Alright, much of this is really banal by this point, but I guess I'll respond to the article.
This is poor reasoning. Clearly people have individual agency. Clearly people have some definition from their group. The point is where it begins and where it ends. This hysterical whining that academic elites define people only by their privilege is just a radical oversimplification to the point of being almost a pure error. And that doesn't mean all of the discussion in that vein is good or healthy, but Christ, this **** sounds much more like an attempt to shut people up for trying to expose power dynamics than it is any real argument about whether the analysis itself is sound.
[citation needed]
This is, again, bull****. Go into any history department and ask about this. Seriously, try it.
Even from what I can tell, the statement they should be responding to is in context, ideas like free speech or individual rights can be used to justify immoral, unethical or otherwise racist things, and that this describes how these ideas are used in politics today far better than a true academic understanding. That would be a harder position to argue against, and it's the one serious scholars would be more likely to agree with, so again, in debate club nerd terms, this is a huge strawman.
It does exactly what Ben Shapiro does, and why he's such a devious little ****head: you'll notice Ben Shapiro only goes on college campuses to talk **** on undergraduates, but he won't enter a public forum with an actual professor of psychology who would **** up and down on his interpretation of psychological studies. Because all the right has to offer against academia is arguments against bad readings of the **** people actually want to say, or to pick on people who are intellectually undeveloped.
The idea here is literally contradictory. You can't do individual analysis on an entire group. The idea he's trying to sneak in is basically that "black people as a group fail because they all individually make bad choices".
Guess what, that's really ****ing bad sociology, so ****ing bad it's actually not even sociology. It's just, again, conservatives trying to dismiss the topic without a real argument.
The left is drastically more moderate than the right.
Cultural Marxists literally don't exist. It's literally an extension of Nazi complaints about arts and academia funneled back into mainstream culture through 4chan ****posting. This is a literal neo-Nazi defense of their imagined pseudo-history and pseudo-culture against people who dissent.
I.E. it's about how I feel the first amendment should be, not what it actually is.
None of this is true. People losing academic posts for having opinions is nearly unheard of. This is pure hysteria.
Nope. Again, another strawman position. What they actually say is "a group of men talking to a woman about her own problems isn't feminism" and the equivalent. In other words, listen to what other people have to say. Not that straight white men can't speak competently or correctly on these topics.
Nope, consensual sex is easy to understand and define for most people. The problem is, there are psychos who want to push the boundaries and do other devious acts within the strict rules but with obvious malicious intent. It's actually hard to come up with a system of rules that will perfectly limit unwanted behavior, and people are trying to figure that out. But for anyone who's a normal person with a normal sex life, consent is really, really straightforward.
Holy ****ing **** dude, do you actually take this stuff seriously, Eversor?
I remember seeing a redpill post once about how all women are "solipsists". I'm getting a bunch of similar vibes from this article.
I checked the article they linked, and the first thing they mention is a book where a woman was criticized for a thing she wrote. That's it, the publisher published the book, she had a dialogue with people, nothing happened.
WAO SO CRAZY HOW THE LEFT WANTS TO CENSOR ALL BOOKS! 1984 ORWELL WAS RIGHT!
Marxism is literally just a system of thought to analyze society. The elevation of it to a massive conspiracy theory, an intellectual force trying to subvert everything - is hysteria. In reality there's people who are dissatisfied, so they reach out to various intellectual frameworks to understand their dissatisfaction, and Marxism is one of those.
Though I highly, highly, highly, highly, super highly doubt that any of the people this **** writer is complaining about actually know any Marx.
Again, a reactionary myth. Do these *******s really think people spoke unabashedly 20, 30 years ago? How about 50 years during the civil rights era, do they think that the United States was really more free speech friendly then? This pseudo-history they invent, a mythologizing of the past as some golden era, is just bull****, a manufactured lie to try and create modern political leverage.
I don't see that, what I see is a massive stinking pile of hysterical bull****.
