I’m agreeing with you.
1 Like
Well, at least our pop music is from white, protestant, anglo-saxons.
No, but what was @TrollsOpinion arguing about critical theory and its view of Anglo-saxon protestant culture. My point to him was that the “west” was not built by white Christian ingenuity alone.
1 Like
I know! I was just expanding on what I meant.
totally true… totally.
1 Like
This sounds like an interesting read.
1 Like
I was referring to funrulys post about the GamerGate comments.
I need to work on being more clear.
1 Like
It is. Here’s a pdf . Parts of it have been highlighted, though, which is always disappointing in a philosophy book.
1 Like
The purpose of a yardstick is to measure. I don’t believe there is an ISO recommendation on the disciplining of children.
However, Critical Theory and its use to criticize one specific culture and establish a framework for political correctness is quite different.
1 Like
Are you seriously questioning me as to whether or not I think that there are?
What impact on my society does the work of these academics and subversives have? For that matter what impact does it have on their native cultures? ( damn, Im going to pay for asking this )
I’m not going to name any names here, but from time to time non US persons post here and I can tell that they are non US persons due to the language they use - its clear that they are from a culture not steeped in political correctness. I’m talking about words that would get me fired from my job, banned( sorry suspended from the BBS until the 23rd century ) as well as pilloried in real-world social situations.
From this I infer that political correctness is not a universal human condition and the difference between people who have to choose their words very carefully and those who dont are is their physical location.
I attribute the origin of political correctness to Critical Theory.
Apparently the non-Western critical theorists are slacking at their jobs.
1 Like
Yes, modernity is the product of all kinds of people. ( see what I did there? )
But only the white, protestant, anglo-saxon culture seems to be target of critique.
This is kinda my point.
Now, unless I am mistaken you are the only one to respond to my request to critique the institution of marriage. Lets get to the punch line.
You answered:
And the part I forget to mention is that the type of marriage I was referring to was same-sex marriage.
Given my ‘error’ of omission -would you care to update your answer?
1 Like
I forgot about the marriage question. Critique the institution? People should be able to make contracts about anything, and marriage should not be a special case of this. The reason why is that it does not directly affect anyone outside of the marriage, so it isn’t their business. The motivations can be financial, religious, romantic, sexual, practical - whatever, it’s between the participants. This is the case regardless of the genders or numbers of people involved. The State has no business meddling with people’s decisions.
1 Like
Finally! something we agree about!!! Hells yea!
See, I’m kinda a Libertarian, shhh dont tell, they dont like my kind around here
1 Like
You tricked me? I thought we were having an honest discussion, not attempting to make people look foolish. If that’s you’re entire intent, than why are we talking about this?
So, basically, you’ve never had any honest intentions and your entire goal was to make me look foolish?
Not really. As to gay marriage, its both heteronormantive and is bringing gay and lesbian couples into the mainstream more and more. The death of gay culture means the inclusion and civil rights of gay people into American society. Its frankly, IMHO a mixed bag. I support gay marriage, but I understand some of the people within the gay community who don’t care about it.
You know what… I have been discussing this with you honestly. I have told you what I think and believe about this topic and why. I have treated your views with respect, even as I disagree with them. I’m taking what you say seriously and trying to make you understand my view point here - which in my world is the highest form of respect you can give to others, taking what they say seriously and giving them an honest answer. If you can’t do the same for me, what exactly is the point of this discussion? Just to make me look foolish and undermine me by doing so. This isn’t a game to me. These are the things that I do for a living. I believe in open and honest discussions, aimed at better understanding how our world works and how we can make it better. I don’t expect us to all end up on the same page at the end of the day. However, I don’t appreciate attempts to undermine me for no reasons other than you happen to think I’m wrong. It really does reveal your true intentions, that you have no interest in dialogue, only in racking up points in some imaginary game where there is no consensus, only wins. In the real world, we are all increasingly interconnected and dependent on each other, and the sooner we all realize that and learn to respect each other and our differences, the better off we’ll all be. I’m actually really disappointed that you seem more interested in scoring points than in honest discussion. This, actually has been at the heart of the enlightenment project, an ever widening circle of discussion and ideas that can one day figure out a path that promotes the well fare of all. If that makes me some sort of crypto-commie, than so be it. But I (and I think many of us) are so tired of games, when so many lives are on the line. This may be just a discussion on some message board to you, but its here and places like this, in the real and virtual world, where we can continue the utopian project of promoting the most good for the most people in this world.
When I say this is about all of us, I mean that shit. I don’t see you as an opponent, because you’re a human being, just like me. I see you as that. The more we all do that, the closer we’ll get to something better in this world. That does mean work, and thought, and sometimes reaching out and trying to understand others. But, if we can fix this miserable condition we all seem to find ourselves in, then maybe that’s worth it in the end.
