In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On September 14 2017 08:31 Mohdoo wrote: To be fair, you could also say it is pretty obnoxious to just be like "uh, Oregon" when someone is obviously asking about your heritage. I always tell people "I am from ___, but my father is from ____" and people are like "ohhhh, cool!".
It's not obvious that someone's asking about my heritage, I've been asked "where are you from" in both contexts. And when I misunderstood the intent of your ambiguous question, there are more polite ways to clarify than "No but really...".
I'm not going to say that someone who does that is a racist, but I do find it rude for someone to ask me an ambiguous question and then act like *I'm* the one acting in bad faith when I don't give them the answer I want.
On September 14 2017 08:28 sc-darkness wrote: I get asked where I'm from even though I'm European living in another European country. I don't think people should be offended by such questions unless it's "where are you really from" as someone else mentioned. Again, plenty of things to be upset about in this world, and this isn't one of them.
This is my view too. The phrasing is just impolite.
On September 14 2017 05:45 Liquid`Drone wrote: So in theory, you're fine with terms like cultural Randism if a libertarian school of thought achieved influence on a similar level to the Frankfurt School?
Why not? If there's a connection to Rand, I don't see the problem.
I'm honestly not intimately familiar with her works, but I've had the impression that she, like Marx, is more about economy than culture, and that it'd be a pretty meaningless term. Honestly kind of secondary though, my main argument against the term is more along the lines of;
What if the term is hardly ever used, but then gains popularity following a leftist timothy mcweigh who attacks and kills 100 boyscouts during the 2018 boyscout Jamboree where he prior to attacking posts an online manifesto where he specifies that he targeted those boyscouts because they were likely to be future representatives of Cultural Randism, a term that is consistently used to denigrate the political opponents of leftist timothy mcweigh. That's actually a pretty perfect parallel. And I can guarantee that I'd avoid the term if this is how it came to achieve notoriety.
I never heard the term in context of Breivik. I heard it as a critique of the ideology underpinning certain aspects of extreme political correctness and parts of leftist political ideology in the social/societal realm. I read around, reviewed chapters of foundational Marxist/Leninist works, and it's a pretty easy tie-in applying broad themes from the Marxist vision of economic thought to culture. It's all the power struggle of cultural forces, everything is victim/oppressor relationship ... you've just switched what and who is proletariat and bourgeoisie. The solution is undermining the existing system (incrementalist variant) and revolution.
Now, if some Norwegian comes over and says the true history of the term is a nutty terrorist from Norway, I'm going to view you with incredulity. Marxist thought and ideology is far older than that dude. The works are widely known. Any semi intelligent man or woman can put the two and two together for societal critique. The ideas of Marx & Engels translated into culture wars. I see a central truth to the characterization. I don't personally use it that often, not because of one nut, but because evangelical preachers and politicians have misused it to encompass any cultural decay in society. Is your story of acquaintance with the term your unique path, the understanding of most Norwegians, or straight Scandinavian?
That one really significant peak is where breivik's manifesto is posted. To be fair, it was used slightly more than I expected before that (I had never heard the term pre-breivik though), but this is when it became mainstream. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=NO&q=cultural marxism is the trend for Norway, as you can see, it's virtually non-existent pre-breivik. I definitely think most Norwegians share my understanding of the phrase.
On September 14 2017 08:39 ticklishmusic wrote: i think most of ya'll are assuming that the "offensive" way of asking the question doesn't happen a lot - however, it does unfortunately.
Yeah there's clearly an experience gap going on here. I've heard the offensive phrasing far more than the polite version.
We haven't even covered the popular carnival game style "Let me guess where you're from (because it can't be here)" version.
Just to clear things up....I do agree that there are ways to ask someone where they are from without being rude or racist, but my boss was treated like an alien because of her race and being the owner of the business quite noticeably and often. People wouldn't treat her respectfully due to being asian and a woman and would ask to see someone "above" her all the time. After witnessing how strangers would treat her I got more of an understanding of how fucked up the US still is in terms of racial and gender issues.
