Tales from the crypt
Likewise, “Journalists, at our worst, see ourselves as a priestly caste,”
Neoreactionaries have all their jimmies rustled.
The Brahmin know.
Tales from the crypt
Likewise, “Journalists, at our worst, see ourselves as a priestly caste,”
Neoreactionaries have all their jimmies rustled.
The Brahmin know.
The schools and academia seem to be the cause of this racist rot. Natives are being dispossessed, in a browner country this would rightfully cause outcry from liberals.
Unemployment in certain races is written off as a victim of circumstance rather than a possible lifestyle choice.
Christophobia? (now a minority in schools in their own country, scored down on assessments for being ‘too white’)
… Brown Guilt?
BTW The economy is screwed. Some of these findings are not based on merit (IQ).
Do not click: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/19/cultural-marxism-a-uniting-theory-for-rightwingers-who-love-to-play-the-victim <SEO>
I waited almost a year to go on about this. I wanted to see if anything would come of it. This is going to be as short as I can make it, so yes, I will miss things out. You can add things yourself and link them in the comments. I’m broadening out the topic too, for a laugh. Technically way OT in places but funny with it. Fun with it. Hopefully.
Welcome to The Magical Mystery Tour of Cultural Marxism.
Acronyms can mean many things. The usual meaning for CM online in these times, thanks to gg truthers, is Cultural Marxism. What is Cultural Marxism? It refers to an undemocratic system of political control via media brainwashing. It refers to an undemocratic system of political control via media brainwashing. It refers to an undemocratic system of political control via media brainwashing. Because pop culture never gets stuck in your head, that’s just crazy.
But never throw away your TV because reasons.
Why is advertising so expensive, eh? The limited number of channels excuse doesn’t fly anymore.
n.b. This is uncannily similar to the notion of the Cathedral btw: comprised of Academia, Media and Government, who often tend to mimic one another somehow in a harmonizing array of vacuous lies to keep you docile and arguably, falsely conscious.
Hey, if they’re going to mock us….
Despite all the studies on how subliminal messaging is BS yet its brother priming is totally real, and the effect of barrages of propaganda on real populations, somehow this is still considered a conspiracy. In a world where adverts blare over loudspeaker in public and your phone is watching you. As if the sociopaths with power (pick a Poison) were to look at those findings, shrug them off and proceed to do nothing with them. Sounds legit.
If you were to ask 100 people: do you believe in conspiracy theories, most would say No. When pressed, they’d evoke a media image: with an aluminium hat. Hmm. Whereas if you asked: do you believe in abuse of power, the underlying premise of every single conspiracy theory, you’d achieve astronomical amounts of agreement. Same people, same topic, different questions. Different words. It’s almost like the media output shapes our ability to consider certain subjects. Restricts us to talking points from cognitive load. Like a mild version of PTSD, engrained from a young age, we have visceral visual responses (flashbacks) to something we have seen, not in real life, but on a screen.
But sitting your kid in front of the TV is good for them, despite that pesky evidence. Kid’s shows never have any subtle political points, memory tactics or adult humour. We freely admit to flashbacks of pleasant things, like beloved cartoons. Remember when…? That reminds me… Who else saw…?
It’s become the new cultural touchstone, above national heritage symbols and stories. It has replaced history. As a friend of mine said: We are all Americans now.
The term CM has slowly permeated into the mainstream via Twitter. So much so the Guardian, far-left right-on rag, had to cover it. This wasn’t a choice, it was a re-action. A decent rebuttal of the BS is here:
If it’s illusory, it begs the question, what’s the harm in discussing it? Like the sociopolitical implications of Elrond’s Rivendell.
The usual ad hominem ensued in the up-top article. You don’t debate AH (rhetoric) with dialectic (logos). That isn’t the way to kill it. You must mock it. I can do both so… fuck it.
You see, every time these words are now spoken, even in jest, the SJWs can link to that article, and remain oblivious to what the theory is about. Think about that – a group obsessed with definitions. So I’m here to fuck their shit up, 9 months later, like the demonic spawn of their critical ideology, since who TF is going to check for feedback on that article this late? Let alone mess up its SEO? We know most of their interns probably studied English, right?
First, note: They keep referring to the ‘conspiracy’ as CM, instead of how it is commonly referred to: The Frankfurt School. Because if they called it that, their readers might think, wait, does that school exist? Did it ever exist? We could easily disprove these obvious hateful bigoted xeno-Nazis!
The title alone is intellectually dishonest. I haven’t seen anyone pick up on that for starters.
CM is actually a division of The Frankfurt School’s works. A sub-division. Lesser than the whole of their theory.
