Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Avatar Samantha Ai

Cultural Marxism term used by the intolerant

114 posts in this topic

Can you first offer me the following: a definition of "cultural Marxism" from an unbiased and academic source (you know the kind that has a term written and then a definition next to it) and then find academic consensus that would agree with that exact definition? An Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy would be acceptable.

What's wrong with the wiki definition? And why the onus on me to prove academic consensus of a given definition?

Keep in mind that "cultural Marxism" is an actual term, it is used one way in academia (please find it) and another by conservative cultural warriors (the one that was addressed in the OP).

Obviously you have found a definition you like, would you mind sharing it with us?

"Cultural Marxism" was a term developed by the Frankfurt School, which no longer exists as a group of scholars all bound around the academic term. There is a reason they no longer exist or why academic circles today do not gather around that term.

The way right-wing ideologues use and apply the term is not the way the Frankfurt school did.

Alright then, show us the denotations and connotations of the phrase as used by these two groups. Don't keep us guessing, just tell us what you think.

Have you actually read anything from those professors you listed? Have you ready, in context, how they use it? They are not describing what you are when you use the term.

No I haven't the read the books listed by wiki as references. Obviously you have read them and can see how I use the term incorrectly. So enlighten us then, show us where I'm all wrong.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've decided not to take the time to compile any lists. This isn't my first round with a guy like you Brit. You will refute anything that doesn't fit your narrative. I'm not going to waste an hour forming a long post only to have you tell me how unsophisticated I am and how academic you are. I will however give a quick rundown from the top of my head of examples of left wing sources going out of their way to blame a white right wing guy for racism or vile acts when it either didn't exist or wasnt a white or right wing guy.

The entire George Zimmerman debacle. NBC edited the 9-11 call to make it sound racist and fuel racial tensions. It was said that George was white. Turns out he isn't. Didn't matter, the flame was lit.

Every effort by the MSM to find racism in the TEA Party. They couldn't. Not even with multi thousand dollar rewards to anyone with proof. All they ever found were left wing plants.

Left wing commentators were seething for the Boston Bombers to be white. Surely you can remember back that far. Turns out they may have been white but not right wing. They were in fact muslim extremists from another country but lets not jump to any conclusions as that would be mean.

Jared Laughner and James Holmes both were pathetically tied to right wing extremism by the MSM. Yea, they were wrong.

Al Sharpton... Everything he says.

Chris Matthews... Every other thing he says.

There are plenty more examples of vile acts of racist liberalism that can be brought up. It's all nonsense and you'll excuse it anyways but it definitely seems to me that there is a major effort to manufacture fear of the right and you are a part of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fundamentally Liberalism is all about pragmatism, doing the best for everyone and not just a minority.

That sounds nice. But I think that I'll decide what's best for me and my family. :)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What's wrong with the wiki definition? And why the onus on me to prove academic consensus of a given definition?

Then if you cannot do as I asked, even if you use this term quite often, and reintroduced that term to our forum recently, which means you should know the exact definiton for it, but if you cannot offer an adequate definition for a term you use then could you at least give us what you believe the wiki definition for "cultural Marxism" is?

That is just a simple cut & paste after all...

If you do that I will then do the hard work and answer the questions you have already asked below in addition to contrasting your given and understood definition with the one I will offer. Deal or no deal?

Obviously you have found a definition you like, would you mind sharing it with us?

Alright then, show us the denotations and connotations of the phrase as used by these two groups. Don't keep us guessing, just tell us what you think.

No I haven't the read the books listed by wiki as references. Obviously you have read them and can see how I use the term incorrectly. So enlighten us then, show us where I'm all wrong.

Edited by Leave Britney alone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've decided not to take the time to compile any lists. This isn't my first round with a guy like you Brit. You will refute anything that doesn't fit your narrative. I'm not going to waste an hour forming a long post only to have you tell me how unsophisticated I am and how academic you are. I will however give a quick rundown from the top of my head of examples of left wing sources going out of their way to blame a white right wing guy for racism or vile acts when it either didn't exist or wasnt a white or right wing guy.

The entire George Zimmerman debacle. NBC edited the 9-11 call to make it sound racist and fuel racial tensions. It was said that George was white. Turns out he isn't. Didn't matter, the flame was lit.

Every effort by the MSM to find racism in the TEA Party. They couldn't. Not even with multi thousand dollar rewards to anyone with proof. All they ever found were left wing plants.

Left wing commentators were seething for the Boston Bombers to be white. Surely you can remember back that far. Turns out they may have been white but not right wing. They were in fact muslim extremists from another country but lets not jump to any conclusions as that would be mean.

Jared Laughner and James Holmes both were pathetically tied to right wing extremism by the MSM. Yea, they were wrong.

Al Sharpton... Everything he says.

Chris Matthews... Every other thing he says.

There are plenty more examples of vile acts of racist liberalism that can be brought up. It's all nonsense and you'll excuse it anyways but it definitely seems to me that there is a major effort to manufacture fear of the right and you are a part of it.

