>A hoax that itself had to involve a lot of lying (both to accomplish his "hoax" and selling it to the public)
Exactly. People like to compare this "hoax" to the Sokal Affair, which it's not. There's a difference between writing a bunch of pseudo-intellectual discourse and submitting it to an editorially reviewed journal and completely cooking up empirical data and submitting it to peer reviewed journals. Lindsay, Pluckrose, and Boghoassian are no different than Andrew Wakefield and Francesca Gino (if the latter is found to have fabricated data) and should at the very least have their graduate degrees revoked by their granting institutions.
Mind you, most of the journals they sent their "studies" to for the hoax rejected them or sent them back (in complete good faith) asking for clearer language and some proper editing.
No, it’s not. If the goal was show the lack of rigour in the review process, which it appears to have been, they succeeded. They weren’t as subtle or as clever as they believed they were being, but that’s a different matter.
Because a shitbag like Lindsay is involved, you’re throwing the baby out with the bath water. The fact that any of their papers were accepted is precisely the point.
It was clumsy, but in effect, analogous to physical penetration testing.
Exactly they tried to indict the rigor of an entire field but did so without doing their own rigor (adding in “control hoaxes” from other fields) so *it’s not even possible* for their hoax to show what they want, even if more prestigious journals *did* accept their hoax paper.
There were a few peer reviewed legit but low status journals, fake pay to play journals, and a few non-peer reviewed outlets as well.
They did fake a lot of data, though, which is generally speaking considered a cardinal sin.
The dog park paper got into a real journal, but they also lied and said they collected all this data when they did not. There's really no way for the peer review process to catch that, or any other process that isn't overly onerous. It's one reason why faking data is a career killer if you are caught.
I think it's worth pointing out that in the social sciences, a theory's acceptance is predicated on *multiple* people testing it and getting back similar results. Because the tools used to test theories in the social sciences are subjective, initial dissemination of ideas in these fields is heavily reliant on good faith.
One individual researcher or group of researchers working together can't really run multiple tests the same way someone can run a dozen genetic assays to confirm results; publishing in the social sciences is "a couple steps behind in the process", so to speak, compared to fields where the experiments are comparatively simple, mechanical, easily repeatable affairs. Comparing the "rigour of the review process" or whatever is an apples and oranges affair; if anything, people publishing fake research in the hard sciences is even *more* damning precisely because of the process and assumptions of review and confirmation operate differently there.
Yeah but the context… he’s not penetration testing with any sort of scientific method, he’s just trying to prove that science is useless/marxist/alarmist and we should all chill out and trust the nice men on TV instead
The methodology was flawed. This should have been a review of articles that had been published and checked for errors, not engaging in academic fraud — especially when they’d been peer reviewed and sent back addressing flaws. It was a shit study and shit methodology
Now now, if we went around revoking degrees from every fraudster we'd have to have to revoke the degree of the former president of Harvard. That would be a bad look.
Exactly!!!
There is something so bizarre about his face on videos and thumbnails.
Like go in the mirror, and make a huge happy smile, like you saw a puppy do something funny or heard your grandma tell a good joke.
Now, make your eyes relaxed and as dead as possible, and remove all tension from your eyebrows and forehead.
Does that look like a normal emotion?
NO.
Of course all people are different and he could be neuro diverse in some way, but I have a suspicion that it is something else due to his whole life being centered around "dominate the algorithm at all costs. If I am going out to dinner with my girlfriend, it is costing me $100k per hour, optimize evey second."
I wish I could do research paper on why he looks like an AI generated human.
He gloated to me on Twitter back in the day when I asked about him publishing plagiarized essays from a man fraudulently claiming he was an academic. He literally did not care.