When the thicko Guardian reader would care to look up the term “Frankfurt School building” on image search in rabid anticipation of finding precisely FA, the first hit is…
Looks pretty fucking real to me. Would the Marxists lie to you, Guardian reader?
OK. We have you on that count. Batter up!
That doesn’t prove anything! We don’t know who occupied these buildings during that time!
Thankfully these people liked to brag about their involvement.
Here’s what comes up from the same Marxists’ site under, I shit you not, group photo:
Let’s look at the wikipedia page currently headed Cultural Marxism (the subject was almost deleted previously from the entire site but in Reddit uproar was reinstated).
“Although sometimes only loosely affiliated, Frankfurt School theorists spoke with a common paradigm in mind, thus sharing the same assumptions and being preoccupied with similar questions.…The school’s main figures sought to learn from and synthesize the works of such varied thinkers as Kant, Hegel, Marx,Freud, Weber, and Lukács.
Yet under Early Influences, Marx is clearly listed. Making them Marxists.
“The Institute made major contributions in two areas relating to the possibility of human subjects to be rational, i.e., individuals who could act rationally to take charge of their own society and their own history. The first consisted of social phenomena previously considered in Marxism as part of the “superstructure” or as ideology: personality, family and authority structures (one of the earliest works published bore the title Studies of Authority and the Family), and the realm of aesthetics and mass culture. Studies saw a common concern here in the ability of capitalism to destroy the preconditions of critical, revolutionary political consciousness. This meant arriving at a sophisticated awareness of the depth dimension in which social oppression sustains itself. It also meant the beginning of critical theory‘s recognition of ideology as part of the foundations of social structure.”
And what did they wish to do with that structure, pray tell? Lower down;
“During this period, Frankfurt School critical theory particularly influenced some segments of the left wing and leftist thought, particularly the New Left. …Their critique of technology, totality, teleology and (occasionally) civilization is an influence on anarcho-primitivism. Their work also heavily influenced intellectual discourse on popular culture and scholarly popular culture studies.”
And they tried the Stalinist tactic of dismissing criticism by calling their opponents crazy: “criticized the Frankfurt School’s initial tendencies towards “automatically” rejecting opposing political criticisms on “psychiatric” grounds:” If you see anything wrong with this in Government-funded academia, I guess you’re a crazy conspiracy nutjob. As if to describe all champagne socialists in one fell swoop, the ‘academics’ were said to suffer from “bourgeois idealism” by people who knew what the hell they were talking about.
We’d never see anything like that today:
At the bottom, way down the page, it tries to be balanced;
“A 21st-century conspiracy theory regards the Frankfurt School as the origin of a contemporary movement in the political left to destroy western culture, referred to as “Cultural Marxism” by theory proponents. It advocates the idea that multiculturalism and political correctness are products of critical theory, which originated with the Frankfurt School.”
But…. you just said………..all that?
These people made Marxist theory their life’s work, publishing essays and books (look those up separately, it was a whole school after all I can’t cover that much) and we’re supposed to believe they aren’t Communist? Riiiight. What else connected them?
Their only alternate connection appears to be their Jewish religion, as others have pointed out, “predominantly German Jews”. Hey, here’s a book about it by some unknown publisher nobody respects: http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/philosophy/history-philosophy/frankfurt-school-jewish-lives-and-antisemitism and the blurb;
The history of the Frankfurt School cannot be fully told without examining the relationships of Critical Theorists to their Jewish family backgrounds. Jewish matters had significant effects on key figures in the Frankfurt School, including Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, Erich Fromm, Leo Lowenthal and Herbert Marcuse. At some points, their Jewish family backgrounds clarify their life paths; at others, these backgrounds help to explain why the leaders of the School stressed the significance of antisemitism. In the post-Second World War era, the differing relationships of Critical Theorists to their Jewish origins illuminate their distinctive stances toward Israel. This book investigates how the Jewish backgrounds of major Critical Theorists, and the ways in which they related to their origins, impacted upon their work, the history of the Frankfurt School, and differences that emerged among them over time.
Why might this concern people? It isn’t as if they wish to control us or cause us harm in our homeland. After all, we wouldn’t dream of bossing around Israel or hurting their way of life. Take it away, the adroitly named Barbara Spectre!
Narrator: She believes Jews have an important role to play in a country undergoing profound change.
