4 ms·

>I hate to break it to you, but thirty and sixty years ago, colleges were as full of lib as they are today They were full of liberals, but now they're full of

>I hate to break it to you, but thirty and sixty years ago, colleges were as full of lib as they are today They were full of liberals, but now they're full of leftists.

skissane 4y ago
> They were full of liberals, but now they're full of leftists. That’s not really true though. There’s a huge gap between old-school Marxism and contemporary progressivism. Classical Marxism foregrounds class; most of contemporary progressivism foregrounds race, gender and sexuality, and class issues are moved to the background. African-American Marxist Adolph L. Reed Jr (professor emeritus of political science at UPenn), criticises “wokeness” as a capitalist scheme to distract and divide the working class-he’s definitely a “leftist”, but I don’t think he’d agree that many of the people you are complaining about really are “leftists” at all.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  >Classical Marxism foregrounds class; most of contemporary progressivism foregrounds race, gender and sexuality, I don't see any difference of substance.
  - skissane 4y ago
    The point is if one person is a “Leftist” for whom class is most important and the other is a “Leftist” for whom it takes a back seat to race/gender/sexuality/etc - then the one word (“Leftist”) is being used to mean two different things. What do queer theory, intersectional feminism and critical race theory have in common with Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, etc? I don’t think they have much in common at all. Calling both the former and the latter “leftists” just makes the word meaningless
    - Dalewyn 4y ago
      Whether you're talking about how much money, or what genes, or what genitals someone has, or what genitals someone thinks they have, you're still overtly concerned with what someone is and how that can be used to discriminate. So no, I don't see any difference of substance. The terminology changes, but the substance remains the same. Not to mention, the left also still talks about class. Remember the "We are the 99%!" craze?
      - skissane 4y ago
        > you're still overtly concerned with what someone is and how that can be used to discriminate. But aren’t many people on the Right “overtly concerned with what someone is” and even with “how that can be used to discriminate”? I think your definition of “Left” is too broad, because it ends up encompassing much of the “Right” in its terms.
        Dalewyn 4y ago
        Your response vindicates my position.
        skissane 4y ago
        What does that mean?
        Dalewyn 4y ago
        You evaded my argument and tried to reframe it into a "But the other side!" conversation, which is worse than worthless because you have refused to engage in discourse. If you won't (or more likely can't) refute my argument, it stands to reason my position is vindicated: There is no difference of substance between the left talking about class and the left talking about race and sexuality. To put it another way, you are failing to convince me to your ideas.
        skissane 4y ago
        You proposed a definition of “Left”. I pointed out your definition doesn’t work because taken literally it incorporates things which nobody in their right mind would call “Left”. I am engaging in discourse-I don’t feel like you are.

>I hate to break it to you, but thirty and sixty years ago, colleges were as full of lib as they are today They were full of liberals, but now they're full of leftists.

skissane 4y ago

> They were full of liberals, but now they're full of leftists. That’s not really true though. There’s a huge gap between old-school Marxism and contemporary progressivism. Classical Marxism foregrounds class; most of contemporary progressivism foregrounds race, gender and sexuality, and class issues are moved to the background. African-American Marxist Adolph L. Reed Jr (professor emeritus of political science at UPenn), criticises “wokeness” as a capitalist scheme to distract and divide the working class-he’s definitely a “leftist”, but I don’t think he’d agree that many of the people you are complaining about really are “leftists” at all.

Dalewyn 4y ago
>Classical Marxism foregrounds class; most of contemporary progressivism foregrounds race, gender and sexuality, I don't see any difference of substance.
- skissane 4y ago
  The point is if one person is a “Leftist” for whom class is most important and the other is a “Leftist” for whom it takes a back seat to race/gender/sexuality/etc - then the one word (“Leftist”) is being used to mean two different things. What do queer theory, intersectional feminism and critical race theory have in common with Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, etc? I don’t think they have much in common at all. Calling both the former and the latter “leftists” just makes the word meaningless
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    Whether you're talking about how much money, or what genes, or what genitals someone has, or what genitals someone thinks they have, you're still overtly concerned with what someone is and how that can be used to discriminate. So no, I don't see any difference of substance. The terminology changes, but the substance remains the same. Not to mention, the left also still talks about class. Remember the "We are the 99%!" craze?
    - skissane 4y ago
      > you're still overtly concerned with what someone is and how that can be used to discriminate. But aren’t many people on the Right “overtly concerned with what someone is” and even with “how that can be used to discriminate”? I think your definition of “Left” is too broad, because it ends up encompassing much of the “Right” in its terms.
      - Dalewyn 4y ago
        Your response vindicates my position.
        skissane 4y ago
        What does that mean?
        Dalewyn 4y ago
        You evaded my argument and tried to reframe it into a "But the other side!" conversation, which is worse than worthless because you have refused to engage in discourse. If you won't (or more likely can't) refute my argument, it stands to reason my position is vindicated: There is no difference of substance between the left talking about class and the left talking about race and sexuality. To put it another way, you are failing to convince me to your ideas.
        skissane 4y ago
        You proposed a definition of “Left”. I pointed out your definition doesn’t work because taken literally it incorporates things which nobody in their right mind would call “Left”. I am engaging in discourse-I don’t feel like you are.