Thursday, March 10, 2016

The Video that shows What’s Wrong with the Modern Left

The speaker is the feminist Anita Sarkeesian.



Whether this is just Sarkeesian’s rhetoric or a throw-away comment, it actually illustrates a deep problem with the modern left.

Parts of the modern left have become a toxic mix of extreme identity politics, cultural relativism, Postmodernist nonsense, extremist Third Wave Feminism, hatred of free speech, hatred of men, and lack of interest in serious economic issues.

For such people, *everything* is racist, sexist, and homophobic – and that is practically all they can talk about. This is unhinged nonsense.

Take the issue of racism. Genuine racism, as I define it here, is at the lowest level it’s ever been. If you want to see real racism, go back to the 1890s to 1940s. Back in 1941 to 1945, there was mass genocide going on in Europe by the Nazis merely because people were the wrong race. Our world is vastly different from that lunatic asylum.

Most senses of the word “racist” today tend to be rhetorical tricks or smears, or gross perversions of the word’s legitimate senses. What is termed “racist” often tends to be merely bigotry and prejudice against some nationality or religious group (which are not races).

Or take homophobia. Back in Nazi Germany, gay people were being exterminated. Now many Western states gave them the right to be married, and there is legislation against discrimination towards gay people.

Let me be clear: genuine racism, gay rights, and women’s rights are important issues. But they have been taken to ludicrous extremes, and so much so that the cultural left now has to invent an endless stream of fake or imaginary racists, homophobes, and sexists to scream at, because identity politicians is all these people have.

The result? It is now “racist” to wear a sombrero, and even liking and eating ethnic food could be proof that you are an evil racist guilty of cultural appropriation.

Third Wave Feminism, while it might have some useful things to say here and there, has turned into a toxic enterprise of man-hating, especially hatred of white heterosexual men. Third Wave Feminists essentially spin propaganda about the gender pay gap or the conspiracy theory that we in the West live in an evil white male patriarchy.

Again, let me be clear: I think First Wave and Second Wave feminists were heroines, who mostly had real issues and important things to say – the First Wave feminists especially because they had to fight for the right to vote.

But Third Wave Feminists have mostly missed the boat, and their ideology comes right out of Postmodernism in many ways. We can prove this by the simple fact that they have virtually nothing to say about the highly patriarchal cultures in the Middle East where women are genuinely oppressed. In Saudi Arabia, for example, it is illegal for women to drive cars and this is a crime tantamount to terrorism.

As far as I am concerned, here is a real and courageous feminist in the video below. She is a Swedish women called Mona Walter.



What is a scandal is that she has to go to right-wing media to tell her story. Why isn’t the left-wing media interested in her? And where are all the Third Wave Feminists?

45 comments:

  1. This might as well be a mises.org blog post.

    She's talking about systemic/passive oppression. Features of society that reinforce inegalitarian norms without any particular malicious intent on the part of those who invoke them. And re: your "third wave" remarks (currently a major dogwhistle of the sorts of people who have made "gamergate" the cesspit it is), be aware that the "second-wave" Feminism you approve of was shot through with racism and transmisogyny.

    And no, modern feminism is not monolithically dependent on postmodernism. Some corners of it are. But that's true of all social theory in the current era.

    It's not enough to legislate against committing violence against minorities. The imbalances in question operate at multiple, discrete levels. Legal, social, ideological, economic, and so on. It's not only "okay" but in fact incredibly important to work at all of these levels to establish a better society.

    Perhaps you should pause to consider why you are so threatened by the "nutshell" quote.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Typical regressive left horsesh*t.

      (1) If the whole of Western society is institutionally racist, then how is a black man president of the US? If the whole of Western society is institutionally sexist, then how can women live independently of men, raise children without men, and even have the state pay them welfare as single parents?

      (2) "And no, modern feminism is not monolithically dependent on postmodernism."

      Except I didn't say that did I, idiot? I said: "But Third Wave Feminists have mostly missed the boat, and their ideology comes right out of Postmodernism in many ways." This is correct.

      (3) "Perhaps you should pause to consider why you are so threatened by the "nutshell" quote."