BS: I think there’s a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned to be multicultural. And I think we’re gonna be part of the throes of that, of that transformation, which must take place, Europe is not gonna be (smiles) the monolithic, uh, uh, societies that they once were in the last century. (brief cut) Jews are gonna be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make, they are now going into a multicultural mode – and Jews will be resented because of our leading role (nose in the air) but without that leading role and without that transformation Europe will not survive. (a small nod of approval, as camera cuts)
You know you can tell a lot about a person’s inner world by their body language. Micro-expressions in particular. When I said nose in the air…
Lest you think I’m being unfair, many non-Jews are supporting this goal to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity” with multiculturalism and mass immigration. source In Europe only, of course. The rest of the world doesn’t require ‘enrichment’ for some strange reason.
There are many accusations along the lines of a ‘Master Race’ levied at Jews (calling yourselves the Chosen People doesn’t help) but I’m sure the passages stating for example, that non-Jews aren’t human? I’m sure that sort of thing is just a misunderstanding, a mistranslation: http://talmud.faithweb.com/articles/man.html “There are those who infer from these passages that the Talmud considers gentiles to be sub-human. After all, if the Talmud says that gentiles are not called man they must be considered sub-human” that does seem rather logical though. Given the context of the Chosen People bit? It isn’t as if they want to lead us like a flock of sheep, wherever did you get that idea?
Marx himself heard so little on the front of Jews in academia that he wrote this:
That’s right, the so-called Jewish Question is a Marxist invention! It’s so post-modern! We may only wonder at what he’d have had to say to the German Jews of the Frankfurt School.
“…You Jews are egoists if you demand a special emancipation for yourselves as Jews. As Germans, you ought to work for the political emancipation of Germany, and as human beings, for the emancipation of mankind, and you should feel the particular kind of your oppression and your shame not as an exception to the rule, but on the contrary as a confirmation of the rule….”
On the World Socialist Website, they quote;
“What is the object of the Jew’s worship in this world?” Marx asks. “Usury. What is his worldly god? Money…. What is the foundation of the Jew in this world? Practical necessity, private advantage…. The bill of exchange is the Jew’s real God. His God is the illusory bill of exchange.”
In fact, Marx seems to have been quite racially aware, by looking for real explanations in race itself:
http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/karl-marx-communist-leader-and-blatant-racist-18393/ He wouldn’t last five minutes among his own academics.
It is ironic that the most acceptable white male in the curriculum for “diversity” on many campuses is Karl Marx, a world-class bigot. At one time, Marx referred to a Creole man who married his niece as a “gorilla offspring.”
Imagine the letters if he’d been pen-pals with Che G.
Other Marx/Engels quotes are to be found here, and they are well-sourced from the materials open to correction.
Bear in mind, we see many example of Marxist thought in everyday language. Objectification, for instance, is a Marxist idea borrowed by feminism. Originally called reification, it encompasses the process of a subject becoming an object.
Let’s do a reality check here.
Are the academic essays, books and theories imaginary?
The building is real.
The people are real.
Their written works (whatever their value) do exist.
Their influence is certainly real or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
OT: The European Jewish Fund is certainly real (Spectre’s sponsors in the video), as they go about “reinforcing Jews’ cultural pride and counteracting assimilation. The EJF actively fights xenophobia, antisemitism and racial discrimination”
Have there been any proofs of pop culture propaganda? I don’t mean the Red Scare.
“But what is most important in the music of the Gang of Four, and those groups who share their approach, is that for the first time since Brecht’s plays received wide attention in the 1920s, we are seeing a conscious intervention by socialists to fuse advanced Marxist theory with widely popular culture.”
“All such Marxists fail to see that potential exists to channel such expressions in a progressive direction.”
Point scored, I think.
Why multiculturalism, you ask? Why is that a social policy weapon? It’s a polite term for multi-racialism. It oppresses the working class (in revenge for not rising up before, the reason the school was founded) by driving down wages, living standards and outnumbers them for State assistance a la Cloward-Piven Strategy. Divide and conquer.
Historically, they thought this would keep the host culture from turning on them, too busy with the others.
Implicit within this clear violation of the freedom of association is the forced miscegenation intended to outbreed regular white people from existence in those countries, their native homelands (again, only Europe), with adverts everywhere you look in promotion of mixed races as superior to all others (rooted in the dangerous myth of Hybrid Vigour).
Ask yourself: Isn’t this explicitly anti-white stuff all… a bit racist? Specifically all the anti-white part?
Even when the Guardian encourages whiteface? Nothing twinges? Nothing seems a tad wrong?
Don’t look up the UN definition of genocide and its implications (wiping out any race in their homeland):
Public incitement of such genocide is also a crime.
