Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    I'm not. That is what social Marxism is about, the bottom line.
    No social Marxism is about this:

    - Formation and measurement of arbitrary groups
    - All group inequality is as a result of oppression and prejudice (not from natural differences)

    - At the same time:
    - Biology and history are prisons which cause inequality and therefore need to be negated (e.g. race is a social construct)
    - Natural / biological differences don’t exist

    - Therefore intervention is needed to equalise these groups
    - The groups are classified as oppressed / oppressor groups
    - From trying to make people equal; loss of objectivity (Rotherham), loss of truth (race is a social construct), loss of freedom (arrests for tweets)


    The left use this thinking that the enemy of my energy is my friend and the friend of my enemy is my friend. For example if the Nazis wanted to control immigration and a UKIP member wants to control immigration, they say: you’re a Nazi.

    The fact that there happen to be some people on the right who talk about a secret conspiracy to kill white people and refer to social Marxist thinkers, and there are some people who believe in Chemitrails and cite social Marxist thinkers, and who want lax gun laws, and cite social Marxist is thinkers, does not lump everything in the same box.

    The left’s method of debate is to put a debate in an unacceptable box and therefore avoid debating it.

    No! I have layers out the arguments above; debate them, don’t try and exclude by using the left’s game which is to label them!
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airplanebee2)
    No social Marxism is about this:

    - Formation and measurement of arbitrary groups
    - All group inequality is as a result of oppression and prejudice (not from natural differences)

    - At the same time:
    - Biology and history are prisons which cause inequality and therefore need to be negated (e.g. race is a social construct)
    - Natural / biological differences don’t exist

    - Therefore intervention is needed to equalise these groups
    - The groups are classified as oppressed / oppressor groups
    - From trying to make people equal; loss of objectivity (Rotherham), loss of truth (race is a social construct), loss of freedom (arrests for tweets)


    The left use this thinking that the enemy of my energy is my friend and the friend of my enemy is my friend. For example if the Nazis wanted to control immigration and a UKIP member wants to control immigration, they say: you’re a Nazi.

    The fact that there happen to be some people on the right who talk about a secret conspiracy to kill white people and refer to social Marxist thinkers, and there are some people who believe in Chemitrails and cite social Marxist thinkers, and who want lax gun laws, and cite social Marxist is thinkers, does not lump everything in the same box.

    The left’s method of debate is to put a debate in an unacceptable box and therefore avoid debating it.

    No! I have layers out the arguments above; debate them, don’t try and exclude by using the left’s game which is to label them!
    You seem to be using a rather small number of students to generalise millions upon millions of people.

    The vast majority of those on the left, or those who vote Labour don't care at all about any of that.

    They care about stuff like the cost of housing and the NHS. I'll repeat, the only people who are obsessed with Marxism, are those such as yourself.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Every person I read talking about social Marxism also thought there is a plot to eradicate white men. The two go handmade in hand.

    Secondly, I know very few people who fit your description. Ironically, you yet still attribute social Marxism to "the left". Talk about forming arbitrary groups.

    And yes, racism and sexism for example shouldn't be debated. They're wrong, what's to debate. And immigration? There is almost universal agreement among scholars in this field that its net effect is positive. And so if people cry I'm not a racist but immigration is terrible, then yes, you're a xenophobe at best, if not a racist.

    You can cry as much as you want that you're not racist or sexist, but no one is fooled and it's got nothing to do with putting people into boxes.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You seem to be using a rather small number of students to generalise millions upon millions of people.

    The vast majority of those on the left, or those who vote Labour don't care at all about any of that.