      In other words: confronted with criticism from other left-wing people, all you can do is scream that *everything and everyone* is racist, *everything and everyone* is sexist, and *everything and everyone* is homophobic.
      -----
      Finally, let me tell you something for nothing: fewer and fewer people on the left are buying this toxic regressive left B.S. Screaming abuse doesn't work anymore because people like you have degraded, sullied and reduced words like "racist" and "sexist" to mere insults emptied of meaning.

      Delete
  2. **(J.M)**

    LK, to your ridiculous comment earlier.

    “If the whole of Western society is institutionally racist, then how is a black man president of the US?”

    Really? Really? Really? You may as well go and write for Breitbart.
    Here’s some others:

    ‘If the whole of U.S 18th/19th century society is apparently racist to black people then why did Nicolas Augustin Metoyer (a black man) own 13 slaves in 1830.’
    ‘If the whole of Iranian society is soooo institutionally sexist, then how come women can successfully have a women’s movement over there’
    ‘If all the climate is apparently going to shit, then why does the weather feel so nice’
    ‘If all women are victims that are beaten, then why isn’t my woman beaten’
    ‘If the whole of white Australian society is apparently racist towards Aborigines, then why isn’t the Aborigine that I know being pelted with racist slurs’

    NO ONE says ‘the whole’ of Western society is institutionally racist - otherwise the institutions that have been created to combat institutional racism, would in turn be institutionally racist (in their own opinion).

    Institutional Discrimination Definition: Institutional discrimination is concerned with discrimination that has been incorporated into the structures, processes and procedures of organisations.

    You don’t think that is a thing at all? Do you want me to give you so many examples your brain will explode? In fact, just look it up yourself.

    Of course you believe institutional sexism and racism is present in our society. You just want people to shut up about it, because it isn’t ‘bad enough’.
    Now, you could respond and say ‘are you saying that all women and races need to be hugged and cared for at all times, is that what you are saying?!’, no, no I’m not. I’m not saying anything of the sort.

    J.M

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never said racism does not exist. You are just making nonsense up. Stop embarrassing yourself.

      What I said: the extent of racism in the West today is grossly exaggerated and as I said above charges of racism today have often degenerated into insanely stupid things like: wearing sombrero is racist.

      Also, while the extent of US racism is no doubt greater than, say, Western Europe, it is still grossly exaggerated.

      "‘If the whole of U.S 18th/19th century society is apparently racist to black people then why did Nicolas Augustin Metoyer (a black man) own 13 slaves in 1830.’"

      Except I never said racism didn't exist in the 19th century. I said "Genuine racism, as I define it here, is at the lowest level it’s ever been." This is correct.

      US slavery is gone. The deep south segregation of the 1930s is gone. The official policy of governments is not racist, and in fact the very charge of "racism" is anathema in our general culture. "Racist" is one of the worst insults you can throw.

      "NO ONE says ‘the whole’ of Western society is institutionally racist"

      lol.. then you had better break the sad news to many people on the regressive left. In the video I posted above, Sarkeesian literally says, "When you start learning about systems, everything is sexist, everything is racist, everything is homophobic."

      Delete
  3. **(J.M)**

    This entire post smells of a Not-As-Bad-As fallacy, a type of moral equivalence fallacy (B happened, and is worse than A. Therefore A is justified.).

    “Genuine racism … If you want to see real racism, go back to the 1890s to 1940s.”
    I’ll just leave that comment there. *Shudder*

    I’ll discuss something I left out in the above though:
    “Genuine racism, as I define it here, is at the lowest level it’s ever been”

    So? Now that it’s lower than it’s ever been. What now? Ignore it. Not a problem anymore? Should we shut up about it? Should we stop talking about it?

    Here’s some others:

    “Genuine inequality, as I define it here, is at the lowest level it’s ever been. If you want to see real inequality, go back to the 1890s to 1940s”
    “Genuine lynching, as I define it here, is at the lowest level it’s ever been. If you want to see real lynching, go back to the 1890s to 1940s”
    “Genuine rape, as I define it here, is at the lowest level it’s ever been. If you want to see real rape, go back to the 1890s to 1940s”
    “Genuine nazism, as I define it here, is at the lowest level it’s ever been. If you want to see real nazism, go back to the 1930s to 1950s”
    “Genuine HIV, as I define it here, is at the lowest level it’s ever been. If you want to see real HIV, go back to the 1980s to 1990s”

