14 ms·

>So all that being said, I genuinely wonder if cancel culture is here to stay, because the next ideology to come along will also realize how powerful of a tool

>So all that being said, I genuinely wonder if cancel culture is here to stay, because the next ideology to come along will also realize how powerful of a tool it is. Here to stay for sure. There's an active group of people behind it. They are the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left and they still exist today. The problem is that in 1989 when socialism died. They started their rebranding effort. They became Politically Correct, "democratic socialists", culutural marxists, globalists, internationalists. etc. The reason Justin Trudeau can do black face on multiple occasions and still win an election is because he's part of the new-left. Cancel culture is a tool of political silencing opponents. Those in the fold like Trudeau, he'll get away with literally anything. The problem or reason why it has become so much more obvious. Increasingly desperate. What has Biden done for BLM? Absolutely nothing.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> The problem is that in 1989 when socialism died. Socialism didn't die in 1989. What is that even supposed to mean? > They started their rebranding effort. They became Politically Correct “Politically Correct” was never part of a rebranding effort on the left, it was originally a pejorative used between different groups in the left, and adopted heavily as a pejorative by the right against the left in about the early 1980s, serving the same purpose as “cancel culture” does today (like, literally, anything the right says about “cancel culture” today can pretty much have that term swapped out for “political correctness” and be a quote from the right in the 1980s-1990s.) > "democratic socialists", “Democratic Socialist” isn't part of a post-1989 rebranding. The DSA itself was founded in 1982, and the “democratic socialist” label is older (one of the DSAs predecessor organizations was the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee.) > culutural marxists, “Cultural Marxism” isn't a post-1989 left-wing rebranding, it's a right-wing conspiracy theory. No one on the left identifies or brands themselves or any movement they are part of as “cultural marxism”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_... > globalists Again, not a left-wing rebranding; pretty much no one identifies/brands with globalism, and globalism is a term used both on the left- and far-right to refer to and critique an aspect of neoliberal capitalism (a center-right ideology). > internationalists Again, not a post-1989 left rebranding. Leftist “internationalism” historically has referred to association with one of the Communist Internationals (though it pretty much fell out of useful use with the overlapping, competing, Stalinist Third and Trotskyite Fourth Internationals before WWII, and the subsequent schism within the Fourth International. More recently, the left has been more prone to use “internationalism” as part of a term of critique with regard to liberal (centrist to center-right) internationalism, though even that negative use has largely been replaced with criticism of neoliberal “globalism”.
- cozuya 6y ago
  I wonder what the OP means by "globalists" and "internationalists". Are there any other words that he or she could use in place of those? Hmm.
  - sleepysysadmin 6y ago
    >I wonder what the OP means by "globalists" and "internationalists". Are there any other words that he or she could use in place of those? Hmm. Globalism is still there but is also dying. The problem with rebranding efforts is that it makes the subject difficult. In essence globalism was a failed attempt to destroy borders and have no immigration as a subject. Have just 1 global government and only 1 set of laws. The reason why globalism has essentially failed is because you can never in a million years do this without force. The country that doesn't go along with it becomes wealthy by not being it. Globalization is the the antithesis of globalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalism_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalism_(politics) In terms of internationalism it's just another brand of socialism that failed. There's no need to use another word because it's correct. Nobody today goes by the term because it's dead as socialism is.
    - cozuya 6y ago
      Imagine spending all this time and effort to defend your dogwhistle. Yikes.
      - sleepysysadmin 6y ago
        >Imagine spending all this time and effort to defend your dogwhistle. Yikes. You had a question and I answered in good faith. I accept your concession.
- sleepysysadmin 6y ago
  >Socialism didn't die in 1989. What is that even supposed to mean? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1989 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1989 China continues to be socialist because they killed everyone who protested. Even despite slaughtering their own people at Tiananmen Square. China is more capitalist today than ever. In fact the majority of 'stuff' coming from China is being produced in capitalist zones like Shenzhen. >“Politically Correct” was never part of a rebranding effort on the left, The rest of your post is basically just trying to deny the rebranding. The problem with rebranding is that when the old brand dies, the adherents say 'oh we were never that' that's in essence the point of rebranding. Here's the reality. Socialism is dying worldwide. Here in Canada for example, tons of government monopolies have gone private. Telus, Petro-Canada, CNR, Various electricity entities, road repairs and in some cases even the roads themselves. The wind is blowing that direction and the world governments will divest themselves out of their socialism eventually.
heterodoxxed 6y ago
I don't understand how someone can write this much without knowing the difference between neoliberalism and leftism.
danbolt 6y ago
I don't think Justin Trudeau is left. He wouldn't be the leader of a centrist party otherwise. The Canadian Liberals go right (eg: Martin/Chrétien in the 90s [1]) and then left (Cannabis legalization in 2012 [3], social positions in 2015 [2]) when it suits them. If he was left-wing his fiscal policies would be a lot closer to the NDP. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Martin#Finance_Minister https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Martin#Finance_Minister [2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-party-platforms-1.3264887 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-party-... [3] https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/liberal-delegates-vote-yes-to-legalizing-marijuana-no-to-cutting-off-monarchy https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/liberal-delegates-vote-...
- sleepysysadmin 6y ago
  >I don't think Justin Trudeau is left. He wouldn't be the leader of a centrist party otherwise. Well lets look at the new-left wiki page. >broad range of social issues such as civil and political rights, feminism, gay rights, abortion-rights, gender roles and drug policy reforms. That's literally Trudeau in a nutshell. He has done every one of those. >The Canadian Liberals go right (eg: Martin/Chrétien in the 90s [1]) and then left (Cannabis legalization in 2012 [3], social positions in 2015 [2]) when it suits them. The confusion many people have is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism they generally support free markets, free trade, limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism, democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion. I find it quite difficult to see anything in that list that Trudeau stands for. He's not a Liberal. That's the clear confusion. Yes Chretien and others were liberals. >If he was left-wing his fiscal policies would be a lot closer to the NDP. I am very confused by this. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/canada-deficit-2020_ca_5f060714c5b67a80bc01d5bc https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/canada-deficit-2020_ca_5... They ran a not-so-universal basic income and had a >$343 billion deficit. This is literally 20 years of debt in a single year. If anything, this is worse than the NDP.
  - danbolt 6y ago
    > That's literally Trudeau in a nutshell. He has done every one of those. Good. That's sensible social policy for any developed nation. If the Liberals weren't in the wilderness in the early 2010s they should have done those things then as well. They felt overdue in 2015. While I can't debate the high-level ideals of the first paragraph of the New Left article, its examples of student movements and grassroots activism don't seem like the sort of thing types like Trudeau, Friedland, or Morneau would associate with. The Federal Liberals are far too pro-business and pro-establishment. > I find it quite difficult to see anything in that list that Trudeau stands for. Really? I think the Federal Liberals' attitudes tend to be closer to those ideals than their opposition. The SoCon base of the Tories seem a lot less keen on secularism, individual rights, and freedom of speech. > He's not a Liberal. That's the clear confusion. Yes Chretien and others were liberals. I agree with you, I don't think Trudeau's a liberal. I don't think him, Chrétien, or the Federal Liberals are ideologically that much liberals either. I think they're incredibly centrist and are interested in popular policies that strike them as good government. The good things about that include Medicare in the 60s and fiscal reform in the 90s. The bad things include security theatre like the recent firearm legislation. If you're less inclined to realpolitik and more principled about something you'll likely end up with the Conservatives, NDP, or Greens. > If anything, this is worse than the NDP. What makes you feel that way? I feel like the Federal NDP would have a different paradigm towards spending than the Liberals. Their 2019 didn't even entertain the idea of a balanced budget.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> The problem is that in 1989 when socialism died. Socialism didn't die in 1989. What is that even supposed to mean? > They started their rebranding effort. They became Politically Correct “Politically Correct” was never part of a rebranding effort on the left, it was originally a pejorative used between different groups in the left, and adopted heavily as a pejorative by the right against the left in about the early 1980s, serving the same purpose as “cancel culture” does today (like, literally, anything the right says about “cancel culture” today can pretty much have that term swapped out for “political correctness” and be a quote from the right in the 1980s-1990s.) > "democratic socialists", “Democratic Socialist” isn't part of a post-1989 rebranding. The DSA itself was founded in 1982, and the “democratic socialist” label is older (one of the DSAs predecessor organizations was the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee.) > culutural marxists, “Cultural Marxism” isn't a post-1989 left-wing rebranding, it's a right-wing conspiracy theory. No one on the left identifies or brands themselves or any movement they are part of as “cultural marxism”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_... > globalists Again, not a left-wing rebranding; pretty much no one identifies/brands with globalism, and globalism is a term used both on the left- and far-right to refer to and critique an aspect of neoliberal capitalism (a center-right ideology). > internationalists Again, not a post-1989 left rebranding. Leftist “internationalism” historically has referred to association with one of the Communist Internationals (though it pretty much fell out of useful use with the overlapping, competing, Stalinist Third and Trotskyite Fourth Internationals before WWII, and the subsequent schism within the Fourth International. More recently, the left has been more prone to use “internationalism” as part of a term of critique with regard to liberal (centrist to center-right) internationalism, though even that negative use has largely been replaced with criticism of neoliberal “globalism”.

