Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (46799)	5/25/2004 11:41:19 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793926

Jonn, I hate left wing PC. I also hate right wing PC. I hate all PC. People need to think, not spout righteous slogans. Bush seems now to be a captive of the right wing pc crowd. It wasnt this way until recently. The failure to admit mistakes and to hold folks accountable is a wrong-headed way to winning the hearts and minds of the american people. They will rightfully demand accountablility from public school teachers and even principals but not from George Tenet or Don Rumsfeld. Don Rumsfeld is better than this and he should resign. The military would actually love a new head of DOD and Rumsfeld would at least be perceived as brave by folks who dont like him. Mike

To: JohnM who wrote (46799)	5/25/2004 12:35:47 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793926

Thus, the use of the term Marxism in that sentence is simply an attempt to use McCarthy techniques to slam his political opposition. "McCarthy techniques" is so "'50s," John. It's really just a smear when you use it these days. Are "gender, race and ethnicity" arguments in this country Marxist based? "Cultural Marxism" may be a valid term to use. Here is a discussion of that I found of it. Cultural Marxism? The term "cultural Marxism" is frequently used in discussions regarding culture, politics, ethics, and current affairs. As is often the case, no easily understood definition of the nomenclature is readily available. In our opinion, the following quote taken from REASON IN THE BALANCE, The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education by law professor--Phillip E. Johnson, does the excellent job of explaining the parallel between a failed economic theory and this increasingly popular paradigm for social relationships. Other examples of modernist natural law involve the many versions of Marxism. What is common to all varieties of Marxist thought is the proposition that the fundamental moral fact about the human condition is that a class of victims is dominated by a class of oppressors. It follows that the cure for oppression is liberation, whether through violent revolution or by cultural transformation. In classical [economic-oriented] Marxism the oppressor class was the bourgeoisie or capitalists, while the revolutionary class was the proletariat or industrial wage-laborers. The specific cure was for the workers to seize control of the factories and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat, to be followed by the utopia of communism. Contemporary versions of this exciting drama flourish in universities, with a new cast of characters. Now the oppressor is the heterosexual white male; the new proletariat consists of racial minorities, women, gays and lesbians; and the struggle is for control of the terms of discourse. Great victories are won, as when newspaper editorialists and judges accepted the term homophobia as a fair descriptive term for the state of mind that leads people to oppose gay-rights ordinances. Institutions once thought to be obviously healthy, such as motherhood and the family, become reinterpreted as means of oppression--just as the original Marxists reinterpreted employment as "wage slavery." (Page 145) The phrase "terms of discourse" means the rules for speech and discussion. It answers the questions of who, what, when, where, and how regarding expression of viewpoints.

To: JohnM who wrote (46799)	5/25/2004 1:07:34 PM
From: Whitebeard	Respond to of 793926

Betty Freidan was a communist Equality of sexes was part of the NYC communist/Stalinist platform her ideas for her book came from the NY Communist Party in the forties/fifties That and her bitterness at her party member husband leaving her goaded her to write "The Feminine Mystique" the ideas for a lot of what has become known as PC were developed in the American Communist Party

To: JohnM who wrote (46799)	5/26/2004 1:56:26 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793926

Marxism is about class inequality, not gender, not race, not ethnicity. What conservatives call 'cultural marxism' is what they see as application of the form of the romantic argument about "class inequality" to gender, race, etc. They think it's a sign of vapidly uncritical thinking. A better description of PCness, right now - it varies with time and place - is the widespread adoption of the viewpoint of the weaker, whoever that might be, to the exclusion of the wider description of the relation between weak and strong. In organizations this can cause weirdness of a high order, as it does in personal relations. More generally, any side of a relation can be confounded when their status as moral actor, or foundations of their ethical standpoint, are eliminated. Their response, once they catch on to the rhetorical trick is unlikely to be charitable. ("Fool me once...."). Thus the fierceness of some feminists I knew years ago. Thus the fierceness of some conservative men these days. Thus the exploitive behaviour of some quasi-insightful students in colleges as they try to use sex or racial characteristic as a means to gain various kinds of advantage. Widening the description further, there are serious international repercussions when political actors, or whole populations, will only present the ethical standing of one side in a relation. Confoundedness is a result. Noodling a bit: There was an interesting article posted here the last few days about loss of multi-member electoral districts (in Illinois, I think). This it's argued has lead to less micro causcasing and consultation and more polarization, resentment, and fixed positions in the capital and more incendiary political language. If large numbers of folk in a district never see candidates they support elected then they think their interests are not represented, their voices not heard. This is worsened as information technology allows extreme gerrymandering in favour of incumbents. Thus in some states Dems are always cut out and in others Reps always out. Political language becomes savage and almost automatic obstructionism the rule. What does it mean for the new Europe when bureaucrats have power over a very large range of human activity, as opposed to legislatures and individuals? How do people get their voices heard and what do the politicians, who have created such a situation, say? How is the loss of political headroom and the ensuing frustration deflected and exploited by the politicians? One response is to turn attention to the apparent cultural and ethical short comings exemplified in the activities of a powerful, but essentially unthreatening external actor by opposing them. It gives an otherwise unconvincing narrative verisimilitude. A similar trick is played by rulers of Middle Eastern countries who deny their citizens political headroom. I repeat: Any side of a relation can be confounded when their status as moral actor, or foundations of their ethical standpoint, are eliminated. Their response, once they catch on to the rhetorical trick is unlikely to be charitable. Probably not a good idea to run it past anyone, especially the powerful, too often. frank@lucyvanpelt.com