    Racism Definition: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

    I tend to shudder when I see someone write ‘regressive left’, because I know they are either about to throw out all of their logic for some comment about the weak ‘leftists’ or about to praise Sam Harris for his un-Chomsky like thoughts.
    The best was when Sam Harris was completely destroyed by Chomsky (an apparent ‘regressive left’ member) in that famous recent email exchange.
    Even better because his fan boys even consistently commented ‘Sam you were out of your league here’, by the end of the exchange he was cowered and whining in the corner claiming that Chomsky was being a big meanie.
    Harris, Dawkins, Maher etc represent a different kind of New Atheist Leftist Regression.
    They are modern day logical positivists that can’t seem to fathom what a deductive argument is, they have an aggressive attitude toward anyone that disagrees, are obsessed with using the term ‘nonsense on stilts’, have a strange obsession for the middle east, and an inability to recognise that absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence (actually, it does in certain cases)…but I could go on.

    If being consistent, logical, concerned about other’s, believing in objective truth, willing to recognise that structural power exists, willing to resist the urge to let frustration drive my argument, able to recognise that historical factors play a part in today’s life (even in the middle east), and not willing to commit logical fallacies in order to serve my emotional state - if that is ‘regressive left’ (a term completely vacuous of meaning), then so be it.

    How one may respond,

    “So does that mean you think that…
    (insert extreme here: *** e.g. all women and races need to be handled and cared for at all times forever in a nursery with kisses to their foreheads, and that meaning doesn’t exist?! ***)”.

    Nope, that’s probably not what I said.

    J.M

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "So? Now that it’s lower than it’s ever been. What now? Ignore it.

      No. Put it and its extent in perspective.

      Not a problem anymore?

      No. But you need to put things into perspective.

      Should we shut up about it? Should we stop talking about it?"

      No. And I never said any such thing. This is hysterical B.S.

      Delete
    2. "The best was when Sam Harris was completely destroyed by Chomsky (an apparent ‘regressive left’ member) in that famous recent email exchange. "

      I read that exchange and your characterisation of it is laughable.

      I happen to admire Chomsky on many issues, e.g. his total contempt for truth relativism and moral relativism, his contempt for French Poststructuralism, Postmodernism, etc., but on the relevant issues here he's made serious errors. Harris is not always right either, but at least has a better grasp of the dangers of religion than Chomsky does.

      Delete
    3. **(JM)**

      “I never said racism does not exist. You are just making nonsense up. Stop embarrassing yourself.”

      I never said that you said that racism does not exist.
      In fact, right here is evidence that I feel you know racism does indeed exist (it is just a few centremetres above this current sentence).

      “Of course you believe institutional sexism and racism is present in our society.”

      I literally just wrote that, that’s what you just replied to.

      “US slavery is gone”

      Slavery does not exist in the U.S? Oh really. I don’t want to fill up your blog with articles that would blow up your servers and your neurons but here’s one article.
      There are 60,000 in the U.S, 30 million world wide.
      Feel free to doubt that there is racism involved in that kind of slavery - you’d be wrong, and there’s much more evidence to show that as well.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/10/17/this-map-shows-where-the-worlds-30-million-slaves-live-there-are-60000-in-the-u-s/


      “The official policy of governments is not racist”

      I could go on about this. Just do some research on the U.S drug war and the stop and frisk policies, as well as the three strikes acts, laws against super-predators etc. Bearing in mind, the NHS’s definition of Institutional Discrimination: “Institutional discrimination is concerned with discrimination that has been incorporated into the structures, processes and procedures of organisations, either because of prejudice or because of failure to take into account the particular needs of different social identities.”


      How about you bother to actually get the CONTEXT of the clip, and do some research. Here is the full quote.

      “"Yeah, absolutely. I sort of joke about how it was the most liberating thing that ever happen to me and also the most frustrating for everyone around me, because like when you start learning about systems everything is sexist, everything is racist, everything is homophobic and you have to point it all out to everyone all the time, so there is a good year of my life. There is a good year in my life where it was just most obnoxious person to be around. And then you settle into it, you start to understand like oh people they can living within the systems and it was just sort of liberating movement for me and you learn how to pick and choose your battles and that sort of thing.”