LOL, suddenly being part Jewish and part Mexican makes you white. I thought white people didn't exist, only individual nationalities and ethnic groups exist. They actually lightened Zimmerman's photo. And we're supposed to believe the left isn't full of hate. Boy Brittney, I sure wish you would have met me 5 or 6 years ago when I was lefty, we could have had a blast spreading our hate based propaganda around the forum.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then if you cannot do as I asked..... >snip

If you do that I will then do the hard work and answer the questions you have already asked below in addition to contrasting your given and understood definition with the one I will offer. Deal or no deal?

I'll play this game one last time, ok here ya go;

"Cultural Marxism refers to a school or offshoot of Marxism that analyses culture as the deciding factor in posited oppression, rather than the economic factors that Karl Marx emphasized.[1] An outgrowth of Western Marxism (especially Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School) and finding popularity in the 1960s as cultural studies, Cultural Marxism argues that oppressive power structures exist within traditional cultural artifacts Western society like capitalism, nationalism, the nuclear family, gender, race, or cultural identity;[1] and that the goal of Cultural Marxism is to use Marx's methods (e.g., dialectic materialism) within academia to expose and challenge such "capitalist hegemony".[2]"

So tell us now what's wrong with this definition, but more importantly address the questions about the overwhelming number of left-wing academics and admin in U.S. colleges and their tyranny of niceness.

Here's a 4 min video from FIREabout political correctness and the stifling of free speech.

"The mission of FIRE is to defend and sustain individual rights at America's colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience — the essential qualities of individual liberty and dignity"

[media=]

[/media]
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not a definition, that is a huge paragraph. Offer us a definition and I will follow through. If you must shorten that down to an exact and precise definition.

If you cannot then it tells us you are using terms which you do not even know the definition for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, suddenly being part Jewish and part Mexican makes you white. I thought white people didn't exist, only individual nationalities and ethnic groups exist. They actually lightened Zimmerman's photo. And we're supposed to believe the left isn't full of hate. Boy Brittney, I sure wish you would have met me 5 or 6 years ago when I was lefty, we could have had a blast spreading our hate based propaganda around the forum.

My curiosity has piqued. How far left were you and what turned you in the other direction and where would you say you stand today?

Just a hunch, was liberalism not working out in the real world for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not a definition, that is a huge paragraph. Offer us a definition and I will follow through. If you must shorten that down to an exact and precise definition.

If you cannot then it tells us you are using terms which you do not even know the definition for.

Ok, I'm done with this game. You don't have to answer those questions I've asked three times now. Just forget it. Thanks for starting this thread though, good job. It exposes political correctness for what it is, intellectual thuggery.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You have proven you cannot concisely define a term you insist on using. You can retire this issue for yourself if you so desire.

You have given up and that proves much. Keep on using "cultural Marxism" but some here will understand you are unable to define it.

I will eventually answer your questions anyways to the best of my ability. Still reading from those three professors you listed and preparing...

Edited by Leave Britney alone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The definition is quite plain in that paragraph. I certainly understand what it is based on a brief reading.

I'd argue that those traditional cultural artifacts should be thouroughly examined as part of a proper education, but through a critical lense, not an ideological one. It sounds to me though that these Cultural Marxists are just another boogeyman. Political Correctness is a gigantic beast stemming from both the left and right. It is not just the work of a coven of stuffy intellectuals plotting to overthrow western society.

The focus should be on the PC crowd. If you limit peoples vocabularies you reduce the variety of ideas they can express. People should be compelled to use polite language out of decency, not because it fits the 'accepted' vocabulary.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The definition is quite plain in that paragraph. I certainly understand what it is based on a brief reading.

I'd argue that those traditional cultural artifacts should be thouroughly examined as part of a proper education, but through a critical lense, not an ideological one. It sounds to me though that these Cultural Marxists are just another boogeyman. Political Correctness is a gigantic beast stemming from both the left and right. It is not just the work of a coven of stuffy intellectuals plotting to overthrow western society.

The focus should be on the PC crowd. If you limit peoples vocabularies you reduce the variety of ideas they can express. People should be compelled to use polite language out of decency, not because it fits the 'accepted' vocabulary.

This is a precursor to Newspeak then? You can only reduce the variety of ideas people can express if the words no longer exist in the language, while this is going the other way by introducing lots of exciting new words! Everyone's a winner!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Orwell did well to write that book he wrote all those years ago ...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds nice. But I think that I'll decide what's best for me and my family. :)

Then I suggest you go and live on a desert island where no one else can interfere in you pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh there would be bound to be some endangered moth or bird or crab or something on the island and they would have to leave.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately up until recently (the last 20 or so years) hate speech went largely unchallenged in the media and in society. Hate speach comes in many forms but it always has a subtle effect on those people it is directed at. The move to Political Correctness was a necessary flag to say that calling someone a niger or a spick or a paddy or bender just wasn't an accetable form of behaviour. The balance has been redressed somewhat, and some might argue that the pendulum has swung to far towards restrictions on freedom of speech. I don't think so. I think if you want to be prejudiced to another group of people its not acceptable to use throw away phrases which trigger hate in others - frame your position in intelligent terms which can be analyzed and rebutted in open discussion and stand up for what you beleiev in (no matter how odious it might be). Let your ideas stand on their own merits in open debate.