    They care about stuff like the cost of housing and the NHS. I'll repeat, the only people who are obsessed with Marxism, are those such as yourself.
    So then why were the following people fired:

    James Damore of Google,
    Carole Thatcher of the BBC (daughter of Margaret Thatcher)
    Paula Deen of The Food Network
    Alec Baldwin of MSNBC
    Phil Robertson from A&E
    Justine Sacco of Inter Active Media Corp
    Don Yeltsin of North Carolina State
    Rick Sanchez of CNN
    Jimmy Snider from NFL Today
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airplanebee2)
    So then why were the following people fired:

    James Damore of Google,
    Carole Thatcher of the BBC (daughter of Margaret Thatcher)
    Paula Deen of The Food Network
    Alec Baldwin of MSNBC
    Phil Robertson from A&E
    Justine Sacco of Inter Active Media Corp
    Don Yeltsin of North Carolina State
    Rick Sanchez of CNN
    Jimmy Snider from NFL Today
    They were unpleasant people, to say it nicely. What you aren't basically saying here is that the evil left doesn't be tolerate *******s. Sounds so terrible.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    They were unpleasant people, to say it nicely. What you aren't basically saying here is that the evil left doesn't be tolerate *******s. Sounds so terrible.
    So 1. How was Carole Thatcher a terrible person for using a word for a minority group that was out of date?

    2. The left says that black peoples can’t be racist and doesn’t tend to take any action against blacks people who insult the white race, females who insult men (like the comic Jo Brand on TV). How how can these people be terrible people but people from protected groups who insult non-protected groups be good?
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airplanebee2)
    So 1. How was Carole Thatcher a terrible person for using a word for a minority group that was out of date?

    2. The left says that black peoples can’t be racist and doesn’t tend to take any action against blacks people who insult the white race, females who insult men (like the comic Jo Brand on TV). How how can these people be terrible people but people from protected groups who insult non-protected groups be good?
    1. You're beyond help if you can't see that.

    2. Of course they can. What they are saying is that as an institution, whites as a group still profit in net whereas as blacks are disadvantaged. There's a difference. You're showing a lot about yourself, debating these issues without actually understanding them.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airplanebee2)
    So then why were the following people fired:

    James Damore of Google,
    Carole Thatcher of the BBC (daughter of Margaret Thatcher)
    Paula Deen of The Food Network
    Alec Baldwin of MSNBC
    Phil Robertson from A&E
    Justine Sacco of Inter Active Media Corp
    Don Yeltsin of North Carolina State
    Rick Sanchez of CNN
    Jimmy Snider from NFL Today
    That people are fired so easily is a sign of weak employment rights. Companies are allowed to fire anyone they want for any reason, as the right have argued.

    Not, 'cultural marxism'
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    1. You're beyond help if you can't see that.

    2. Of course they can. What they are saying is that as an institution, whites as a group still profit in net whereas as blacks are disadvantaged. There's a difference. You're showing a lot about yourself, debating these issues without actually understanding them.


    Right so you have actually referred to advantaged and and disadvantages groups thus proving my theory.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airplanebee2)
    Right so you have actually referred to advantaged and and disadvantages groups thus proving my theory.
    No. One part of it, that is undoubtedly true. Same way kids if rich parents generally are advantaged compared to those of poor. It's not rocket science.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    No. One part of it, that is undoubtedly true. Same way kids if rich parents generally are advantaged compared to those of poor. It's not rocket science.
    No you didn’t refer to rich kinds and poor kids, you referred to blacks as a disadvantaged group and to whites as an advantaged group, hence you are at the centre of the theory. Probably so much so that you are unaware.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    1. You're beyond help if you can't see that.

    2. Of course they can. What they are saying is that as an institution, whites as a group still profit in net whereas as blacks are disadvantaged. There's a difference. You're showing a lot about yourself, debating these issues without actually understanding them.
    Right you claim that it immutable that Carole Thatcher is a terrible person for using the term Gollywog. The term was in common use up till the late 80s or early 90s, in fact it was the signature icon of Robertson’s jam and people would collect Gollywog tokens with a black round fave image and send off for their free Gollywog man. The term was not considered offensive or derogatory. Then obviously one day the PC brigade decided that the term was offensive and called in the PC police to punish anyone who used the term.

    If Carole Thatcher has used the term in 1985 then she is a fine person but if she uses it in the late 90s then she’s a nasty person?

    So if you don’t obey the PC thought police you’re a nasty person?
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airplanebee2)
    No you didn’t refer to rich kinds and poor kids, you referred to blacks as a disadvantaged group and to whites as an advantaged group, hence you are at the centre of the theory. Probably so much so that you are unaware.
    It's not a theory it's fact. And you were the one talking about generic groups being formed and said some have advantages others not. I haven you another such example and asked would you deny it for that too?

