lTentacleMonsterl 20 points ago +22 / -2

To be fair, he loves doing so. He's done a similar thing when it came to Iran executing a pedophile who kidnapped two boys - it's in part what led for Trump to push legalizing homosexuality worldwide.

It may work against other countries, but within American politics it's just right accepting lib/left morality/paradigm, and they stand no chance to win it, no more than liberalism stands a chance against intersectionality.

lTentacleMonsterl 19 points ago +19 / -0

Just a nice way of saying it. And "re-education" is already a thing (diversity training; anti-racism training; etc) and has been historically in churches & schools ("workshops") which served to "re-educate" people about UNESCO proclamation re: race being a social construct, etc. It'd only be a step further, since education & media serves the purpose of educating people in the "right" way to begin with.

lTentacleMonsterl 0 points ago +1 / -1

Nobody cares what it originally meant. It currently means some flavor of Marxist.

Yeah, as I've noted the distinction is largely meaningless (if described as marxist, it's even worse).

You know what that means, don't play dumb.

I can assume things, but that's all it'd be. I'd prefer seeing you explain it.

People here do see the system we live in and reject it due to the harm it's done, yet you're here pushing it like a dealer. "Come on kids, just have a try, it'll make you feel good!"

Case in point. Post-modernism is merely a tool, it's not a system nor ideology,.

lTentacleMonsterl -2 points ago +1 / -3

James Lindsey is a liberal who supports enlightenment and its products, and who disdains anything that isn't liberalism. It's not about attacking post-modernism, but enlightenment, liberalism, and certainly intersectionality which builds on liberal ideals as much it does on post-modernism.

lTentacleMonsterl -2 points ago +1 / -3 (edited)

That whole paragraph demonstrates an incapability of discerning the difference between truth and ideological dogma

That's kinda the point. It's not an issue with "discerning the difference between truth and ideological dogma," but the fact that ideologies, ideals, etc are presented as simply being "true" and beneficial to everyone, when most of it within the west is just ruling class ideology, and that truth in general is shaped by same powers.

Saying some truths are closer to reality than others is some Orwellian "Some animals are more equal than others" bullshit.

Social reality, truths, facts, etc are not the same as objective reality, truth, and facts which are beyond some basics - especially in relation to other people - largely unreachable.

Nor are truths dependent on or shaped by power

They are, and not solely by it as they are limited by our understanding of things and knowledge (itself limited by power and dependent on society).

Some dogmas are more true than others, dogmas are shaped by or dependent on power to exist.

Nope, I'm describing social reality in which we live in.

Holy fucking mother of nope. I'm pretty sure people were a lot happier to not be starving or dying in agony of the fucking pox nearly so often, what a boldly absurd claim.

Not sure how that negates the point being made, that such claims weren't based on reason or evidence?

lTentacleMonsterl -4 points ago +1 / -5

That's kinda funny. Left/right as a spectrum originated in France, with left being for revolution (liberty; equality; democracy) and right for monarchy. If we're to go by the ideals, wouldn't most on today's right be "leftist"? Certainly, I doubt that's what you mean; you probably mean it in contemporary sense of left/right which is largely meaningless, as the distinction is between intersectionalists and liberal.

Certainly, I'm neither, though I do consider myself as someone on the right.

to "deradicalize" people

What does that even mean?

to make your dumbass worldviews sound appealing

I want "right" or people in general to improve and see the system under which we live in, rather than fight specters generated by it and liberals, and to utilize tools that are beneficial, rather than be bothered by them because of their association with [insert bad group].

lTentacleMonsterl -4 points ago +1 / -5 (edited)

It's not though, it just establishes a different form of objective truth and narratives, underlied by universalism. To see "truth-seeking" as an "incremental" and "fallible" process ignores the purpose of it and clouds the judgement.

It's something that should be evident within the west, given we're constantly lied to by those presenting themselves as authority, experts, scientists, etc, including when it comes to gender, race, but also various other things. While "truth," whatever that meant, can exist outside of society, all truth that exists within society is dependent on it and shaped by power. Some truths are closer to reality, as possible that may be, while others are outright fiction, including construction of individualism that has existed within the west in last two centuries, equality, "freedom of the press," "democracy," and other things many believe exist, when they are merely illusions.

