To this day you find leftists who insist that progressive liberals aren't actually leftists. Nobody in the American system cares much but they'll passionately insist that America doesn't really have a left because they're all liberals.
The obscuring factor here is that progressive liberals seem to see leftists as closer to them politically than right liberals. But leftists will generally attack them even more for being more susceptible to their attacks than right libs.
Of course, when they're attacked from the outside they have no problem hiding behind the ambiguity.
But your uncle is straightforwardly right about DEI, and your denials are just inadvertant gaslighting
The uncle/"simple as" stuff really does feed my belief that it just comes down to these terms being low status.
I don't know that any of the supposedly technical or more accurate terms - like Mounk's "identity synthesis" - are actually superior in intuitiveness to "cultural Marxism" or, even worse, "gay race communism". Those other terms are just used by icky dumb people like right libs.
I see why this ideology, which is notoriously against being named at all would behave this way but I don't see what anyone else gains.
Tanista
20hr ago
and rebelliousness/insufficient patriotism. Not a lot about it being too Jewish.
The Jews were seen as troublesome, stubborn bastards too. It was just that they were clearly an ancient people and so got somewhat of a pass. Christians didn't.
After the rebellion this association would have been even stronger. Which explains the Christian efforts to distinguish themselves in their Gospels.
Tanista
23hr ago
Handing over the territory without a deal might have ended up like Gaza (which is criticized even by pro-Pals as a way to freeze the peace process*). Worse maybe.
So we have to go back to why a deal didn't happen.
* Pretty damning when you think about it tbh.
Eventually someone is going to realize that grotesque jihadi violence is counterproductive and that they would get way more stuff if they kept the Jews around to milk welfare out of.
They were getting welfare out of the international community via things like UNRWA regardless. I'm sure money will continue to roll in.
Because the people Lobster Daddy hates have been in control of art, universities, etc for the back half of the 20th century and all of the 21st
And are we arguing that that has yielded no fruit? All of the things people blame on Tumblr started in the academy.
Or is that they clearly aren't trying because they otherwise would have succeeded given their hegemony in those spaces?
I don't see why "they did try. They were just wrong, like their Marxist forebears" isn't an answer in this framework. There may just be limits on what you can do sometimes using those tools.
I'm not sure why we'd assume a continuity of ancient atheism and modern atheism. Atheism is a rejection of God(s). How we see gods influences it.
Consider New Atheism: their moral critique of Christianity was that it was a) unnecessary and b) insufficiently universalist because non-Christians are excluded from full communion. The latter is not a critique that ancient atheists would necessarily have cared about. Ethics doesn't actually obligate you to be a universalist.
Criticisms of the morality of the Old Testament God are born of the same impulse that gave us an actual, clear Christian heresy like gnosticism: the god of the Hebrew Bible, at first blush, fails by the standards of the New Testament/NT-inspired modern morality. This is a problem that becomes acute when you're not a polytheist.
The other claim is that science can fill the role religion plays as an arbiter of truth, a moral authority and a source of meaning and the sense of the numinous. I see no reason for these to be basic atheistic assumptions. A lot of our debates are about principles. And truth doesn't have to be numinous.
More options
Context Copy link