Yes, I get that it’s hard to understand for you.
Some people who are disillusioned re. the non-existent problem I’ve been talking about:-
http://www.tes.com.c.tes.ent.platform.sh/news/blog/where-do-snowflakes-come-part-one (this looks like the first of a series, might be interesting to follow)
magnet
1823
You misunderstood.
The feminist oligarchy preparing for Armageddon is nonexistent.
Leftist factional bickering exists, as it always has. And as usual, it’s trivial.
It is incomprehensible. You might as well be afraid of alien invasion for all the logic of it.
These articles seem to work against your theory; far from gaining dominance and control, radical movements tend to keep themselves marginalized by eating their own and pursuing impractical and unpopular agendas.
Strawgarchy.
Leftist factional bickering exists, as it always has. And as usual, it’s trivial.
As I pointed out many posts ago, it always looks like “trivial bickering” to the outside observer at first - until the purges, the firing squads and internment camps start up.
Isn’t this far more of a risk with the White Identity Politics of the Tea Party and Trump?
Except they’re not “marginalized”, they’re the academic mainstream in the social sciences, humanities and liberal arts. The gay activitist was talking about McGill University, a typical, respectable, reasonably high-ranking Canadian University.
magnet
1828
No firing squad has ever taken orders from a sociology department. And all of the problems discussed in this entire thread are contained within liberal arts departments and their even fringier activist offshoots. They are the very definition of “marginal”. Intentionally so: you don’t rise in academia by repeating mainstream thought.
Again, can you name a single person who was denied a platform on Fox News (still the highest rated news in the US!) on the basis of “intersectionality”?
The Tea Party never had anything to do with White “Identity Politics” (misapplication of the term, but it’s fine as a loose analogy), that was just well-poisoning by the MSM.
Trump does have something to do with White “Identity Politics” though, for the same reason he (and analogous movements in Europe) appeals to working class people. And that movement may or may not be a risk (with Trump it’s hard to know which bits of what he says he actually believes and would be prepared to put into action,he’s plainly Populist out of manipulative expediency to some degree, to what degree it’s hard to say).
The Right has its bugaboos too, of course, and they have dominated in the past. But the topic I’m most interested in at the moment is the waywardness of the Left and its current dominance of academia, the MSM, and the entertainment industry - and how liberalism proper (individualism-based, as opposed to collectivism-based) has allowed it to dominate out of fear of being seen to be anti-Progressive.
This is the same old trick the Left used around the early-to-middle 20th century - rigging the terms of the discussion by insinuating the equation Progressivism=Leftism, so that if you are anti-Left you are perceived to be a reactionary troglodyte, so naturally you furiously virtue-signal that you are not, and thereby nudge the terms of the debate Leftwards. Nowadays of course you are called “misogynist” or “racist” if you are critical of the received wisdom.
The version of Leftism that’s dominant is a structured, complex ideology, that’s held with quasi-religious fervour by many.
My main concern is holding, and not ceding, the classical liberal centre ground.
magnet
1831
Ok, I will spell it out for you:
-
Firing squads are always preceded by trivial bickering.
-
There is trivial bickering in academia.
Therefore,
- Academia will give rise to firing squads.
Your logical fallacy is obvious, and left as an exercise for the reader.
You really need to explain what you’re afraid of.
Are you afraid of ideological purge within the left? Or some sort of larger geopolitical cataclysm that will destroy the left, right, and apolitical alike?
The latter is completely implausible. The former is quite likely - the Left is about due for its usual generational purge - but of trivial importance unless you are an activist and / or liberal arts faculty.
You do realize this is a thread in a forum, in which people can refer back to what’s actually been said, right?
You really need to explain what you’re afraid of.
I already explained it several times in several ways, starting with my first post in my current jag on this thread.
magnet
1833
Sure. This is what you said.
it always looks like “trivial bickering” to the outside observer at first - until the purges, the firing squads and internment camps start up.
It is vague, like many of your pronouncements. But I think it implies that academic bickering puts us at non-neglible risk of dying by firing squad. Which is preposterous. You might as well be afraid of brown shirts, because people wearing brown shirts enabled the rise of Nazi Germany.
Firstly, as a Montrealer with many friends who are McGill alums and two who are professors I can assure you this is not accurate. Secondly, the student in question does not at any point suggest that the radical leftists he associated with were in control of anything, let alone mainstream.
The idea that McGill, of all the anglo universities in Quebec or Montreal, has somehow been overrun by leftists is so laughable. I mean shit… maybe Concordia? But even then anyone going there now would stare at you blankly if you insisted to them that the curriculum had been co-opted by radical leftists.
The French universities are a different kettle of fish, but the radicals there are of alternating left and right wing nationalist stripes, and far far far more powerful. You want to get people fired up, nationalism is the way to go… as an American you should be intimately familiar with that.
ShivaX
1836
You’re an actual crazy person. You should seek professional help. If you think some marginal group in a college someplace that doesn’t matter is an actual threat to your life, you need medication of some sort.
magnet
1837
Wait, what? So you think we are at negligible risk of dying by firing squad? If we’re safe from firing squads, why do you keep bringing them up?
Just because, according to this, all firing squads are preceded by trivial bickering, it doesn’t mean all trivial bickering leads to firing squads.
magnet
1839
Thank you. Please show your work to gurugeorge.
Yo_Rudy
1840
this has been my takeaway from this thread as well