Moving on, Standpoint theory is a post-modern theory also used in feminism (this is a lot of coincidence) to lend credence to the opinion that minorities have the most or only valid perspectives, their word is always true (as their experience is never false) and a literal majority of people are probably wrong, because the density of their sheer numbers blind them with power or some vague excuse like ‘privilege’. It’s as silly as Magic Dirt and completely undemocratic, as a point of fact, it’s anti-democracy. Whenever you see these people trying something like the Progressive Stack and banging on like their opinions are important and can never be questioned because of what they were born, you see Standpoint Theory in action. It’s their pass to everything. They can do no wrong. The theory is also complete tosh. Applying it to Africa aka the most densely populated continent, white Africans would have more legitimate opinions on the structure of Government. They aren’t willing to apply this theory against anyone other than white, straight normal people who just want to be left alone by this PC stuff. Ironically, white people are a global minority, making them the most important people if we apply it …fairly. It gives rise to infographics like this.
[they took it down, fuck’s sake…] But whites are a minority!
It’s alright to exist, yes. To continue to live. In peace.
Critical theory (also used in feminism) is a similarly flawless means of derailing and dissembling a possibly productive conversation. It is defined in practice by never listening to evidence and never offering a solution to the social problems, and they’re always social problems (never quantifiable). ALL IT DOES IS COMPLAIN. It’s a license to nag you under the guise of the credentialism’s overeducated moral authority.
The only solution to social problems on the Left? Government spending! Despite national debt.
Let’s go with the Frankfurt School theory for a second. HYPOTHETICALLY.
How would you hide it?
Cultural as this consolidation of ideological power is, it requires cultural defense of itself. As it is undemocratic (so the idea goes) it must hide this institutionalized power structure from the populace by cultural denial. Deny or die. In the same way it suppresses other ideas. Ideally, it should blame its enemies for everything evil in the world. It must find a scapegoat for the hegemony, something easily recognizable as cultural shorthand for evil, especially when those people are dead and can’t argue or sue. If they fail to deny any truth to the matter, the whole house of cards will collapse. Elsewhere, there must be a dumbing down of culture, to the lowest common denominator.
Hm, what does the media see as shorthand for evil? We know from lab experiments that uniform carries a number of social role implications, which uniform could possibly become the trope for unquestionable evil baddie?
Naturally, if you repeat these cultural memes enough, you will run out of novelty. After a few decades. It will seem as if the main peddlers of this media are running out of original ideas. Hey, you could even make a meme out of it. Parodies and gags. Trope inversions. Make it self-aware. That’ll work for a while. However, you couldn’t possibly do anything about it, because that would be off-message. You must stick to the Party Line. The official Narrative. The Politically Correct version of the truth in this subjective postmodern reality, where all perspectives are theoretically true simultaneously. Don’t let them take that to the logical conclusion and side with your diametric enemies, better to outgroup them for the crime of… rejecting the outgroup? …What does the PC line do, exactly? Why follow it? Why must we? What does it accomplish for us? Who decided and told us to? Where does it even come from? We must never ask this question, Comrade. Sign this petition. Go to this demo. Buy this t-shirt. What question? There is no question, I thought we all agreed?
After all, it’s called Public Relations, not Public Information.
Gee, that Guardian article is looking like a real shoot in the foot, ain’t it?
It might as well have been titled;
Cultural Marxism: a uniting theory to explain why left-wingers love to play victim
Deny this because it’s stupid and lies but also dangerous enough to us somehow to cover in the first place and we need rhetorical excuses, enclosed.
You know the easiest way you can tell you’re being brainwashed? [aside from blatant over-reliance on logical fallacies]
When the person talking to you tells you to never look up the other side. You must never go there, Simba. Never read their materials. Never listen to their arguments. Close your ears, Sweet Summer Child, because you have no mind of your own and your uncritical thinking abilities will be overwhelmed by their Satanic silvertongue! We’d never hide anything from you! We love you! We’re all about the love! Gee, this is beginning to sound like a church sermon.
Frankfurt School Denialists, continue. The Streisand Effect means all your work are belong to us.
This requires a hegemony of culture to work – what would this look like? Liberal privilege in academia, an overwhelming bias in the humanities and social research, upon which government policy is based? Media suppression of conservative ideas, even in comedy, as hateful? How many right-wing comedians are there to left, as a ratio? The Government supporting public sector workers in their partisan causes e.g. SWP?
Naturally, we’d never see this type of propaganda launched at children, in media aimed at children, say, in comics. That would really screw them when it comes to the people saying they’re undemocratic, by targeting future voters and influencing them before critical thinking kicks in.We’d never see the Modern Left target comics. Never at all: http://www.captaineuro.eu/
Actual quote: “Europe without Britain is incomplete. Like a pizza without tomato sauce.” – Captain Euro, source How am I supposed to parody that?