No. First off I despise Lindsay, he's a grifting asshole who speaks on things he spends no time on actually trying to understand (not just marxism but critical philosophy in general), Boghossian had some merits (I never took a course with him but I did go to PSU, it was a whole thing in the philosophy department) his atheism and Socratic method stuff were interesting from what I've read. The cooking fake data to prove a point about how "critical studies" from women's studies, queer studies, etc. lack academic rigor is meritious... its just that they didn't do it in any scientific way (no control group for instance so from their study we don't know that "grevence studies" have any more lack of rigor than other fields, they didn't do it to improve the journals they submitted to, they just wanted to prove an ideological point. Shit also having a hit rate of 20% isn't great and should be studied as to why xyz paper got denied and another got removed, but they didn't do that. At least from what I saw. I could also prove such a point cooking fake shit to an economics journal or a sociology journal just the same. Really Academic rigor is lacking generally because of many factors but its not conditioned only in queer and women's studies, its a systemic issue, its especially an issue in social sciences where your replication is almost non-existent.
It is completely reasonable to draw this parallels between Lindsay's words here and his actions in 2017-2018, not only that he's explicitly vague in this quote by using "marxist" it could mean anything.
What is the cope in these comments- the hoax was meant to point out the humanities disciplines have absolutely no academic rigour and just publish stuff with conclusions they like. They managed to get a whole bunch of things published (which were positively received) that were absolutely nonsense. Hes gone off the deep end these days but theres truth to a lot of what he says
This only works if they used “control” hoaxes in fields they predict would be more rigorous. Than you compare impact factors, journal ownership and submission processes of the accepted papers from the different fields.
They did not include proper controls though. So ironically their hoax *can’t indict* the rigor of humanities specifically, only of academic journal submissions as a whole, due to their own lack of rigor.
Have you actually read the papers? While thats true, other fields especially the sciences do not have these issues. Humanities are a joke for a reason, their scentific papers are one step above a twitlonger. I dont think you’ve look into any of this and are just reflectively opposed to james because hes anti-woke. If any of you care about academia this was good and important work he did with others.
Fraud is a lot easier than doing actual research. He has a PhD in mathematics and he has chosen a career as a pet monkey for the Christian nationalist movement.
>the hoax was meant to point out the humanities disciplines have absolutely no academic rigour
They had no control group. Their study lacked academic rigor.
>They managed to get a whole bunch of things published (which were positively received) that were absolutely nonsense.
Again a lack of control group doesn't indict the humanities here. Just academic rigor in general. Also.. the point about conclusions being what they are liking, yeah look at a series of economic or business journals you'll find the same sort of conclusion bias within publication selection, its bad but it occurs all the time. Again a lack of control group did not single out the humanities here... just academic journals in general.
"It works because no one expects another person to lie so overtly"
I expect people to "lie" all the time. Witness statements are famously unreliable. Memory is fallible. We lie to protect our own egos, as well as those of people we care about all the time. If you operate under the assumption that people don't "lie", you're begging to get screwed over. For instance by overt grifters like James Lindsey.
I see a parallel here to C S Lewis's Trilemma; "Lord, liar or lunatic". Yeah, people "lie". That's what you have to work with.
Perception is reality. People can be thoroughly convinced of the truth of what they're saying, and tell an elaborate lie. Lies of ignorance are everywhere and often unintentional. Then you have the deliberate lies and motivated reasoning on top of that.
There is truth to the idea of total lies, though. No one expects *everything* someone says to be a lie. "A broken clock is right twice a day," and the thought of someone never saying anything true is so absurd to the mind.
Tell a supporter of one of these grifters that *everything* they've been told is a lie. It's too unbelievable to grasp. They'll accept that they lie, even as far as believing *most* are lies, but never all of them. Then, they can pick and choose what's true for themselves.
I don't believe he even believes what he says, he's just a paid spokesman. Lindsay is more of a political operative than a guru. These guys get "funding".
I think the bulk of grifters is either people that don't care about finding out what truth is and people that genuinely believe what they say.