17 Likes
We are having an honest discussion. I simply reframed your response. To wit: if modernity is subject to critique then all cultures that contributed to modernity are similarly subject to critique. No?
Not at all, as a matter of fact it is my goal to make learned persons such as yourself and @popobawa4u and @jerwin understand my point.
This is a debate, and I am an almost lone voice of opposition debating about 4 people at the same time. I must approach things obliquely otherwise people find way of ‘wiggling’ out of things.
I try to be succinct, Perhaps when dealing with a complex and nuanced subject like this its a mistake?
Look, you all have been kind to me. I dont mean any offense. Seriously.
1 Like
Which, in fact, I illustrated with my previous links. [edited to add] You also need to understand the roots of the globalized modernity. I’m not sure you do. The world we live in was wrought from the struggle of imperial powers to bring the world their version of civilization to the “uncivilized peoples without history” (their words, not mine) under their control, and from the pushback in that imperial push by everyone else. It was a world created in that struggle.
I do. I still think you are misunderstanding critical theory and the frankfurt school, like historically and factually misunderstanding. You can understand where they are coming from and still disagree with them.
Given you bait and switch in your last response, I find that hard to believe. I do feel as if your goal was simply to make me look dumb. That does not a good debate make.
4 Likes
I’m trying.
As I have alluded to in previous posts Im currently reading source material( and struggling with psychoanalysis )
But I have something to say as well.
Had I asked you to critique hetero and homosexual marriage your answer would have been different? As a matter of fact, why would you not assume that that was not the context?
I merely sought to display the contrast- this effort would have been lost had I tipped my hand.
In summary:
Heterosexual marriage is:
Patriarchal
Oppressive
Commodified
Utilitarian
Homosexual marriage is:
___________( still waiting for a criticism )
This contributes to my thesis: Critical Theory is inculcated into the culture.
1 Like
Which I’ve listened to and responded to. I objected to your trickery, not your content.
To which I said:
There you go. That’s my view. I’m sorry you felt as if you had to bring up this question in a manner that involved making me look foolish.
How?
2 Likes
I understand. There was some fuckery in my line of questioning. But it was necessary to make my point.
… is not criticism.
I could not perform the experiment and give the subject the answer without invalidating the experiment.
The Frankfurt School found fertile ground in the 50-60s counterculture. All of your professors, all of your graduate advisers are direct descendants of this indoctrination.
This is why you, as a student- and soon to be Doctor- of history have the understanding of this subject that you so.
Its just that you just dont seem to understand what it implies. Its an assault on the dominant culture of the WASP because the culture of the WASP resists collectivization.
I dont want to see my culture destroyed to further the political philosophy of a bunch of dead communists.
1 Like
Happened to be in my news feed…
The science that wasn’t: The orthodox Marxism of the early Frankfurt School and the turn to critical theory | The Charnel-House
2 Likes
By itself, perhaps not, but it can be seen as a criticism of the tendency to exclude these people. In “The West”, marriage is officially a secular institution, but the laws tend to be formulated from the dogma of religion. So this is either a gloss or deception by those who “authorize” marriages. Their handwaving of the dogma behind same-sex and group marriages deserves criticism. Regardless of what I think of same-sex and/or group marriages, the definitions of a secular institution informed only by religion lack consistency, they fail by even their own standards of clarity, nevermind mine.
The main work of the Frankfurt School happened in the early 20th century, they were not very active during this countercultural movement, except perhaps Marcuse. This fertilization was passive, since it was a new generation actively picking and choosing strategies. And they drew from diverse sources. All of your professors? Isn’t that more sensational than likely? How is critique even “doctrine” in the first place? I can see referring to a manifesto as doctrine, but not critique. What do you know of from the Frankfurt School which qualifies?
That’s their party line, anyway. My experience is that it’s hardly the case. They do resist certain forms of collectivization, while gravitating towards others. Quite a few conservatives have raged at me when I calmly laughed off patriotism, money, religion, and broadcast media as being merely their version of collectivism. But I stand by it. Westerners fancy themselves as being selfish and individualistic, but they use large scale conformist systems to make this possible, and then play it off to save face in hopes of staving off disillusionment. When the illusion cracks, they collectively lash out and blame The Other - whatever they perceive it to be.
Culture gets destroyed by contemporary and future necessity. And/or by inability to understand and adapt to changing circumstances. What about the political philosophy of living communists? Or dead capitalists? Or apolitical philosophers? Of course nobody wants to see what they love destroyed. But your concern with blaming communists sounds really reactionary. If you want to act against them, maybe you should develop better arguments against the ideas of communism through its history rather than playing wack-a-mole by complaining about them as a shadowy mythical organization. Or, if you want to be revolutionary, you can speak up about how you see your culture being destroyed, and put forth what you think are better strategies for dealing with it. The issues are complex, and there is a lot at stake, so it probably can’t be navigated by identifying with any group of token ideologies.
8 Likes