    You're talking actual nonsense here, and aren't even internally consistent in your argument.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    That people are fired so easily is a sign of weak employment rights. Companies are allowed to fire anyone they want for any reason, as the right have argued.

    Not, 'cultural marxism'
    So why do the left wing political establishment and pundits stand up for many people’s employment rights but never employment rights of people fired for PC transgressions?

    Can I have a single example of them standing up for someone in this predicament?
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airplanebee2)
    Right you claim that it immutable that Carole Thatcher is a terrible person for using the term Gollywog. The term was in common use up till the late 80s or early 90s, in fact it was the signature icon of Robertson’s jam and people would collect Gollywog tokens with a black round fave image and send off for their free Gollywog man. The term was not considered offensive or derogatory. Then obviously one day the PC brigade decided that the term was offensive and called in the PC police to punish anyone who used the term.

    If Carole Thatcher has used the term in 1985 then she is a fine person but if she uses it in the late 90s then she’s a nasty person?

    So if you don’t obey the PC thought police you’re a nasty person?
    If a law changes you can't say "well it was ok before".

    Social norms can change too. She was given the chance to apologize but chose not to. Ergo she used that word for a reason. And that word was always wrong, people just finally got around to acknowledging that.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airplanebee2)
    So why do the left wing political establishment and pundits stand up for many people’s employment rights but never employment rights of people fired for PC transgressions?

    Can I have a single example of them standing up for someone in this predicament?
    Why shouldn't they for someone being incorrect.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airplanebee2)
    So why do the left wing political establishment and pundits stand up for many people’s employment rights but never employment rights of people fired for PC transgressions?

    Can I have a single example of them standing up for someone in this predicament?
    Largely because those on the right have sought to weaken everyone else's employment rights and protections so there is a certain sense of 'what comes around goes around' when it comes back to bite them.
    I find it rather funny that you are referring to huge corporations such as Google, as 'left wing'.

    You seem to be conflating the idea of 'PC culture' with 'don't be an *******' culture.

    The latter is fine. If a white person insists on using the n-word, even though they know its connotations, why shouldn't they be sacked? That's not pc culture, that's simply not using words or phrases which have such a dreadful historical context attached to them.

    There seems to be some on the right who think they are being edgy and violating taboos by using the n-word. You're not, you're just being an ass.

    Ben Shapiro who is very right wing makes this point:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eioRmh9xlU4

    Is he marxist?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    It's not a theory it's fact. And you were the one talking about generic groups being formed and said some have advantages others not. I haven you another such example and asked would you deny it for that too?

    You're talking actual nonsense here, and aren't even internally consistent in your argument.
    No I was staying the thought process of the liberal left. Folks you are going to have to take the trouble to read it carefully and really digest it, in a summary of years of investigation:

    - Formation and measurement of arbitrary groups
    - All group inequality is as a result of oppression and prejudice (not from natural differences)

    - At the same time:
    - Biology and history are prisons which cause inequality and therefore need to be negated (e.g. race is a social construct)
    - Natural / biological differences don’t exist

    - Therefore intervention is needed to equalise these groups
    - The groups are classified as oppressed / oppressor groups
    - From trying to make people equal the same consequences as former Soviet Communism trying to make people equal:
    - loss of objectivity (Rotherham incident), loss of truth (race is a social construct), loss of freedom (arrests for tweets)
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Not going to tea do your nonsense again, already showed youare inconsistent.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    If a law changes you can't say "well it was ok before".

    Social norms can change too. She was given the chance to apologize but chose not to. Ergo she used that word for a reason. And that word was always wrong, people just finally got around to acknowledging that.
    Well these are the laws of the PC police not he laws of the lands. So the PC language changing police determine morality, who is virtuous and who is not?

    How can a word be always wrong. A word just just a reference like four letters that mean a light. How can it be good or bad? Hollywood used to mean cute Black Afro child. The word didn’t suddenly turn bad, some people decided to develop some kind of sensitivity or reaction to it.

    So if someone does not share their sensitivity then they are a non-virtuous person?
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 4, 2017
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.