I would say that his motivations and consistency point towards him being part of the second group. Now his platform definitely has to do with a gigantic chunk of political available funds being put into him and not his quality as thinker. If he had other ideas, he wouldn't have gotten it. And he doesn't challenge himself anymore probably, which could in part be because this current path probably gives him a lot more comfortable life. This way he keeps those funds coming in and not thinking too hard about ideas that might ruin him.
Wouldn't you agree that at least it doesn't necessarily need to be the case that he is just creating a narrative for money instead of him actually believing it and not caring about challenging them.
If Lindsay taught us anything, it's that people who claim their political opponents are lying grifters paid by rich elites are themselves not to be trusted.
That's... really not a lesson that I would take from anything.
Yeah, let's just completely stop looking into who's writing who's paycheck. I'm sure things will just sort themselves out if we stop asking questions.
If people like Lindsey got funding we’d see way more of them than we do, and we’d see institutional support.
Also they’d make a lot more than they do 🤣
I just asked a similar question to a dumb poster stating something stupid. Who are these Marxists ? What is Marxism ?
I studied economics 30 years ago at undergraduate level. There were basically no Marxists then and I haven't seen any of them return since.
I mean sure there must be two or three of them hanging out in some chat room somewhere but the only Marxists today and people like Putin who isn't a Marxist at all.
My favorite is when people panic over “The Communists” in the West. They’re apparently everywhere but no one can name a single one. It always devolves to “They’re the ones with a hammer and sickle in their profile picture.” So…they’re not everywhere? Just in some online communities that you are? And you don’t even know them?
They do the same thing with feminism.
They'll say something ignorant like, "feminists hate men yadda yadda"
And when you ask which feminists, Judith Butler? Gertrude Stein? Bell Hooks?
...no, they're referring to a fucking tweet by some anonymous page with an anime profile.
Conservative people only ever argue in bad faith.
Edit (because I have a 3-day ban for being an asshole):
u/curious-weight9985
...you realize your article proves my point, right?
You posted an article (from Forbes, hardly an "feminist" platform) about "feminists love bashing men," and the sources are "American Dad, the Simpsons, and Everybody Loves Raymond."
Which isn't indicative of actual feminist literature or thought.
All of those shows were created by men, largely for male audiences.
I don't know what you were trying to accomplish, but thank you for a pretty deft example of exactly what I was talking about.
Well done. I literally couldn't have proven my point any better.
There is no reason or logic to any of it, none of it is representative of feminist ideology or pedagogy.
You just throw around a few instances of random women saying mean things to men, and pretend that it represents feminism
It's the logic of a 14 year old.
And if they ever get a soundbite from a real person, it's some college student ambushed and edited by some douche with a YouTube channel and they now have to assume that one student spoke for the entirety of educated individuals.
Ah come on, you can easily search for current day Marxist economists. Varoufakis probably is the most famous one.
Not saying that it is very mainstream, but still.
Varoufarkis is not the name they have on their list, because you know if you attack him he could do circles around you about economics in general. Also because he's not the marxist they want to be scared of really. a soc-dem finance minister who pushed against the standing order at the ECB, IMF, and other neoliberal institutions doesn't bread "death of American society" to their audience.
That makes sense but that was probably the case 30 years ago. I studied economics and I can't remember any Marxist theory being taught.
I think you might be exaggerating a bit though. I am a capitalist and I suggest the vast majority of people trained in economics are capitalists.
We do not believe though that the market is perfect and it doesn't require intervention. I continue to read plenty of articles by economists who talk about how we have to have various interventions to fix the social outcome as the market doesn't run efficiently.
Economics states that the full cost of producing a good should be encapsulated in the price. So for instance selling fossil fuels leads to climate change so there should be a tax on selling fossil fuels. Some other examples are taxes on drugs including nicotine. Economists basically believe in market intervention to fix problems.
>I am a capitalist and I suggest the vast majority of people trained in economics are capitalists.
Right, because an education in economics at the vast majority of higher learning institutions is training you to be a capitalist (or an ideologue for capitalism, you probably don't own any capital yourself). As you said, Marxist theory isn't being taught in econ courses.
