You know, reading back on this thread, I still find myself kinda confused. A red flag to me, and something that becomes more fascinating the more I think about it, is the apparent introduction into the lexicon of powerful rhetorical constructions in the form of new jargon. "Pearl clutching"? "Cancel culture"? What's going on here?

A cursory google search turns up, e.g., this Twitter post. Even though I still don't really know the full context of where and why this new jargon was introduced and in what context, I am coming to believe that we are witnessing the latest progress in a fascinating trend in language evolution. In particular, my thesis here would be that the highly polemical writers (in this case, the left) are creating some kind of purely linguistic/rhetorical power structure in the shared language they use, by inculcating larger and larger territory of the debate into ever more encompassing language. When the same group of people started calling everything they disliked about hierarchical society the "patriarchy", it was along similar lines to this latest stuff, but at least in that case it was transparent enough to invite ridicule.

I don't know what that Twitter account meant by writing the phrase 'pearl clutching about "cancel culture" seems to coincide with the legitimate takedowns of prominent white men', but I do feel that by uncritically letting this jargon fly I've already conceded whatever argument I might have against those who use it, before I even understand all of their assumptions. Seems kind of Orwellian if you ask me.

Also interesting to note that Reid has outed himself as among the audience of such writers when he unabashedly incorporated the shibboleth "pearl clutching" into his prose. Not that there's anything intrinsically wrong with that, of course.

Cancel culture dies today, cringe culture dies tomorrow, RJ... >:-)

Also FYI, pearl clutching is an old ass idiom that means something pretty basic, it might not fit in with 'cancel culture' or whatever other shibboleths you're talking about.

It’s a little odd the people throwing out the accusation of “pearl clutching” are defending the right to use righteous outrage to get people fired from their jobs (or being “held accountable”, in their parlance). Not sure how getting all bent out of shape about Shane Gillis getting hired from SNL because his humor is soooo offensive isn’t “pearl clutching” but getting all bent out of shape about him getting fired is.

The pro-cancel culture position isn’t really all that coherent.

There’s no such thing as cancel culture, but “powerful people” still are being “held accountable”, which means that even though it doesn’t exist it’s also good.

So-called “canceled” folk haven’t actually been canceled because look how popular they still are, as Reid said:



But then, at the same time, their audiences have left them because of their dated and unoriginal jokes, as Reid also said:



And then apparently cancel culture isn’t new (don’t you know that Socrates and Jesus were both cancelled!), but also you’re being “held accountable” because times change, so get with the times, you dinosaur.

I’d heard of cancel culture but didn’t say anything because we’d just discussed it.

I’m still waiting for people to tell me much exciting freedoms they’re willing to give up to prevent it.

Apparently the same phenomenon is much more controversial, ill-defined and inscrutable when it’s called cancel culture than when it’s called deplatforming

Yeah, not sure why that's being focused in on. Have heard that one my whole life.

my only point was that 'cancel culture' is more about hyperventilating weirdos than a real issue, not that attempts to deplatform people are good and okay. though this debate was past its expiration date before it began, i'm pretty done with the subject so.. i probably shouldn't really be arguing this point.

I just caught someone in the wild say “hardcore liberals” and my brain slipped a gear.

Thanks for reading my essay god bless

What's a 'hardcore liberal'? Someone who buys John Oliver merch?

Nah it's just a liberal but they ****.

Ohhhh.. maybe they'll have an *extra* glass of red wine with dinner! We're really going nuts tonight!

I think Milton Friedman was a pretty hardcore liberal, but given the pedigree I guess they were just talking about someone who listens to NPR.

NPR puts me to sleep. I'm not sure what sort of person could listen to that on the regular. Maybe some kind of hardcore masochist.

I miss when conservatives were more like Disraelian one nation conservatives, instead of just being stupider liberals.

I mean, I'm talking about Canada, obviously. I miss it because I was still alive. That ship sank in the US like a century ago, lol.

*sneers at internet debate* lol look at this liberal who thinks companies shouldn't be allowed to dump toxic waste

Depends on how far back you go. According to this article (n.b., the very first hit on a google search of the phrase), it wasn't used in its current context before the mid-2000's, but has since then become popular on "feminist blogs" (which, I imagine were probably more in vogue than Twitter in 2012, when that Slate article was written).

Well, since I mentioned the specter of Orwellian language... doublethink? Although I admit I am grasping at straws here at this point, and I have to confess I am helping a silly conversation to begin with become exponentially more silly.

I first heard about the Biden and his son's scandal probably well over a year ago. I'm honestly ignorant into how this is now being turned into a Trump scandal.

A whistleblower in the Trump administration has accused Donald Trump of withholding US military aid to Ukraine because they refused to conduct Biden opposition research for his reelection campaign.

Think I realized what rubbed me the wrong way about these aspersions on those lamenting "cancel culture": just that it's "outrage about outrage", which always strikes me as kinda dumb. Seems like a Twitter thing. For whatever reason it seems that the fact that people are following you as you make short little nasty comments or signals of disapproval enables higher levels of indirection over drama. See also (for non-programmers, a pointer is a way to refer to a location in memory, which in C is accessed through the 'indirection' operator '*', or star. In theory you can use as many layers of indirection as you want, so using three pointers layered on top of each other, '***', makes you a 'three-star' programmer, which raises eyebrows because there might be a simpler approach.)

Your president is going to be impeached. Mitch McConnell may let him get convicted because this time he actually said something so ****ing stupid nobody reasonable can deny it. It's preserved on written record and all, and they even leaked their own spin to the Democrats on accident.

