Cultural Marxists are very willing to keep pandering to the same favorite groups, if they aren't marginalized and if the hierarchy favors them. The narrative is one of marginalized communities and right wing heirarchy, but you can, and in fact it is the increasing model, of increasing cultural marxism with the communities not being marginalized. If they marginalize disfavored groups, you will not see the kind of people called cultural marxists, reversing cause.
If a space becomes less diverse, by becoming more black, and less white, you won't sdee them complain.
That can be explained by their opportunism and dishonesty. But it doesn't explain how the ideology recruits followers in the first place.
I've never seen any of such complaints raised anywhere in any context other than one promoting cultural Marxism.
I'd say that when you're already dominating the social order, you're no longer gaining power by recruiting supporters but by raising and indoctrinating them. It's a different dynamic from then on.
So what do you call a movement that seeks supporters by appealing to the cultural grievances of marginalized groups in predominantly left-wing hierarchical social environments?
Reactionaries, I suppose.
I only quoted Ball to give an example of a purely economic argument for redistribution and equality.
Is critical race theory supposed to be a conspiracy?
It's an idea that's basically a variation of the old "it's just a few college kids on Twitter, dude" argument. They'll tell you that CRT is ackchyually just a really obscure left-wing legal theory from the '80s that like 50 academics in total are actually familiar with.
Cultural Marxism seems to be a subject that starts discussions here from time to time (this is the latest example, I guess), and one conclusion I came away with from these is that apparently many Blue Tribers are convinced that the concept is nothing but a neofascist myth, similar to how the same group dismisses "political correctness" as something not real and instead existing in nowhere else but the imagination of GOP propagandists.
Anyway, it's not like I want to reinvent the wheel here, but I propose a simple concept to differentiate cultural Marxism from economic Marxism. For the sake of argument, let's assume that both Marxist tendencies actually exist, although I understand that this is a very big jump for the leftists mentioned above. Instead of observing what these tendencies argue, let's look at how they find purchase in society, to the extent that they do.
Economic Marxism seeks supporters by appealing to the economic grievances of marginalized groups in predominantly right-wing hierarchical social environments.
"How is it possible that I'm working my ass off yet still remain nothing but a poor shmuck while assholes who never worked a day in their life drive around in fancy cars and fancy clothes?!"
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman? From the beginning all men by nature were created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men." (John Ball)
It's not difficult to see why economic Marxism lost most of the allure it ever had: the people who keep appealing to such grievances are no longer the Marxists. This has multiple causes of its own, but I won't try going into this here.
Cultural Marxism, on the other hand, seeks supporters by appealing to the cultural grievances of marginalized groups in predominantly right-wing hierarchical social environments.
"Why is everyone in this town such a homophobic garbage Nazi shithead? I bet they'd start pelting me with rocks if I tried walking down Main Street holding hands with my BF."
"I'm from Alabama and my pal got thrown out of the house by his shitty Fundamentalist parents just for being gay and trans. Why is it such a cesspool, man?!"
"Everytime I visit family I get cold stares and they keep pestering me when am I finally getting married. I'm done with these fuckers."
"Why is it still considered normal here for shitbag rednecks to drive around flying the Confederate flag? I can't even."
Bit hunting/killing wild geese without a loicense is technically a federal crime, aint't it?
Here's another idea: how about offering Czechoslovakia military assistance in the face of a potential German invasion instead of grabbing the opportunity of taking part in its territorial mutilation in 1938?
A neighboring state can at least conceivably provide military assistance. Britain cannot.
Mainly by enabling and normalizing single mother households i.e. fatherlessness, as far as I know. There was also a tendency of more lenient sentencing.
I'd be more interested in knowing if they caught and ate any geese or not.
The OP was discussing the reactions of Democrats (well, OK, technically not them specifically, but their side) and Republicans - that is, political parties. Why should their reactions be the same to politically motivated and not politically motivated events?
Literally any other option would have been a better idea than putting trust in a British defense guarantee.
School shootings aren't normally politically driven. Assassination attempts targeting politicians always are.
so long as it wasn't in the relatively small subset of things which were censored
So basically cat videos, baby pictures and other content if approved by the Blue Tribe.
Based on what little I know about cars, "muscle cars" as such disappeared after California and other US states enacted all sorts of emission regulations in the name of protecting the environment and so on. I think it's just another example of Western civilization becoming ever more lame-ass, but whatever. Anyway, I find the concept of a "non-V8 muscle car" sort of laughable.
All new construction is ludicrously luxurious by the standards of 15 years ago
Huh? Like...what?
All new cars are ludicrously luxurious by the standards of 15 years ago (performance models now have 600-1000 HP)
What does more HP have to do with luxury?
I'm getting the same impression overall.
A long time ago, normies were sold a lie: "modern capitalism is so great that even average people with modest means will have access to affordable loans". This lie went out the window after 2008. Then they were sold another lie: "globalization will mean that producers will compete in the free market for your money, so goods will become ever more affordable". This lie also went out the window after the catastrophic economic consequences of COVID lockdowns started to have an effect on average people. Now the system is done with lies because they're no longer needed, and it rules through intimidation, threats, blackpilling and gaslighting.
Twitter has enabled free speech to a greater degree than ever before
Is this meant to be some joke?
OP wasn't addressing what Wilson did before he decided the US needs to enter the war, he was addressing what he did after the war ended.
less crime than broad swathes of the 70's and 80's
I see what you did there . From the OP:
We’re used to crime, drugs, shitty roads school shooters, random spree shooters, and a dozen other things that would shock people if they visited from 1950 or before.
The unprecedented crime wave of 1967-94 (roughly) was the consequence of policies (the "Great Society" etc.) enacted by entrenched political forces that are still in a hegemonic position today.
Also, "70%"? Where does that figure come from? Who are the other 30%?
there are more non-white people and that non-straight people of all sorts are open about it
My I ask why you're spinning the whole issue like this? The OP didn't make any such references anywhere.
Why are you making such a comparison?
Couch potatoism, sedentary lifestyles and anhedonia are already big social problems in the West. Normalizing marijuana use just makes it all worse.
This, in effect, would entail telling young women to voluntarily withdraw from the sexual rat race in exchange for a long-term benefit that, in their minds, only exists in the hateful rhetoric of icky garbage human incel dudebros. It'll never work.
Does anyone know what happened to the My Posting Career forum?
More options
Context Copy link