cozuya 6y ago
I wonder what the OP means by "globalists" and "internationalists". Are there any other words that he or she could use in place of those? Hmm.
- sleepysysadmin 6y ago
  >I wonder what the OP means by "globalists" and "internationalists". Are there any other words that he or she could use in place of those? Hmm. Globalism is still there but is also dying. The problem with rebranding efforts is that it makes the subject difficult. In essence globalism was a failed attempt to destroy borders and have no immigration as a subject. Have just 1 global government and only 1 set of laws. The reason why globalism has essentially failed is because you can never in a million years do this without force. The country that doesn't go along with it becomes wealthy by not being it. Globalization is the the antithesis of globalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalism_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalism_(politics) In terms of internationalism it's just another brand of socialism that failed. There's no need to use another word because it's correct. Nobody today goes by the term because it's dead as socialism is.
  - cozuya 6y ago
    Imagine spending all this time and effort to defend your dogwhistle. Yikes.
    - sleepysysadmin 6y ago
      >Imagine spending all this time and effort to defend your dogwhistle. Yikes. You had a question and I answered in good faith. I accept your concession.
sleepysysadmin 6y ago
>Socialism didn't die in 1989. What is that even supposed to mean? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1989 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1989 China continues to be socialist because they killed everyone who protested. Even despite slaughtering their own people at Tiananmen Square. China is more capitalist today than ever. In fact the majority of 'stuff' coming from China is being produced in capitalist zones like Shenzhen. >“Politically Correct” was never part of a rebranding effort on the left, The rest of your post is basically just trying to deny the rebranding. The problem with rebranding is that when the old brand dies, the adherents say 'oh we were never that' that's in essence the point of rebranding. Here's the reality. Socialism is dying worldwide. Here in Canada for example, tons of government monopolies have gone private. Telus, Petro-Canada, CNR, Various electricity entities, road repairs and in some cases even the roads themselves. The wind is blowing that direction and the world governments will divest themselves out of their socialism eventually.