      Oooooooo wait….what? Hmmm. I’ll just leave that comment there for you to work at twisting back to pure relativistic evil.
      If you weren’t so afraid of the people that believe context is everything, you may have taken it into account here.

      Your turn

      J.M

      Delete
    4. **(JM)**


      Yes, I agree with Chomsky! Not your rhetoric that surrounds it though.
      But I am very very familiar with his views in all of this,
      I’m not going to bother posting links here, but you should read what Chomsky believes the real left is … I don’t think you fall into it. If you do, you’re just hanging on.

      Yes Chomsky believes humans have a real human nature caused by biology and evolution.
      But he does also recognise race as we usually know it today is heavy with social construct, not that race itself is a social construct. It has genetic significance though.

      Human Genome Project:
      Look up the findings on race there.

      Richard Dawkins (A New Atheist Regressive):
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq13SvXIw58

      Logic:
      Modern human beings are about 100,000 years old.
      Not enough time for human genome to change that much.
      Considering evolution via natural selection is gradual.

      KEEP IN MIND, I didn’t say that there aren’t differences, I said that they are difficult to detect and are different from how race is generally classified at this time, as Chomsky believes. Race is heavily a social construct the way we tend to hear about it.
      BUT IT DOES HAVE GENETIC SIGNIFICANCE. SIGNIFICANCE. SIGNIFICANCE. (I wanted to emphasize that - so that no-one got trigger happy and decided to call me Jacque Derrida or something)

      I can't be bothered talking about Harris' useless ethical arguments for intention, (or Harris' useless ethical arguments in general)...or Harris not bothering to actually read Chomsky's book that he was criticising. You'll find a lot of breakdowns of the exchange on the net, people tearing Harris up. I've only seen one numbskull defending Harris in a blog post, breaking down the email, and hilariously leaving out a lot of information. He gets destroyed in the comment section nonetheless. It's worth reading the comments on Harris' actual facebook post, it's hilarious seeing his own supporters embarrassed for him.

      J.M

      Delete
    5. (1) No, you are filled with pathological irrationality.

      Your link:

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/10/17/this-map-shows-where-the-worlds-30-million-slaves-live-there-are-60000-in-the-u-s/

      First, even accepting its definition of slaves ("forced laborers, forced prostitutes, child soldiers, child brides in forced marriages", actually shows us that West has virtually **no** slaves: it is the Non-Western world in India, Pakistan and Africa where this happens.

      But all you can do is scream abuse about the US!! You've demonstrated that you can't keep things in perspective.

      Secondly, making hardened and convicted criminals work in, say, a US prison is not racist slavery, because it applies to **all races** and nobody legally owns them.

      No doubt it is exploitative, but many people would argue it is simply people being punished for their crimes and paying their debt.

      Also, you definition of "slavery" includes child soldiers and child brides in forced marriages, and this is almost completely a problem in the Third World and a severe problem there. However, I already *totally* covered this in my post above, because I stressed the need for people to distinguish between the West and non-Western cultures and urged them to put things into perspective. So you've just reinforced my argument. Well done.

      (2) "How about you bother to actually get the CONTEXT of the clip,"

      What? The context only strengths what I just said. She thinks everything is institutionally racist, sexist etc. and when she points this out everything around her gets annoyed.

      Delete
    6. More evidence on so-called US "slavery" that your article mentions:

      " less visible but still prevalent form of slavery in America involves illegal migrant laborers who are lured with the promise of work and then manipulated into forced servitude, living without wages or freedom of movement, under constant threat of being turned over to the police should they let up in their work. "
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/10/17/this-map-shows-where-the-worlds-30-million-slaves-live-there-are-60000-in-the-u-s/

      But this is by private criminals, not the government and not society at large. The US government *punishes* this, so you've once again demonstrated the opposite of what you set put to prove.

      Delete
    7. **(J.M)**
      This is like talking to a creationist.
      You literally just said above:

      "US slavery is gone".

      The article says.

      "The United States, per capita, has a very low rate of slavery: just 0.02 percent, or one in every 5,000 people. But that adds up to a lot: an estimated 60,000 slaves, right here in America."

      "US slavery is gone", is false. Done.

      A very low rate of slavery does not mean...slavery is gone.
      Are you simultaneously arguing with someone else on some MSN account or something, and mixing things up here.