They would ask "where are you from" in a context of them pointing out that she isn't a "true" american despite being born in Chicago and when answered with Chicago they would pry more and try to figure out where she's "really" from.
In other news, Facebook counties to undermine our democracy.
You know we do this type of stuff too right? We've all been doing it (with time-relevant technology) for a long time. The US is easily among the top offenders.
As much of a prick Zuckerburg is and as problematic as facebook is, it's only useful to look at in the larger context rather than any specific event in a single election.
On September 14 2017 05:45 Liquid`Drone wrote: So in theory, you're fine with terms like cultural Randism if a libertarian school of thought achieved influence on a similar level to the Frankfurt School?
Why not? If there's a connection to Rand, I don't see the problem.
I'm honestly not intimately familiar with her works, but I've had the impression that she, like Marx, is more about economy than culture, and that it'd be a pretty meaningless term. Honestly kind of secondary though, my main argument against the term is more along the lines of;
What if the term is hardly ever used, but then gains popularity following a leftist timothy mcweigh who attacks and kills 100 boyscouts during the 2018 boyscout Jamboree where he prior to attacking posts an online manifesto where he specifies that he targeted those boyscouts because they were likely to be future representatives of Cultural Randism, a term that is consistently used to denigrate the political opponents of leftist timothy mcweigh. That's actually a pretty perfect parallel. And I can guarantee that I'd avoid the term if this is how it came to achieve notoriety.
I never heard the term in context of Breivik. I heard it as a critique of the ideology underpinning certain aspects of extreme political correctness and parts of leftist political ideology in the social/societal realm. I read around, reviewed chapters of foundational Marxist/Leninist works, and it's a pretty easy tie-in applying broad themes from the Marxist vision of economic thought to culture. It's all the power struggle of cultural forces, everything is victim/oppressor relationship ... you've just switched what and who is proletariat and bourgeoisie. The solution is undermining the existing system (incrementalist variant) and revolution.
Now, if some Norwegian comes over and says the true history of the term is a nutty terrorist from Norway, I'm going to view you with incredulity. Marxist thought and ideology is far older than that dude. The works are widely known. Any semi intelligent man or woman can put the two and two together for societal critique. The ideas of Marx & Engels translated into culture wars. I see a central truth to the characterization. I don't personally use it that often, not because of one nut, but because evangelical preachers and politicians have misused it to encompass any cultural decay in society. Is your story of acquaintance with the term your unique path, the understanding of most Norwegians, or straight Scandinavian?
That one really significant peak is where breivik's manifesto is posted. To be fair, it was used slightly more than I expected before that (I had never heard the term pre-breivik though), but this is when it became mainstream. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=NO&q=cultural marxism is the trend for Norway, as you can see, it's virtually non-existent pre-breivik. I definitely think most Norwegians share my understanding of the phrase.
And I heard it as both the conspiracy theory (and silly conservative bugaboo) and relating Marxist theories to culture throughout the 2000s. As an example, here's Andrew Breitbart going off on it before the attack+ Show Spoiler +
It has taken over both political parties and is enforced by many laws and government regulations. It almost totally controls the most powerful element in our culture, the entertainment industry. It dominates both public and higher education. ... It has even captured the clergy in many Christian churches.
That writeup was published in 2003 and cited several persons and organizations.
Buchanan, Nixon & Reagan adviser/speechwriter/etc and Republican presidential candidate, was probably my first exposure. His famous culture war speech (Republican National Convention 1992) and all the books and TV appearances. Explicit in his book and speeches.
So suffice it to say, the term's been around. The last post I commented on its historical accuracy, and I'll restate here it does have a connotation of communist conspiracy if used indiscriminately.
In other news, Facebook counties to undermine our democracy.
You know we do this type of stuff too right? We've all been doing it (with time-relevant technology) for a long time. The US is easily among the top offenders.
As much of a prick Zuckerburg is and as problematic as facebook is, it's only useful to look at in the larger context rather than any specific event in a single election.
So am I supposed to be cool with it? I'm not really seeing an upside to having this cooperation be a media company and low rent propaganda wing intelligence agencies of any nation.
In other news, Facebook counties to undermine our democracy.