To my understanding, that is still possible in these politically correct times, and if you don't think your ideas can stand up to such scrutiny it would be best if you kept them locked up in you head where they belong. The term cultural marxist seems to me a tool for attempting to intimidate the politically correct back into their liberal box where the right wing believe they belong.

Br Cornelius

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds nice. But I think that I'll decide what's best for me and my family. :)

Are you best qualified to decide what's best for you and your family concerning everything? How do you make these decisions? Are you in a position to know what are the best decisions to make for the long term? Or do you not worry about any of that and are content to leave it to someone else to worry about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does "hate speech" differ from "inciting to riot?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does "hate speech" differ from "inciting to riot?"

Calling someone a bender is unlikely to cause a riot. Telling someone to go and lynch the bender might cause a riot.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In certain situations they would amount to the same thing. Be that as it may be, doesn't the US Constitution guarantee freedom of speech?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, and if you try and take the middle of the road people will vilify you on both sides. *sigh*

Welcome to my world. I despise most people on both the left and the right. How much more do you need to see before you recognize they are both the same damn party.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately up until recently (the last 20 or so years) hate speech went largely unchallenged in the media and in society. Hate speach comes in many forms but it always has a subtle effect on those people it is directed at. The move to Political Correctness was a necessary flag to say that calling someone a niger or a spick or a paddy or bender just wasn't an accetable form of behaviour. The balance has been redressed somewhat, and some might argue that the pendulum has swung to far towards restrictions on freedom of speech. I don't think so. I think if you want to be prejudiced to another group of people its not acceptable to use throw away phrases which trigger hate in others - frame your position in intelligent terms which can be analyzed and rebutted in open discussion and stand up for what you beleiev in (no matter how odious it might be). Let your ideas stand on their own merits in open debate.

To my understanding, that is still possible in these politically correct times, and if you don't think your ideas can stand up to such scrutiny it would be best if you kept them locked up in you head where they belong. The term cultural marxist seems to me a tool for attempting to intimidate the politically correct back into their liberal box where the right wing believe they belong.

Br Cornelius

Totaly agree. Like CNN proclaiming that 90% of gun owners are white racists.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the outside I think there are real differences between the political parties in most countries, and especially those that divide broadly into two camps, the left and the right. In power they generally if not always compromise the differences in order to get things done, and that always seems dishonest and cowardly to many, but is probably something that just has to happen.

The best governance is governance by consensus. When there are unhappy minorities not part of the consensus, you have the base of discord and trouble. In a single-party state, the consensus is formed by the ruling party and outsiders have influence but no direct participation, and then the party's structure sees to it the consensus gets near-universal support (the reality is that there is a lot of lubrication in such systems that one has to be keyed into to actually see). This can be very efficient in getting good things done quickly, and efficient in making tremendous mistakes quickly.

At least it avoids the gridlock and crisis situations of the multi-party systems.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one seems to want to take up the seeming conflict between laws against hate speech and free speech, so I will offer my own. There is no such thing as free speech anywhere. If you say outrageous things that are dangerous, or even potentially dangerous (crying "fire" in a crowded theatre) you can be arrested (incitement to riot, disturbance of the peace, keeping people awake at night) or sued (slander).

There is a little more leeway in political speech (such as the ruling that it is okay to fly a flag upside down, although to me that would plainly be disturbing the peace. This seeming contradiction stems from the myth of free speech being taken seriously here and there.

For speech that does not need protection (that is, is not dangerous, etc.,) "free speech" is not needed. One will always have partisans supporting what one says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the outside I think there are real differences between the political parties in most countries, and especially those that divide broadly into two camps, the left and the right. In power they generally if not always compromise the differences in order to get things done, and that always seems dishonest and cowardly to many, but is probably something that just has to happen.

The best governance is governance by consensus. When there are unhappy minorities not part of the consensus, you have the base of discord and trouble. In a single-party state, the consensus is formed by the ruling party and outsiders have influence but no direct participation, and then the party's structure sees to it the consensus gets near-universal support (the reality is that there is a lot of lubrication in such systems that one has to be keyed into to actually see). This can be very efficient in getting good things done quickly, and efficient in making tremendous mistakes quickly.

At least it avoids the gridlock and crisis situations of the multi-party systems.

I've often said, it's the two-party (or as near two parties as makes no difference) system that's the most inefficient system of government there is. The idea that the voters have a choice is completely fictitious, but those that are in government at the time never want to make any decisions that might have any kind of risk attached or that might lose them votes in the short term, or are at all interested in long term plans beyond headline grabbing gimmicks, because they know that by the time these things take effect, they won't be in power and the other lot would take the credit. Perhaps in some ways a genuine multi-party system might actually be more effective, because there'd have to be some kind of consensus in order for anything to get done; but then two-party system, exemplified by the silly world of American politics, where the party that isn't in power resolves to simply do everything they can to block anything the one that is in power tries to do, purely out of spite, is just hopeless.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.