      "She thinks everything is institutionally racist, sexist etc. and when she points this out everything around her gets annoyed."

      Do you really think that is the only thing that quote could possibly mean?

      Just because she is talking about a time in the past which she was annoying, due to the way she saw everything as racist and sexist and homophobic does not mean that is how she sees things at the time she is reflecting on that.

      I tire of this... but...

      Try replace some words to see the difference easier (or read more of Chomsky's linguistics, that will help).

      "when you start learning about medicine everything is risky, everything is a carcinogen, everything is influenza and you have to point it all out to everyone all the time, so there is a good year of my life. "

      (can you not imagine someone talking about a different time in which they went a bit nutty pointing such things out - that's what she was doing)

      I'll make this easy.
      If you believe she thinks everything is sexist, etc.
      Then I can show that is false by simply showing you that she thinks some things aren't sexist.

      There you go, there's a video. Done.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXmj2yJNUmQ

      This is called putting things in perspective and critical thinking.

      Maybe that is too 'regressive left' of me. I should really go put on my Derrida pyjamas so I feel at peace.

      I see this is a pointless attempt to get through to you. Your comment section generally involves you insulting people, or reacting intensely to criticism, there's no getting through the concept of subtlety to a mind like that.
      Fortunately your voice, in this area of study, will not be heard very loudly where it matters - so that is good :)
      I would love for you to do a public debate on this stuff, or a debate on a public debate website, so that your thinking in this area can (if fallacious) be exposed, or otherwise rise because of its accuracy and rationality.

      (Feel free to ignore the points I just made, or state that I misrepresented you, or state that I made a claim about how you think Anita Sarkeesian doesn't exist or whatever outlandish claim is best)

      Delete
    8. (1) ""US slavery is gone", is false. Done."

      B.S. When I said "US slavery is gone", I of course meant what any sensible person would understand by those words: that slavery where human beings are legally owned by other human beings and exploited is gone. This is a fact. An undeniable fact.

      Your article refers to a different phenomenon: "forced laborers, forced prostitutes, child soldiers, child brides in forced marriages", even when these people are legally speaking free. I notice you don't respond to the obvious point that forced labour in US prisons is not racist if it includes all races.

      Even if you want to call that slavery and you accept that questionable definition, it is only 0.02% of the total US population and it is in the Third World where the **vast majority** of this slavery happens. But a regressive left idiot like you won't say a word about India or Africa or Pakistan, will you?

      (2) finally it is unimportant whether Sarkeesian meant it literally or not. I ALREADY anticipated this:

      "Whether this is just Sarkeesian’s rhetoric or a throw-away comment, it actually illustrates a deep problem with the modern left."

      So most of the 2nd part of your comment is a waste of time.

      Delete
  4. Furthermore, if you love Chomsky so much you should be well aware that a lot of his older thinking is vehemently opposed to the ideas of the modern regressive left, e.g.,:

    (1) Chomsky is strongly in favour of free speech and once went even so far as to defend the right of a French holocaust denier to free speech. Do you agree with him there?

    (2) Chomsky rejects French Poststructuralism and Postmodernism, and all its related ideas, and called leading PoMo thinkers "charlatans":

    http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/02/chomsky-on-postmodernism-and.html

    (3) Chomsky wrote a scathing attack on leftists who talk about "white male science", saying that it sounds like the idea of "Jewish physics":

    http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2015/11/chomsky-on-dead-white-male-science.html
    (4) Chomsky also rejects the extreme social constructivism and “blank slate” view of human beings that characterise the modern left and thinks that human beings have a real human nature caused by biology and evolution:
    http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2013/09/chomskys-rationalism.html
    -------
    Presumably you agree 100% with Chomsky on all these issues? lol.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Incidentally, (4) means that Chomsky must also reject a lot of the extreme social constructivism of Third wave feminism: e.g., that is, he no doubt thinks that sex differences and even *some* gender differences are real and rooted in biology and evolution.

      So is Chomsky a evil racist, sexist homophobe? lol

      Delete
    2. I like how Anonymous can't even really back up his(/her) examples with anything substantive, just claiming you're ridiculous for disagreeing with him.

      Hysteria indeed. Like claiming 1/4 women on college campuses with including things like "Attempted kiss" and consentual sex done while having consumed some amount of alcohol as "Sexual Assault" or "Rape".