You know we do this type of stuff too right? We've all been doing it (with time-relevant technology) for a long time. The US is easily among the top offenders.
As much of a prick Zuckerburg is and as problematic as facebook is, it's only useful to look at in the larger context rather than any specific event in a single election.
So am I supposed to be cool with it? I'm not really seeing an upside to having this cooperation be a media company and low rent propaganda wing other intelligence agencies of any nation.
No not supposed to be cool with it at all. But, like I said, you don't think US intelligence agencies work with tech companies to influence other countries politics?
Or that they haven't worked with various media outlets throughout history for the same purposes. That they haven't lined countless pockets with cash/resources for much more direct interference than propaganda?
My point isn't not to be outraged, just don't let your outrage be so small as to think this is some egregious and unprecedented offense.
In other news, Facebook counties to undermine our democracy.
You know we do this type of stuff too right? We've all been doing it (with time-relevant technology) for a long time. The US is easily among the top offenders.
As much of a prick Zuckerburg is and as problematic as facebook is, it's only useful to look at in the larger context rather than any specific event in a single election.
Please show me the FB or Russian social-media group, called something like "Heart of Moscow", that was created by an American government operation. We're the "top offenders" of government-run social-media operations to subvert other countries' public-opinions? You sure about that?
And regardless, whether the equivocation is false or not, really doesn't matter, does it?
In other news, Facebook counties to undermine our democracy.
You know we do this type of stuff too right? We've all been doing it (with time-relevant technology) for a long time. The US is easily among the top offenders.
As much of a prick Zuckerburg is and as problematic as facebook is, it's only useful to look at in the larger context rather than any specific event in a single election.
So am I supposed to be cool with it? I'm not really seeing an upside to having this cooperation be a media company and low rent propaganda wing other intelligence agencies of any nation.
No not supposed to be cool with it at all. But, like I said, you don't think US intelligence agencies work with tech companies to influence other countries politics?
Or that they haven't worked with various media outlets throughout history for the same purposes. That they haven't lined countless pockets with cash/resources for much more direct interference than propaganda?
My point isn't not to be outraged, just don't let your outrage be so small as to think this is some egregious and unprecedented offense.
In other news, Facebook counties to undermine our democracy.
You know we do this type of stuff too right? We've all been doing it (with time-relevant technology) for a long time. The US is easily among the top offenders.
As much of a prick Zuckerburg is and as problematic as facebook is, it's only useful to look at in the larger context rather than any specific event in a single election.
Please show me the FB or Russian social-media group, called something like "Heart of Moscow", that was created by an American government operation. We're the "top offenders" of government-run social-media operations to subvert other countries' public-opinions? You sure about that?
And regardless, whether the equivocation is false or not, really doesn't matter, does it?
You would really be surprised to find a US funded (through more rigorous back channels) social media group spouting anti-Putin propaganda (given it's less necessary to wholly fabricate)?
I mean we've funded militias to overthrow legitimately elected leaders, but you think it would either be too hard or too far to run a social media propaganda outlet?
The Justice Department has notified Senate investigators that it will not make FBI officials available for interviews because doing so could pose conflicts with the work of special counsel Robert Mueller.
Leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee had sought to meet with the FBI's chief of staff, James Rybicki, and the executive assistant director of its national security branch, Carl Ghattas, as part of their review into the dismissal of then-FBI Director James Comey earlier this year.
But the Justice Department told lawmakers this week that it would decline to make the FBI officials available "to protect the integrity of the special counsel's investigation."
Mueller is examining Russian interference in last year's presidential election and potential ties between the Trump campaign and Russians.
The special counsel probe also extends into "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." Sources familiar with the probe have told NPR that includes whether Comey was fired for any improper reasons, such as obstruction of justice.
A spokesman for Mueller declined comment for this story.
Legal experts who follow Washington scandals said it's common for prosecutors to prioritize witnesses needed for criminal investigations over congressional requests. But those decisions can produce friction with lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
She probably also forgot she approved this commercial
She's falling apart at the seems it appears. Honestly I actually hope she keeps it up, she's been the best at turning Democrats away from the establishment.
EPT
