", so it wouldn't even be the first time it happened. But your uncle is straightforwardly right about DEI, and your denials are just inadvertant gaslighting. Like, some of these people literally and explicitly called themselves "cultural Marxists".
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
It's fair to say that the CRA is central in the history of social justice activism, right?
Sort of. There was a whole conflict between the liberals that actually made the CRA happen, and Critical Race Theorists, who had a much more radical vision, and were salty about the liberal one winning out.
The latter aren't likely to say nowadays (they did in the past though) that they the CRA was bad, because that would make them even less popular than they are now, but they will put out memes that go directly against the philosophy of the Civil Rights movement (for example seeing "there is only one race, the human race", or "I don't see color" as expressions of racism).
But that's because they by and large ignored it--a quick search through Google books isn't digging up anything by Adorno, Fromm, Habermas, Horkheimer where they even mention it. They would probably have thought it was a fine thing, in the sense that people generally think "oh, that sounds good!"
No, not really. Like I said, Critical Race Theory thinkers studied directly under them. It would be bizarre if they never heard of their theories, and took no inrerest in them. I think the most reasonable interpretation of their silence is complete approval of the crazy woke theries you claim they would have opposed.
I would not generalise that modern, mainline feminists consider their critique to be a refinement of Marxism. I think that most academic feminists, if questioned, will grant that there is some Marxist influence on their thought - but that most will not see that thought as decisive, and most do not think of themselves as working in a Marxist school, or as part of the Marxist tradition.
That would require pretty low self-awareness. For example if you take either the pro- or anti-porn or prostitution feminists, they will both frame women as victims of capitalist exploitation. Arguably Marxism is the glue that holds all the factions you mentioned together.
The major figures of the Frankfurt School would reject wokism--ideologically and aesthetically, and in particular its focus on consumerist identity.
They had the opportunity to, but didn't. Just off the top of my head, Critical Race Theory kicked off around the time of the Civil Rights Act, and was indistinguishable from BLM from the start. I'm less sure of it, but I think even some of the people who developed it studied directly under the major figures of the Frankfurt School.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
But when my uncle goes on about how DEI departments are "cultural Marxism" I think that is nonsense words. That's "progressive liberalism"
How? Critical Race Theory explicitly stood against the liberal approach to race.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
And, when you look at the actual content of Frankfurt critiques, they don't overlap much, if at all, with woke ones.
If the venn diagram of Critical Theory and wokism isn't a circle, it's pretty damn close. Or are you saying Critical Theory is not related to the Frankfurt School at all?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
That was an example to demonstrate the principle at work -- namely that viewpoint discrimination is intrinsically part of professional licensure. It wasn't some specific example.
If you can draw a direct comparison without it being a specific example, I don't understand what you're getting upset at me for.
At the least, the point remains that an adult can have (e.g.) her tubes tied.
If there are stronger restrictions in place, than I don't see how the point stands.
There isn't evidence, and so in its absence the establishment chose to believe something that wasn't forbidden to them by the research.
How is it "not forbidden to them by the research" in any sense that doesn't also absolve the "bad humors" or "spiritual decay" theory? Given the negative effects of the hormonal and surgical interventions in question, and the dispositive evidence for positive outcomes, what can possibly justify they're doing?
There's a famous Scott piece on the different epistemic burdens people put when faced with assessing things they do and don't want to believe. In the former it's "not excluded by the evidence" and in the latter it's "not mandated by the evidence".
In this case we can write "mandated by evidence" right off the bat. As for "not excluded by evidence", most things banned by licensing organizations aren't "excluded by evidence". Just take a look at the drama Scott got into around Ivermectin, there aren't studies categorically proving it cannot work, just studies showing lack of evidence for it working. That's standard fare in science, even "bad humors" and "spiritual decay" aren't "excluded by evidence" in the sense you seem to be using the term.
Obviously we both agree those beliefs were largely wrong, so what is left to debate here?
Epistemology, I guess. What constitutes "mandated by evidence" and "not excluded by evidence". Also, whether or not the medical profession actually follows the lofty standards you claim it does.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
It's just a question of higher familiarity then.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Come on man. It's fine to say "I'm right about it", it's just silly to say "I'm so right about it that the other side is like phlogiston".
Get off it.
Isn't that literally what you did when you dimissed hydroacetylene point about viewpoint discrimination in therapy by pointing out that medical professionals discriminate against viewpoints like "disease is caused by bad humors" and "disease is caused by spiritual rot"?
I'm not sure "inducing infertility" is a problem -- consenting adults can get their tubes tied.
The restrictions medical professionals put on adults wanting to do this are much stricter than the ones placed on children wanting to do it as part of gender affirming care.
As for the rest, I'd assume it's balanced against the putative mental health issues that come with untreated dysphoria
Except Guyatt's own research shows that there isn't really evidence that treating gender dysphoria helps anyone.
FWIW, I don't even disagree with you here, if you want to fight someone over it online I'm sure you can find someone on reddit to take the other side.
It's just an example. My argument is that your view of the medical profession is rather rosy.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
In what way is the belief "disease is caused by bad humors" dispositively proven to be harmful in a way that gender affirming care isn't?
Guyatt doesn't.
Sure he does, unless you think he doesn't believe that inducing infertility, wrecking the endocrine system, etc., isn't hamrful.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
I imagine they differ from you about what the evidence backs.
You imagine wrong. See for example the recent drama with Gordon Guyatt, the father of Evidence Based Medicine, who's own studies show the lack of evidence. He's still pretty freaked out about these laws being passed.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Yeah, I know. My original question was about the grounds for the negative to reaction to such laws, if we assume the statement in your comment was true.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
I can't tell if there's some massive moral hazard involved, or just plain incompetence on the part of the board.
It's just politics on a very small scale. In theory the shareholders should keep them in check, but unless someone has majority ownership, it's a lot harder for them to coordinate than it is for the board.
The question is whether you are particupating in the "who whom" yourself.
More options
Context Copy link