Now Kevin doesn't give examples of feminism, post-modernism and cultural marxisms on academia that are part of this group, I have two problems in with vague attacks against the 'academia', which are *conspirational in nature. (The domination of 'this' or 'that' view in 'academia' without providing any logical support behind it).KevinSolway wrote:Now the overt politization I refer to is coming from a particulary noxious group of people who have been called the social justice warriors and gamergate is in large part a strong pushback against them, the social justice warrior culture is itself a coombination of crazed third wave feminism, also know as teofeminism or religious feminism, along with post-modernism and cultural marxism that is cultivated in the social studies departments of academia.
1. Is that it is anti-intelectual in nature, bringing the debate to low heights granting the viewer of mass media the assurance of his views by the discourse that anything otherwise would be an attack on his position (attracting viewership in the case of the media).
2. It is beneficial to the political right to claim that there's a conspiracy against their views, even when they were against every progressive movement in recent history and then when they lose support from significant parts of society - like dominance in the academia, they claim to be persecuted. (For no reason at all, why doesn't the right dominate academic debates? It is not because they neglected it or lost the debate, except that they do in invest large amount of resources as in tatic number 1., actually it doesn't matter for tatic 1. to deny that they invest in it as it attracts viewship and creates discourse.)
On societies there's the people who are already integrated in the status quo, and the rising population. Being historically against the rising movements and then pretending to be the victim (when the outcome is not what you expected when you desire social relevance) is what I would expect from Woman, the feminine mind which doesn't know history or logical continuity (and in my opinion knows better the status quo), that - the feminine mind - is what the video is supposed to denounce. So am I missing something here or what? - Personally I never saw a rebutt of Solway to feminism, post-modernism, or marxism, for the matter. Here I would see any defense from ignorance on the subject as a neglect for the subject in question.
* The term conspiracy theory was spread by the CIA in an attempt to defame legitimate views, propaganda or so I heard.
** In the US for example the Republican Party represented this part of society not integrated in the status quo like immigrants and being against slavery on it's foundation and today of course it represents the status quo.
About woman issues the views would be represented as those for the liberated woman (in the work-force, etc) and for the regular house-wife (promoting familiar values and stuff). One question would be if one view is more feminine thus uncounscious than the other and which parts of society support the counscious or uncounscious view.
It seems that upon analisys the femine mind would have to be explained by something else, an uncounscious thing then would be explained by something which is not that same thing. Or maybe the feminine mind is an acceptable explanation for the feminine minds, which is a bit ironic.
Link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzF_KmNedtw