Also, don't forget the promise of enlightenment of greater "happiness" that'd be achieved through reason, something which On Enlightenment correctly notes, they had no idea that it could be achieved.

"Accordingly, the utilitarian justification of Enlightenment had to be more and more insisted upon, to the exclusion of the ethical one. In this way the enlightenment became committed to a certain promise, made to the human race at large: this was the promise that, by increasing knowledge, human happiness would be increased beyond all previous experience.

"By 1770 science had more than two thousand years of history behind it, and yet it had never once brought about any marked increase in human happiness. This simple historical fact is enough on its own to refute the Enlightenment delusion of Bacon and D'Holbach. Knowledge is not power. Lessening ignorance does not always lessen misery, or even typically have that effect"

lTentacleMonsterl -1 points ago +3 / -4

Full context paints a different picture, though I wouldn't say it would matter either way.

Foucault: "There is no Knowledge, there are knowledges. There is no Reason, there are rationalities. And so, just as it is meaningless to speak in the name of - or against - Reason, Truth, or Knowledge, so it is meaningless to engage in Politics. The idea that there is one true politics that will lead us to our salvation is a dangerous lie, as the Soviet experience will attest"

Frank "In the old sense of the word, Marxism is not a 'true' theory ... I am ready to set aside the classical claim of philosophy for representational adequacy. In its place, I am ready to urge a materialist view that theory does its representing with a purpose. This sort of theory seeks not to find the foundation and the conditions of truth but to exercise power for the purpose of social change. It says there is no such thing as eternally 'true' theory. It says that theories are generated only in history - no theory comes from outside - for the purpose of generating more history in a certain way: generating the history we want."

Fish denounced that line.

Derrida: "This nostalgic note is struck time and again in Specters of Marx and Moscou aller-retour, which deserve permanent places in the crowded pantheon of bizarre Marxist apologetics. In the latter book Derrida declares that “deconstruction never had meaning or interest, at least in my eyes, than as a radicalization, that is to say, also within the tradition of a certain Marxism, in a certain spirit of Marxism.” Not, of course, that he wishes to defend anything Marx himself actually wrote or believed. He declares Marx’s economics to be rubbish and his philosophy of history a dangerous myth."

lTentacleMonsterl -4 points ago +1 / -5

There is no objective truth, so any lie will do as long as it makes you feel good. That's not fucking skepticism, that's just a willful gullibility born of laziness, because evaluating things rigorously is apparently too much hard work.

It's more descriptive than prescriptive, that's kinda the point. To understand it as "There is no objective truth, therefore you should lie if you want to" is to misunderstand its purpose, a better view of it would be "There is no objective truth, but truths, therefore question the authority asserting the Truth and why it's doing so.

Which is especially important given we live in a society where various things are presented as objective truth, and ideals presented as inherently desirable and just, from "human rights," "equality," "democracy," etc, while always ignoring their purpose within the system and in relation to power.

I'm with the other guy, it's exceedingly unlikely to me this is just an immense idiot, this is just deliberate bullshit.

I can't speak for the person as I'm unfamiliar with them, but I do agree with most of the article.

lTentacleMonsterl 9 points ago +10 / -1

Salon has a decent article on the subject.

The first generation of neoconservatives, including Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, Irving Kristol and Norman Podoretz, were former liberals who believed that America needed to stand up and fight communism. Accusing their former colleagues on the left of going soft, they claimed that America's survival and the fate of the free world required toughness, not compromise.

The second generation of neocons, including Robert Kagan, William Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz, continued to believe in American exceptionalism and the virtues of force, but they added an idealistic note: America should not just battle evil but also promote democracies around the world.

lTentacleMonsterl 2 points ago +2 / -0

The population isn't at war, though. If you've looked at right's reaction at the start of riots but also even since then, that's clearly demonstrated. Whatever dislike some may have, they'll conform like people tend to do. That's ignoring that other generations will see it like right currently sees suffragettes, feminism in 70s, or civil rights movement.

lTentacleMonsterl 5 points ago +5 / -0

Demographics are destiny, but that depends on what's meant by it. If we're talking about demographics turning US into an one-party state, sure that's possible. There's a good article documenting how groups vote, and ethnic voting is, has been, and will continue being a thing.

But it's also possible for right to change significantly to play a role in the system like it has done for the last century or so.