In light of recent events, this one is my fave: http://www.captaineuro.eu/comic-strips/angela-merkel-learns-to-bluff/
In the Long March Through the Institutions, there was an emphasis on New = Good, which is very convenient when you’re the new kid on the scene. When the right wing were dominant in these fields (and we got many classics out of it) they said to them ‘be open’ as the appeal to get their ideas in, and once they were out of power they seemed to dance with joy about how ‘out’ those notions were and remain. It’s disturbing how they fully believe they have an exclusive claim to moral authority imparted by this power and taxpayer cash. The rise of obstructive fascism (a left-wing invention uniting Stalin up to the National Socialists) currently uses suppression techniques at Universities that are beginning to be used for in-fighting (such as TERFs vs. other feminists) as the Left eats itself. They’re also taking steps of questionable legality by ‘no-platform’-ing a public space, a Government-funded public institution. Rules for Radicals would condone these type of acts. There are extremist factions wishing for trouble, like the UAF, hoping their Communist utopia will rise from the ashes. I haven’t seen them comment on Holodomor.
https://www.marxists.org/subject/frankfurt-school/jay/ch01.htm “How problematical that goal…”
The linguistic use of domination-suppression techniques can be expert by CMs, and they use the excuse of teaching how to avoid it to simply… teach it: https://organizingforpower.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/forms-of-domination.pdf As reliable as crying wolf and crocodile tears when you doubt their sob story.
There’s the Diamond technique for swaying opinion at public gatherings without public consensus, because what democracy?
The ‘spiral of silence’ and ‘chilling effect’ on freedom of expression (look them up yourself) exert effects too.
What’s all this mean combined? Self-censorship is the goal, if they can get you to lie to yourself, it’s over and they can gain control over personal, private relationships with it. We see this already with various judgements of personal relationships beginning with sexuality and now moving into preference. Sexual tastes are immutable by their doctrines (LGB+) yet men are being shamed for rejecting fat women (fat acceptance) and white men for finding non-white women less desirable: http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/11/racial-preferences-are-racist/ Slowly it creeps and intrudes further and further into the most intimate parts of our life. Who do these people think they are? No wonder there’s a pushback forming to the Little Hitlers. Stay out of our bedrooms, you nutjobs.
Subverting democracy (by direct action and monstering mobs) like this are within the range of tactics admissable in a culture war.
Recall, Marx himself said “the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terrorism.” The technological censorship comprises partisan community guidelines, surveillance, monitoring and includes Twitter block lists – and suddenly the user base of normal people (non-SJWs) is leaving in droves.
The very phrase “Political Correctness” is no longer PC, Kosher or ‘polite’ – because people are asking too many questions about it. The historical revisionism into an identity politics lens is blatantly dishonest i.e. (group) in (time period) rather than studying (time period). In context, demographic division is an IRL distraction from these moderated influences over decades, drip-fed through the media machine every day like soap operas and we usually pay them to do it. They say “___ is a myth” in reply as if their mere pronouncements ended all debate, as insanity only need occur once (based on cognitive dissonance) before it becomes permanent. If you ignore the reality of a situation once, that’s it. If you take up the doublethink or crimestop or Narrative, they’ve won. You aren’t questioning them because you gave them the authority of acceptable thoughts they presumed to have. And people wonder why print is dying and Alternative Media is picking up….
There is the feminist link to Communism and overlap naturally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_feminism
Social Justice (a recent branch of feminism) also takes its origins from Communism and its torrid history: www.jstor.org/stable/591359
The post-war economy needed more workers, including women, to carry on growth patterns (and suppress average wages by sudden booms in supply) and telling women it was more fun to work than stay home contributed to the novelty of low happiness scores ever since:
The active propaganda of polls (see: groupthink, minority influence, Asch’s Lines etc) is leading to a sharp disconnect between what we see predicted pre-GE and the real result (see the past two General Elections in the UK). The democratic mandate for the unions and other Reds or their lackeys to call themselves the instrument of the People has dissipated with it. Given their hegemony, we see them neutrally deride this as a Rise of the Right.
Who came up with ‘culture war’? Kulturkampf. It’s as German as the Frankfurt School academics. Then why is it false to discuss the notion, according to CM denialists? It predates the place by some decades. If it isn’t real, why is their fear of the topic very real?