      US Department of Justice put the figure at .61%
      http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf

      This is the boy that cried wolf. No one is going to believe it anymore when someone calls someone else a racist, sexist, or even if someone got raped, because they've abused the public trust by calling everything these extremely bad labels when they simply do not apply.

      Delete
  5. I'm firmly convinced that morally world is better than 100 years ago, and that hundred years ago it was Better than... Historical perspective is needed to judge about this. Are we not better than Romain Empire, I'm that time the most civilized society in the world? and re not we better than surfing the Enlightenment, much better in its turn the Romain Empire?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, excellent points.

      The American cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker has written a brilliant book showing how we have made great moral progress:

      Pinker, Steven. 2011. The Better Angels of our Nature: Why Violence has Declined. Viking, New York, NY.

      I made some summaries here:

      http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2013/02/steven-pinkers-better-angels-of-our.html

      http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2013/02/steven-pinker-on-deaths-by-violence-in.html

      Delete
  6. ... So, I cannot understand so much negatively people with the moral evolution, for me incontrovertible.

    ReplyDelete
  7. No obviously, I'm not a Panglossian

    ReplyDelete
  8. Very interesting your summaries about Pinker, which I will read inmediatly. He remember me a lot Bertrain de Jouvenel in his "Le Pouvoir", a libertarian, but with some important exceptions.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I gree totally:
    "So what was the watershed? Pinker argues that it was the “Leviathan state.” The rise of states that incorporated many communities and that imposed law and order and peace upon the populations. But Pinker does not deny that many of these early states were socially and economically stratified, had authoritarian rulers and peace was kept with some very brutal law codes and punishments (Pinker 2011: 57). Pinker is not giving a moral endorsement to early states or all states, but is merely identifying a trend and process that they caused: reduction in violence per capita."

    ReplyDelete
  10. I heartily second the Pinker recommendation.

    I grew up in Canada in the 60s. I remember the scenes on AMerican TV, and the softer but still common racism in Canada. It's way way better now.
    And "homophobia"?
    There are things about Canada (and the US) that are worse than 50 years ago, but on issues like this the improvement is stark.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The regressive left has a militant unwillingness to recognise any progress has been made.

      As she says: *everything* is racist, *everything* is sexist, *everything* is homophobic.

      Delete
    2. Incidentally I don't buy his theory of why it has happened -- the Flynn effect has made us all smarter. The Flynn effect is too big to be entirely real. 2 standard deviations smarter since 1916? That's ridiculous.

      Delete
  11. This vid took Anita Sarkeesian out of context.
    The snippet is not just that.

    It is =>

    "I sort of joke about how it was the most liberating thing that ever happen to me and also the most frustrating for everyone around me, because like when you start learning about systems everything is sexist, everything is racist, everything is homophobic and you have to point it all out to everyone all the time, so there is a good year of my life. There is a good year in my life where it was just most obnoxious person to be around."

    That is very different, she is talking about this in a much more removed manner.

    You really should've researched that before posting. The guy who has the youtube channel just does very stupid clips that capture people in a 'nutshell', he even has a video called 'Rebecca Watson is a c**t' - that girl that Richard Dawkins more or less apologized (and strangely agreed to provide childcare at future atheist meetings) to after disregarding her comments about feeling objectified at a skeptic's event, by comparing her to someone in a much worse situation then using that to show that her complaints her somehow meaningless.

    I like your economics talk, but when you talk about this stuff it isn't as thorough nor convincing unfortunately, it is more emotional than objective and full of reason / rationality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't see how your extended quotation shows it is just a joke or not sincere. Her "joke" is that being a SJW and screaming that everything sexist, racist etc. angers people.

      In any case, I already covered this:

      "Whether this is just Sarkeesian’s rhetoric or a throw-away comment, it actually illustrates a deep problem with the modern left."

      Delete
    2. Also, is it “racist” to wear a sombrero or Mexican Halloween costume, Anonymous?

      Delete
    3. It's not different at all. In the snippet she seems like a self-anointed loon. In the full quote she confirms this. She's boasting about how she "point[ed] it all out".

      Give up on this Anonymous LK.

      Delete
    4. The Illusionist doesn't prejudge authors. He reads Alex Jones's every word. He would never pass over a Bob Murphy book with a sneer. Give him a Swedenborg and it's read that day.