If we're talking about values present among the right and US which have changed considerably over time, then they definitely won't remain regardless of which way go. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but eh.

If we're talking about future of the country, then definitely, demographics are destiny; politics, values, and so forth are largely meaningless in and of itself, without the people that give it meaning to begin with. And certainly, in most cases I can't say I care much about politics, values, or the system in South Africa or some other country across the world. Do you? With demographic change it'll be the same with US. Certainly, beyond some of its influence onto the rest of the world.

lTentacleMonsterl -1 points ago +5 / -6

"But why people aren't doing so?" isn't an argument against benefits of post-modernism, it's just complaining that other groups are doing so and utilizing it better.

No one is arguing that it didn't lead to crappy thing (which arguably would have happened regardless, especially because of liberalism which contributed to most of it), but that the issue isn't post-modernism in itself which is in part reaction to enlightenment, and a necessary reaction at that.

lTentacleMonsterl 11 points ago +11 / -0

“We are born into this time and must bravely follow the path to the destined end. There is no other way. Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who, during the eruption of Vesuvius, died at his post because they forgot to relieve him. That is greatness. That is what it means to be a thoroughbred. The honorable end is the one thing that can not be taken from a man.” - Oswald Spengler.

I do not think I'll get involved in politics in the future

Politics as in voting, arguing, and similar things are largely meaningless. What isn't meaningless, is offering vastly different views to people from the ones present in society; that is, illiberal beliefs and criticism of liberalism, "democracy," etc and their purpose as illusions within the system, which fundamentally is dominated by money. The quote above is somewhat pompous but I do like the sound of it, as something that's worth thinking of.

lTentacleMonsterl 1 point ago +2 / -1

I don't discount that shame/etc might play a role, but male prisons & female prisons aren't the same, nor are the prisoners sent there, nor men/women for that matter.

table 18, listing "reasons for not reporting sexual victimization", and see 70% saying they didn't want anyone to know

51% also noted they were afraid/scared of the perpetrator, 40% of punishment by staff, etc. Also, different contexts.

lTentacleMonsterl 2 points ago +3 / -1

That'd depend on who's put in those prisons, really. If rapists it'd be a bad thing in general, but as it stands, well...

Bureau of Justice wrote a report based on former inmates, showing that:

The rate of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization was at least 3 times higher for females (13 7%) than males (4 2%)

lTentacleMonsterl 0 points ago +1 / -1

You're welcome :)

If you'd prefer, here's a libertarian site on the subject of American interference in Hong Kong which covers both of the points I made:


lTentacleMonsterl -6 points ago +4 / -10

Hong Kong is Chinese territory, and the attention (especially from mainstream media, as noted by FAIR) along with support it got is much bigger than any other "protests" got, including Gilets Jaunes which resulted in countless more injured and dead.

It's also worth noting that organization which played a part in organizing protests was funded by NED, a regime-change org, and that people who've previously played a part in Ukraine "protests," have themselves played a part for no reason whatsoever.

massive reaction to a single murder in the US

It's not "reaction to," but "utilization of." "Reaction to" takes their argument at face value, and leads to "Well, it's just so darn awful those peaceful protesters are mired with bad actors," while "utilization of" recognized that the issue isn't the "murder" (apostrophes much needed given it's an overdose), but the fact that blm ideology aligns with ruling class interests, just like Hong Kong protests and Belarus protests align with their interests but French or other protests do not.

lTentacleMonsterl 7 points ago +7 / -0

People are product of the system in which they live in, and either way most people conform.

Blm, intersectionality, "civil rights movement," feminism, etc were all created with specific intent to utilize liberal ideals with which people were raised (along with help of media), so they can get away with much more. Yeah, suffragettes may have committed terrorism, and so have feminists, and in fact you've had a feminist group kidnap and rape a woman who later joined them in robbing a bank, but that's not what one thinks of when they hear "suffragette" or "feminism," they think of their achievements such as voting and women's rights because they are supposed to as that's what society (media, education, social interactions) have told them since childhood.

On top of it, most of right-wing media which is staffed by liberals who don't care to deconstruct any of it, beyond few "fringe" outlets. They would much rather complain how media is unfair or sell "marxism" as a villain and re-affirm support of people for capitalism, rather than acknowledge it's a movement based on race, sponsored by corporations and rich, and fully compatible with capitalism.