In this century, most Marxists are middle class Champagne socialists waiting for Mumsy and Daddy to snuff it so they can collect the inheritance they believe is evil when right-wingers claim it (in all forms, including cultural inheritance) and the common suspects pushing a CM Narrative are rarely exceptions to this rule. As quoted above, they are idealists – what they expect is unrealistic. As for family money, their Boomers parents have probably spent it all regardless, going by the trends I covered for excessive debt and cruising.
It’s funny they push a Hollywood image of battle, good vs. evil despite rejecting religion, as Horseshoe theory in the face of moral relativism has produced the philosophically novel outcome: nobody is evil. They’ll blame anyone but the human being who did the thing. It was society! It was his background! He was forced! The agent? Barely a whisper. Where were the feminists after Rotherham came out? Councils and other governmental bodies are shredding abuse documentation to prevent this embarrassment again, the feminists don’t give a shit about children or girls. Sacrifices for the Narrative. Ignore the MAO genes’ link to aggression and other behavioral genetics coming out.
As leaps into subjects like a unified crime theory have posited, r/K selection explains much of this partisan behaviour; evolutionary theories make liars uneasy because it’s hard to argue with Darwin or testable hypotheses without seeming like an anti-science bigot. There is also suppression of social studies that make Conservatives look good or skewing of results (what hegemony?) in favour of the Left wing when covered by MSM e.g.:
Terrified of true opposition as they are (even in the form of Trump) they are already falling back on Godwin’s Law and crying Nazi simply for being the opposition to the dominant Narrative. Without real opposition, what is the point of elections again? Which means they lose the argument (the lesser known meaning of Godwin’s Law).
If we assume this were true, it begs questions. Doesn’t brainwashing work? How many musicians were Communist again? What about the Holodomor, worse statistically than any fanciful evaluation of the Holocaust? Why don’t these cultural outlets ever turn on the Left? Why don’t we use other figures like Stalin too? No enemies to the Left? They gloat about Overton Window shifts like gay marriage (the we’ve won/we’re winning articles like they’re trying to convince themselves laws can’t be repealed) but it’s never enough (‘there is more work to be done’ robots). It’s bizarre to watch from outside the media bubble. I guess from that Far Left, everyone else does look like a Nazi by comparison?
As Carlin said, we’re ‘circling the drain’ of their BS, the pendulum is swinging rightward overdue. They understand and acknowledge the Slippery Slope, it isn’t a political fallacy, especially when applied to moral trends (‘gay marriage’ polls taken in urban areas, anyone?) or any of the ‘changing attitudes’ that always seem to work in the Prog’s direction. We must be imagining it.
They forsake quality to chase equality. They’ll never get it, it would be as futile as stumping tall people and giving short people stilts. The result is ridiculous and forced.
Irony is a hip response to PC. We might follow it in public, because we don’t believe it. The act of submission becomes one of rebellion. An object of mockery ceases to be an object of fear. Trust nothing from the machine and it loses power. This is building.
You can deny some of this, but you can’t deny all of it.
What does this all mean?
I don’t know. You don’t either. I guess we’re equal.
Why else would the internet be talking about it, dipshit?
Since when do we agree on anything?
p.s. Guardian, cite me IRL. Come at me ho.
I wish he’d said Cultural Marxism, name the beast and like a demon, you have control of it.
And it’s status signalling, that’s the research term. Virtue signalling was a journalist invention.
Nor does he mention it’s a means for middle class people to judge working class people without looking like raging bigots (because people with a real job don’t give a shit what the Guardian thinks). The culture war is a class war designed to change the poor via pop culture.
They keep losing arguments.
It doesn’t sink in.
They keep losing elections.
It doesn’t sink in.
I think the anti-speech laws were a turning point here (UK).
The classical liberals realized they were on the side of the censors.
Two key articles on this topic if you haven’t seen:
New Church Ladies
Adults are putting their foot down to entitled little shits and saying you have no high horse. We reject Standpoint Theory. We have the right to laugh at your student opinions. You can’t control us.
I lurk on comment threads to get a feel for what is trending in the noosphere and I find some gems. Sometimes I get a bit stalkerish in my fervor for curating opinions.
I was reading a science article and I was way, way down, losing hope and I saw this.
I’ve been wanting to cover this topic for a while, I didn’t know what to call it but I felt I needed an example to mock first, since it’s easier to pull that apart than a possible strawman.
Thank you, Hobbesian________, I have a new name for this: “The Appeal to Data”
He hasn’t read much of his namesake, why am I not surprised?
A man’s conscience and his judgment is the same thing; and as the judgment, so also the conscience, may be erroneous. ~ Hobbes
I was serious about the mocking part.
