Read the consequences of the insanity of 30 years of cultural relativism here. No comment necessary.
Let me put it in simple terms: Postmodernism + cultural relativism = regressive left insanity.
The Postmodernist left and its bastard offspring the regressive left are a cancer on Western civilisation. To the flames with both of them.
Saturday, March 5, 2016
Enough of the Sickness and Poison of Cultural Relativism
Posted by Lord Keynes at 5:07 AM
Labels: cultural relativism, poison
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
PC is the tool used to impose this shit upon us. Quick, name every candidate in the US election running against PC, and unintimidated by it.
Hint: rhymes with thump.
Btw I disagree with regressive as the right label for these people. Implies they aren't progressives. I haven't thought of a better term yet.
More from that Left.ReplyDelete
Yes, that abstract is a perfect example of Postmodernist gibberish. This has been poisoning young minds at universities for decades.Delete
You still see them at universities. I cringe when I see some young postgraduate at their desk with books piled up by Derrida, Foucault or Lacan.
This reminds me how thrilled I would always be once I figured out a professor I was taking was a postmodernist. 'Speak their language', which is either gibberish or truisms dressed up to appear more complicated than they are, and an easy A based on bullshit is acquired.Delete
They're right to call out the the regressive elements of the left who refuse to call barbarism and savagery what it is, in any form it takes. I'm actually surprised they didn't call out all the regressive lefties who think placing blame on vague forces like "western imperialism" is an explanation. While I do place a great deal of blame on US Cold War policy in the region when it comes to the rise of the noxious ideology of Islamism, few things are more infuriating than a regressive leftist placing the blame on 'imperialism' without being able to name specific actions outside of "We bomb them."ReplyDelete
With that said, there is a bit of a problem with Dawkins talking about the importance of being exposed to ideas you aren't familiar with. Dawkins (and Harris and Maher, if we're making a list) has shown in his writings on the role of Islam and radicalization that he doesn't care to even consider ideas that don't jive with his naive intuitions about the issue, even if those ideas have undergone peer review and been published in academic journals. I can't help but quote Scott Atran, who's conducted more field experiments and interviews with Jihadi's than any man living:
"But as far as many new atheist assertions about religion and terrorism are concerned, they are just blatantly false. I remember confronting Foucault once with evidence that his interpretation of Cesalpino’s way of classifying nature was just plain wrong. His response: “perhaps, but the general story is still right.” That is precisely how Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins respond (Dan Dennett actually does consider inconvenient facts for more than two seconds)."
Between the regressive left of Tim Wise, and the reductionist left of Dawkins and Maher (advance apologies for such a clunky, inarticulate phase-clearly writing is not my strong point), the thirst for knowledge on the modern middle east and rise of Islamism is practically non-existent.
Is this man Atran saying that religion has literally zero to with these violent lunatics? That such people are actually not religious?! If so, it is manifestly Atran who has no idea what he is talking about.Delete
He's saying nothing of the sort, LK, and I have no idea what in that quote would lead you to conclude Atran believes religion has literally zero to do with people carrying out violent acts of Jihad, or that those carrying out those acts aren't actually religious.Delete