Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 147
- 1
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Who else finds the stupidpol people or position to be inconsistent? The premise sounds good in theory: disaffected leftists and Marxists who believe that identify politics distracts from workers' issues and protects corporations. Fair enough. But I have found that in the comments it's constant shit-tests and questioning the motives or loyalty of others, either as not being insufficiently Marxist or , being a covert liberal, etc.
Or, second, if you accidently slaughter one of their sacred cows, even if it's otherwise consistent with the idpol or pro-workers position. For example, I argue that climate change is a distraction from workers' issues, but this steps on the feet of leftists who believe climate change is equally important or a crisis. So which is it? If liberal elites use climate change as a pretext for power, all while the cost or responsibility of fixing climate change is placed on non-elites (elites will not be living in pods or having to reduce their footprint in any meaningful sense), much like identity politics, then is not consistent to oppose the climate change narrative too?
They come off overall as disagreeable argumentative people. It's like they want to be mad at someone or something, and no one can ever be good enough or live up to some unobtainable ideal of being correctly anti-identity politics. They have become the very thing they oppose. The experience is like walking on egg shells . It's like this with other political niches too, not to only pick on them.
Regarding climate change, I am agnostic on the issue, but I don't think the left is being intellectually honest. It's a fallacious argument, specifically, the argumentum ad ignorantiam, in that any deviation of 'normal' weather or temperatures can be interpreted as evidence of climate change, which makes it impossible to ever falsify it. The burden of proof is shifted to skeptics to disprove climate change, which is impossible to do if anything can be summoned as evidence of climate change. It used to be called global warming; when that failed to stick, it was rebranded as climate change.
Hey, this isn’t fun!
In all seriousness, please save the CW topics for the CW thread.
sorry, i meant to post this in culture war. I originally made a brief post and then i kept adding to it and hit submit before realizing i had posted it in the Friday thread.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link