You could say that about anything: What would be the point in interviewing Richard Dawkins, the Bible speaks for itself? What would be the point in interviewing climate skeptics, the UN papers speak for themselves? Why trust the Government on vaccines, the ingredients list speaks for itself?
Muh “speaks for itself” is the new “isn’t it obvious?” No, dipshit, or there wouldn’t be a discussion. That’s kinda the point when it comes to any scientific question, the debate never ends, nobody will pack up their bags and go home. We’ll just sort of come to a point of consensus naturally and lose momentum, like an emergent phenomena as the evidence comes in (from both sides). Until the paradigm shift, anon!
Humanities isn’t social science. Liberal arts isn’t a science. Social science is a science because it follows the Scientific Method. Merely, it applies the method to humans (social animal hence society). There are textbooks on this written for children. This is basic.
It’s a combination of appeal to popularity, and a subtle ad hominem that’s intended to outgroup you as inferior and thus, not worth listening to. It’s a rabbit trick. Look! A hat!
The atheistkult and other redditfags seem to rely on this IFLS-esque appeal to ‘objective’ authority and clarity when describing nature; that the numbers can’t be faked, or wrong, or that various biases and errors (inc. the huge measurement error) do not exist.
Data isn’t objective because data is a tool used by people. You can flip a coin 100 times, get 100 heads and it doesn’t disprove the other findings. It’s added to them. We call those people using the data in their possession ‘scientists’ and they aren’t using the data, really. They are collecting the data (possession) and interpret the data (moving on to a claim), that is their training and their job, to make claims based on the data (the data is just there to show their workings for replication, like maths classes). We have a label for people who make claims not based on data, but opinion formed prior, a beautiful category is…..;
Oh look, it’s another bias. SI: You can use totally legitimate data to lie. Anita Sarkeesian does it all the time. She takes a legit study and makes those unsupported claims. You say X, but data says X-1. This is what they mean when they appeal to data, that it’s supposed to be free of false interpretation. Except – all data is interpreted. It’s a human impulse.
You can’t do shit with data itself anyway. Those 100 heads results aren’t going to go anywhere. They’ll stay in a drawer, unpublished. For the researcher: They don’t change the data (unless crooked or naive with poor method design, a priori) and they aren’t meant to influence the data (so many ways under researcher bias), but they are human.
After the data are collected, bias may be introduced during data interpretation and analysis. For example, in deciding which variables to control in analysis, social scientists often face a trade-off between omitted-variable bias and post-treatment bias.
This is why we need philosophy of science taught in schools.
We learn biology, chemistry and physics but we don’t learn what science is or why all those things are science, let alone how science is actually done. But sure, photosynthesis…..
Identities protected but putting the name of a philosopher in your screen name doesn’t make you smart. They keep doing that (redditfag signature) when it’s a clear appeal to authority, again.
Here is the first result on google for “scientist stock photo”
Sure, I’d trust that guy, who doesn’t even wear goggles. They buy into this, like the memes. Oh Christ, the memes….
It’s very Aspie to think all scientists are perfect, morally virtuous men in white lab coats, pristine as their soul, and they’ll never do anything like lie, or cheat for a promotion, or steal grant money, or… I dunno…. fake most of a subject….
Statistically, most of a subject. Literally. (Me being topical)
They have some wonderful cognitive dissonance here because they believe experts are liars (I blame Gen X), but the data the experts gather is pure as the Virgin Mary.
The data is sacred! bc Humans are flawed!
Who do you think made the data? ET?
What we see are the actions of a narcissist (they wouldn’t dare lie to me!) who cannot conceive of systemic deception that would persevere against their imagined intellect. Con artists find these people easiest to fool because they have no guard. There is no guard to let down.
As much as I dislike this website, for example the name (isn’t debunking something also a denial? and why is denial/dissent wrong, given Burden of Proof?), there are many statistical fallacies in the public arena, from people who are meant to be defending science like it’s a lady’s virtue:
TLDR: This thing is like that thing because I said so.
TLDR: p-value fraud is rife.
You could find many things which are statistically significant, for example — and false. This is where correlation/causation truly comes in, the claim is beyond the data e.g. if I find murders spike with ice cream sales, ice cream doesn’t cause murder. The third hidden variable is the heat and the frustration it produces. A good method design will eliminate extraneous variables, and in most social science, they don’t do this. That’s why it can’t be replicated – shitty design. Copying the shitty design just doubles the number of shitty experiments in the world.
Method design is mostly intuition. Redditfags deny this. They should pick up a book on it, seriously – the first thing you’re told is Make Stuff Up and the rest is just refinement.