You can't expect most people to change when they aren't presented with right information, and even then as noted most will conform, because not doing so carries consequences when hundreds of corporations, elites, etc support blm. People have had their lives destroyed for less, and not to mention bullying/harassment faced by some for as much as not supporting blm.

lTentacleMonsterl 0 points ago +1 / -1

Everyone who visits KIA2 is well aware of Peggy McIntosh and her garbage essay

The concept has developed over time and has existed well before she wrote about it.

I'm pretty sure a hefty chunk of this community leans left, but is sick of woke left's lunacy.

Lol yeah, nah. And regardless, the fact that you see it as lunacy is an issue.

White privilege is unfalsifiable dogma, and a tool of the elite to sow discord and division among the working masses.

I'm not sure what "unfalsifiable" is supposed to mean in the context, given it's a concept like any other.

Again, the vapidity of McIntoshes essay shines through your reply. Vague claims of benefits, which are simultaneously invisible, but obvious to anyone who buys into the concept

Aspects of it are quite logical, just not applicable to west in today's day and age at least as presented. The rest is nonsense. The benefits aren't invisible, they are obvious; I've noted some of them when it comes to group as a whole. If you look, for example, at affirmative action & diversity policies, it wouldn't be hard to argue that blacks/etc benefited at expense of whites. Obviously not all blacks, but it's a race-based privilege afforded to them, which itself leads to different outcomes.

behaviour that is likely to create succsessful individuals

"Successful" how? It certainly does sound like a capitalistic ideal, and rootless individualism is certainly one of its ideals. Individualism is a fairly recent construct that has existed for several hundred years, and hasn't really done a lot of good for the west, in particularly due to how its conceptualized.

Again, more vague claims, in the spirit of the original essay.

Sounds like you should read more.

that it's dogma used by the woke left to destabilize society and seize power.

That is its purpose, certainly. Doesn't really negate the concept, though.

The idea is that the equality of opportunity, not of outcomes should matter.

The point I was making is that individuals and groups are inherently unequal, and that the concept of equality (and individualism) which presupposes that they are equal should be challenged, especially since it's the key assumption on which "white privilege" and in fact most of intersectionality rests on.

a brief glance at 20th century totalitarian regimes

"Totalitarianism" is a meme villain that has never existed, constructed by neo-liberals to demonize anything beside liberal "democracy" as a system, one which with slight changes in definition - such as from from "dictator" and "government" to capitalism - can easily apply to whole west, as money rules all. Regardless, your criticism as I've noted, is misplaced.

I see that you've stepped out of the lefty bubble

I'm not left-wing, I was noting the mistakes with the approach which focused on class, not race, a common thing among the right for reasons I've mentioned. Certainly, it's hardly fruitful arguing with people about it.

lTentacleMonsterl 7 points ago +8 / -1 (edited)

Speaking of which, America First was basically popularized out of opposition to intervention. America First Committee (where an actress, Lilian Gish played a role) and which had support of various politicians, was formed in 1940 out of that purpose.

America First as a movement itself originated in opposition to intervention, and was led by women (dozens of Mothers' groups) and had significant support.

Some of them were charged with sedition, though it went nowhere.


lTentacleMonsterl -6 points ago +1 / -7

I wouldn't suggest doing so.

She's never had to struggle in her life and she assumes all white people lives like her.

That's not what white privilege is about. It's never been about that, but most of right-wing media doesn't even bother dealing with any left-wing concepts, deconstructing them, etc, resulting in fundamental misconceptions about it.

White privilege isn't about class (though it might be seen as related).

What white privilege is about, is that if you compare a poor white person with a poor black person, poor white person would be treated better or have various "privileges" because of their race. Such as not being targeted by police, being more likely to be hired, etc.

Furthermore, it applies to the group as a whole (when compared to others), namely various disparities, such as wage/employment gaps, different levels of cultural influence, political power, economic power, incarceration rates, sentencing disparities, etc.

The reason 'white privilege" is seen to exist is because of white supremacy being a thing, which advantages whites & exploits and oppresses non-whites.

A better approach might be challenging the idea of equality and expectation of equal outcomes between different groups, but I doubt it'd work.

lTentacleMonsterl 11 points ago +12 / -1

It's not, you're just aware of it nowadays due to social media & internet, as are many people.

view more: Next ›