heterodoxxed 6y ago

I don't understand how someone can write this much without knowing the difference between neoliberalism and leftism.

danbolt 6y ago

I don't think Justin Trudeau is left. He wouldn't be the leader of a centrist party otherwise. The Canadian Liberals go right (eg: Martin/Chrétien in the 90s [1]) and then left (Cannabis legalization in 2012 [3], social positions in 2015 [2]) when it suits them. If he was left-wing his fiscal policies would be a lot closer to the NDP. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Martin#Finance_Minister https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Martin#Finance_Minister [2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-party-platforms-1.3264887 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-party-... [3] https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/liberal-delegates-vote-yes-to-legalizing-marijuana-no-to-cutting-off-monarchy https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/liberal-delegates-vote-...

sleepysysadmin 6y ago
>I don't think Justin Trudeau is left. He wouldn't be the leader of a centrist party otherwise. Well lets look at the new-left wiki page. >broad range of social issues such as civil and political rights, feminism, gay rights, abortion-rights, gender roles and drug policy reforms. That's literally Trudeau in a nutshell. He has done every one of those. >The Canadian Liberals go right (eg: Martin/Chrétien in the 90s [1]) and then left (Cannabis legalization in 2012 [3], social positions in 2015 [2]) when it suits them. The confusion many people have is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism they generally support free markets, free trade, limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism, democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion. I find it quite difficult to see anything in that list that Trudeau stands for. He's not a Liberal. That's the clear confusion. Yes Chretien and others were liberals. >If he was left-wing his fiscal policies would be a lot closer to the NDP. I am very confused by this. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/canada-deficit-2020_ca_5f060714c5b67a80bc01d5bc https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/canada-deficit-2020_ca_5... They ran a not-so-universal basic income and had a >$343 billion deficit. This is literally 20 years of debt in a single year. If anything, this is worse than the NDP.
- danbolt 6y ago
  > That's literally Trudeau in a nutshell. He has done every one of those. Good. That's sensible social policy for any developed nation. If the Liberals weren't in the wilderness in the early 2010s they should have done those things then as well. They felt overdue in 2015. While I can't debate the high-level ideals of the first paragraph of the New Left article, its examples of student movements and grassroots activism don't seem like the sort of thing types like Trudeau, Friedland, or Morneau would associate with. The Federal Liberals are far too pro-business and pro-establishment. > I find it quite difficult to see anything in that list that Trudeau stands for. Really? I think the Federal Liberals' attitudes tend to be closer to those ideals than their opposition. The SoCon base of the Tories seem a lot less keen on secularism, individual rights, and freedom of speech. > He's not a Liberal. That's the clear confusion. Yes Chretien and others were liberals. I agree with you, I don't think Trudeau's a liberal. I don't think him, Chrétien, or the Federal Liberals are ideologically that much liberals either. I think they're incredibly centrist and are interested in popular policies that strike them as good government. The good things about that include Medicare in the 60s and fiscal reform in the 90s. The bad things include security theatre like the recent firearm legislation. If you're less inclined to realpolitik and more principled about something you'll likely end up with the Conservatives, NDP, or Greens. > If anything, this is worse than the NDP. What makes you feel that way? I feel like the Federal NDP would have a different paradigm towards spending than the Liberals. Their 2019 didn't even entertain the idea of a balanced budget.