      Delete
  12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_morality#Slave_morality

    http://thezeitgeistmovement.se/files/Lasch_Christopher_The_Culture_of_Narcissism.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Does 19th century chattel slavery exist in the US today or not?

      Delete
    2. Oh, bullsh*t, Illusionist.

      I am not going to read a 251 page book just to get a simple answer to a simple question. In any case, I just looked at the contents page of this book the Culture of Narcissism and I don't even see any discussion of slavery.

      Delete
    3. According to a Google books search the word "slave" occurs just.. once in the whole book. lol.

      Delete
    4. There is no discussion of slavery in Lasch's book? I don't even know where to begin. I really don't.

      You should try to take a deep breath before reading some things, LK. You might get something out of them.

      Delete
    5. I didn't say there is *no* discussion of it, for I just told you there is at least one occurrence of the word "slave". However, I am to going to read 251 pages just to please you.

      I asked you: Does 19th century chattel slavery exist in the US today or not?

      Apparently you can't just answer me honestly.

      Delete
    6. However, I am **NOT** to going to read 251 pages just to please you.

      Delete
  13. On the author Christopher Lasch:

    "At this point Lasch began to formulate what would become his signature style of social critique - a syncretic synthesis of Freud and the strand of paleoconservative thinking that remained deeply suspicious of capitalism and its effects on traditional institutions."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Lasch

    I see. So he's peddling pseudoscientific Freudian nonsense? I am really inspired to read more. Maybe he has some important things to say, maybe, but I doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. I'm aware of the fact that you prejudge authors based on preconceived opinions you receive second-hand. It stifles engagement. You should really stop.

      Delete
    2. I rationally prejudge authors who peddle known and demonstrated nonsense, yes, as any rational person does.

      For example, anyone who tells me that the earth is flat or that the earth is at the centre of the universe has already demonstrated a deep level of ignorance and irrationality.

      It is very likely they have anything of interest or significance to say, just as with Freudians, creation scientists, Postmodernists, and Marxists.

      Delete
  14. The view that everything is sexist is very mainstream. Even Laci Green say that everything is problematic.There is
    even a beautiful "everything is sexist music video" on YouTube. The real problem is not with these people but with the academic education taught that give intellectual support and then these people see everything with problematic lenses.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Personally I prefer Samuel Delany's conceptualization of 'racism':

    "Racism for me has always appeared to be first and foremost a system, largely supported by material and economic conditions at work in a field of social traditions. Thus, though racism is always made manifest through individuals’ decisions, actions, words, and feelings, when we have the luxury of looking at it with the longer view (and we don’t, always), usually I don’t see much point in blaming people personally, black or white, for their feelings or even for their specific actions— as long as they remain this side of the criminal. These are not what stabilize the system. These are not what promote and reproduce the system. These are not the points where the most lasting changes can be introduced to alter the system." (Thomas 383)

    The regressive left refuses to take his latter point.



    Thomas, Sheree R. (2014-12-02). Dark Matter: A Century of Speculative Fiction from the African Diaspora (p. 383). Grand Central Publishing.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The left lack a tragic view of life. Life is not fair and never has been. There will always be racism, sexism, homophobia etc, and no amount of 'education' will stamp these out completely. There will always be rape too.

    None of these problems, which are inevitable to a certain degree, justify the nonsense that we see today on social media with the call out culture and the aggressive abuse of minority power to silence dissent. The SJW mentality is a disease and it's spreading like wildfire.

    As somebody that completed a liberal arts degree and excelled in it and knows plenty of academics, I can claim with absolute authority that the academy is responsible for the regressive left and the SJW mentality. Moreover, most of the academics that teach in the humanities have very ordinary IQ's with few exceptions (higher IQ's tend to be clustered in philosophy departments).

    Academics in media and gender studies departments suffer from the Dunning Kruger effect which they pass on to their students. They are all 'experts' on economics, biology etc, and in reality they know nothing about these topics. It's a complete farce.

    As much as I respect philosophy as a discipline, I'm beginning to suspect that maybe Japan had the right idea by withdrawing public funding from their humanities departments. They are in such a mess today that they are no longer beneficial to society unless they are radically restructured.

    ReplyDelete