I just saw somewhere that the Ukrainian president doesn't support that. I find it a pretty dubious claim on the surface only because it seems pretty obvious what Biden did, I recently heard the recording, that I heard quite awhile ago, where it seems like he bullied the Ukrainians into firing an attorney I think it was. Some Democrats just want to impeach period but I wonder if this is a scheme (on the part of Democrats) to get Biden out even sooner by more widely publicizing his corruption.

Can you provide a link to precisely what your referring to? I suppose it's this transcript I heard about but if you already know exactly what I need to see that'll save me a few minutes.

Well, I'm skimming through NY Times stuff and I don't know if I'm missing something but I don't see how the allegation is supported but help direct me if there's some better info please.

Well you're not wrong that some Democrats want him impeached regardless. In this case though, you don't get to use presidential powers to trade for personal favors. It's explicitly illegal, and we have him on record making the offer, set in stone. Biden could have all of the corrupt background in the world and I hope it comes out if he does. Still doesn't give the president permission to proffer support to Ukrainians to do it.

Well, you're probably a couple posts behind me, I'm looking where he did do that and I'm not finding it. I have found where Biden did do exactly that with the Ukraine. This is just the first link from YouTube and there is some possible editorializing at the beginning but the NY Times article says, "There is a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution, and a lot of people want to find out about that,” Mr. Trump said to Mr. Zelensky, referring to unfounded allegations that the former vice president tried in 2015 to stop a prosecution of a company that his son worked for at the time." Later it adds, "He once publicly threatened to withhold $1 billion in United States loan guarantees if Ukraine’s leaders did not dismiss a prosecutor accused of ignoring corruption."

The controversy has nothing to do with Biden. Donald Trump abused his office to pressure Ukraine into helping with his reelection campaign. There are documented allegations and witnesses, the Trump administration fought to keep the house from viewing the report, but they eventually got it.

I mean, you're Wookie06 so there's really nothing that anybody can say or do that will help you comprehend what has been alleged or why it's actually about Trump, so I don't know why you're even bothering to ask.

I'm asking for a link to evidence. Are you telling me that this information is not yet in the public domain? I didn't skim the previous two pages here because I wasn't particularly interested in the lengthy discussion you were having about slavery and economics so if it was there I missed it.

I... literally just realized that I am the 'three star programmer here. Welp

So I had a chance to watch a brief summary of the whistle blower allegations. I will try to delve into it more this weekend. I did see how there are other events that I need to look at. I don't think it's fair to say this controversy has nothing to do with Biden, though.

Oh I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that Biden forced Donald Trump to do this.

Unfortunately I didn't see this far more interesting discussion. Yeah, communists wouldn't conflate the two.

This is basically the history of the Soviet Union. So, labor and capital (not money, but industrial inputs) are basically interchangeable. (I have no idea if this is Marxist, it's just true). You can produce lumber with old-fashioned saws if you want, it just takes lots of labor. Tools like chainsaws or sawmills are capital, they're tools which enable much higher productivity for the same unit of labor input. Capital typically has a high initial investment; if your country can't produce good steel then power tools are going to be very expensive to get working.

To get post-scarcity, what you need is very high productivity for labor inputs. In other words, lots of capital.. lots of factories, tools, etc. This is more or less why Marx thought communism would have to start in Germany; at the time Germany was the most industrialized society in Europe.

Okay, so this basic logic in mind, fast forward to Lenin. Russia the day after the revolution had very low productivity. IIRC only about 15% of the population could even read and most people lived 'subsistence farming' lifestyles. In order for communism to succeed, rapid industrialization was seen as a necessity.

What the Soviet Union did produce was lots of food. Lots and lots of food. So what they were lacking in industrial output, they made up for in food production. Given this was basically the one resource they had readily available for export, that was the primary currency used to begin the project of industrialization. Henry Ford famously oversaw construction of new factories during this effort.

Though it was obviously a massively disruptive process. Stalin believed that food production should be much higher than it was.. which is why they continued to demand food exports from places where people were literally starving. The Holodomor wasn't a genocide.. it was the result of mass export of food to finance industrialization.

Ultimately, the Soviet Union succeeded in this industrialization. It was an industrial world leader by the mid 20th century. But the doctrines of communism combined with a completely cruel and uncaring dictator made the project of industrialization super bloody. Similar results were seen in China.

So, point being, if a poor country is to attempt some kind of communist revolution, command economy style rapid industrialization is probably the wrongest way to go about it.

Yeah, the Soviet Union since inception has been the target of criticism for the left. Some like it, but they're stupid. But people not realizing how much more nuance there is, is pretty annoying to be honest. I don't think a typical American could even parse the title of this work:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/



Today the avenues of discourse are so narrow that I don't think people could even comprehend what that title means. It's really disappointing how low quality the general discourse is.

It means left-wingers are communists and infantile. Once they get older and get careers and houses they’ll get more conservative, you’ll see.

Wookie, you puzzle me. The idea for why Trump pressuring Ukraine into investigating Biden and his son's dealings is a controversy is not only easy to grasp, but the information is very widely and readily available right now because it's everywhere in the news. I don't understand how you could possibly have been confused about why it's become a Trump controversy, if you follow the news even a little bit.

Anyway, where does this put the theory that Trump didn't and doesn't even really want to be President and his campaign was originally a publicity stunt?

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/03/the-declining-taste-of-the-global-super-rich

It was brought up in Discord but will be lost there. Here's a nice article on how the rich today are rather pedestrian and how fine arts everywhere are struggling as a result.