The appeal to data is treating a chart of values like the Bible. Yes, I went there.
“Torture numbers, and they’ll confess to anything.” – Gregg Easterbrook
Working example: http://blogs.gartner.com/andrea_dimaio/2012/06/12/torturing-the-data-long-enough-will-make-them-confess-anything/
Conclusion: Let’s go with the Appeal to Data. If I ask 100 people whether you are worse than Hitler, and 51 say yes, the data is there. The data is sacrosanct.
It’s an appeal to popularity dressed up in a Halloween lab coat.
btw I appreciate the turtles reference at the end
it made me laugh
When he does an opinion piece on a point of active science. (Minus experts to support his specious claims). I have lost my former high regard for him. He became a sophist. Oh, the things I am sent by infuriated research psychologists. You should see how blue the air turned at this one.
Title: Sorry girls! But the smartest people in the world are all men!
Operative absolute highlighted for your scorn.
I won’t link to the troll and the article is a patronizing piece of shit. You can tell he has no critical training in the field of data interpretation even if you took a drunken night class 10 years ago for a semester. It’s that painfully bad. Either he didn’t do the research (his actual job) into the history of females in that group, or he would’ve immediately found this, to look for the negative evidence, the black swan OR he knew, he bloody knew and left it out. The disclaimer required. The distinction to be made. One line:
It is fine to critique performance, but impossible to disprove potential.
Rarity speaks nothing of ability. As we say, to omit this distinction would remove all claim to both internal and external validity. Rendering it totally invalid….?
The ethical obligation (journalists take training courses) must have …slipped his mind. To get the clicks from the fake MGTOWs putting down women (a group) as if that has anything to do with individual variance (themselves), as I’ve stated before in excruciating take-down style detail. I believe someone actually linked to me for it, I see clicks on the traffic.
He’s become the enemy, a clickwhore lying about science for political grievance (his ‘side’ doesn’t make it right). He cherry-picked a study like Anita does with male violence and his foundation of relative morality has evaporated.
It would be as specious, unethical and rampantly dishonest as if I had said that, say, drugged-up Ritalin boys were innately retarded instead of <insert alternative nurtured explanation here>.
I guess you could say, it’s about ethics in psychometrics journalism.
After his great and professional work on Gamergate and he pulls this shit.
Wikipedia could prove this bitch wrong. WIKIPEDIA. THINK ABOUT THAT.
Here are the actual categories and stratification of IQ scores. Look at the words.
I guess the whole research field is fucking wrong, and Milo Yiannopoulos is right.
#GalileoGambit I guess no adult woman is in the Superior Group over IQ130.
Pass Go. Collect your Nobel.
I made a chart too, Milo! About my opinion, of your opinion!
The IFLScientism Crowd will be totes impressed! Because the scientific method is like Mythbusters, anyone can do it! If you do a random thing, like find a thing and write about it, you can throw on a lab coat and call it a day. You earned that degree, that PhD in Internetz. If I write in a diary about an ice cream I just consumed, it’s science! And going by your logic, nobody can claim otherwise! If I claim the ice cream opened a portal to another dimension, and made a moral value judgement that it was, in fact, evil, an evil ice cream, I am under no positive Burden of Proof for this negative opinion, in fact, the burden shifts onto everyone else! Isn’t science fun? You can just make it up, all day! It counts! And I made charts so it’s legit, fam! It has Hindu numerals and shit!
Because dissent isn’t the natural process of scientific progress or anything, it’s a conspiracy theory like Patriarchy!
You would think that a technology journalist, who rely on personal popularity, wouldn’t alienate half the STEM field? How is this a plan for career longevity, exactly? I know people who are now blacklisting him for this, since he clearly doesn’t expect people he works with, in-industry, to have read it.
UPDATE: 48h later, I can see comments defending Milo for the article.
Comments from feminists. I leave you to your conclusions.
Naturally they’re cliche, they must be mainstream and inoffensive or they get kicked out.
Five years and thousands of participants later, we just published the findings in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
We found that American liberals think even WEIRDer, even more unlike the rest of the world, than the average American conservative.
Yes, neolibs are in fact, the closed-minded, stupid bigots.
It’s a cult.
True sarcastic comment from an r-type;
Haidt uses the second half of The Righteous Mind to explicate a bloated theory that liberals concern themselves with only two of these moral foundations, care and fairness, whereas conservatives are concerned with all five. Haidt sees this so-called difference in moral emphasis as the reason conservative arguments resonate so emotionally with the electorate.
The data showed that, yes. That’s why he said it. When you have enough data to write a book I’ll give a damn what you think.