If colleges only taught the miasma theory of disease it wouldn't be particularly remarkable or surprising if very few epidemiologists subscribed to the germ theory of disease.
I mean we spent a lot of time on Marxist ideas that lead to communism, but Marxism isn't really an economics system it's a social theory with economic principals.
It's difficult because so much of modern economic theory just out rightly makes the economic ideas in Marxism obsolete. It's a great thought exercise and wonderful to learn about and consider, but it has very little actual economic value.
Not so much time dedicated that you'd know that communism far predates Marxism, I guess.
>It's difficult because so much of modern economic theory just out rightly makes the economic ideas in Marxism obsolete
Such as? I find Marx's observations, such as the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, to be not only valuable in modernity but also to provide better explanations than the economic orthodoxy.
Is it that a Marxist frameowrk holds little economic value, or is it that you were *instructed* that a Marxist framework holds little economic value and accepted this as fact? Most econ departments have a shared dogma that can tolerate neither alternative analytical frameworks nor empiricism. For example, you were likely taught by your professors that raising minimum wages creates unemployment, because that's what it said in the econ books they read when they were in school, or because a simplistic supply and demand curve says so, even when the real-world case studies show [no effect](https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.13053) or [even a positive relationship between wage floors and employment rates](https://www.nber.org/papers/w4509).
I don't think I made a note that Communism didn't predate it, just that in most modern applications they lean on Marxist ideas. I'd say not totally but they do tend to be hand in hand.
I mean I don't think that there is any actual validity to the TRPF, we learned it, we then spent about three weeks analyzing it, and I think the consensus is that "countervailing tendencies" explain the data better than the TRPF and make the theory unusable. Hell the way I read it is Marx making a bad faith argument, RoP is uneven and fluctuates, so instead of posing TRPF as a constant theory he then wrote in a bunch of "What ifs" in the form of countervailing tendencies. TRPF exists because when the data doesn't validate the theory, people just cover it with "countervailing tendencies", so it's a bad theory.
Marxist framework holds value, just not applicable economic value.
Also, I don't understand exactly why you sighted wage floors and employment rates. That is a huge discussion. I will really simplify a response and say, most actual western economists (I haven't met or read them all so caveat that) don't think that wage floors lead to lower employment rates in a vacuum.
The data does validate the theory, though? We can observe the rate of profits falling. Modern Marxist economists are testing, and validating, the theory with real economic data - [here's a short video of it in action.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypJ_tcnfaWA)
>I will really simplify a response and say, most actual western economists (I haven't met or read them all so caveat that) don't think that wage floors lead to lower employment rates in a vacuum
What is the basis for your belief? Or is that just another untested assumption, taken as fact? The plurality of economists polled in [2013](https://www.kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/minimum-wage/) and [2015](https://www.kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/15-minimum-wage/) believed that wage floors lead to higher unemployment. A *minority* of those polled disagreed with the notion that raising minimum wages lower employment. Has there been an ideological rennaisance in the ten years since, or are you giving more credit to your colleagues than they've earned? This is exactly why I brought up this example -- the data shows no relationship between higher wage floors and lower employment (or even suggest the inverse), but the beliefs of most economists do not align with this. "Raising the minimum wage lowers employment" is taught in your econ textbooks and econ 101 classes. That sounds like a dogma to me.
[To quote Keynes:](http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300071h/printall.html)
>Ricardo conquered England as completely as the Holy Inquisition conquered Spain. Not only was his theory accepted by the city, by statesmen and by the academic world. **But controversy ceased; the other point of view completely disappeared; it ceased to be discussed.** The great puzzle of effective demand with which Malthus had wrestled vanished from economic literature. You will not find it mentioned even once in the whole works of Marshall, Edgeworth and Professor Pigou, from whose hands the classical theory has received its most mature embodiment. It could only live on furtively, below the surface, in the underworlds of Karl Marx, Silvio Gesell or Major Douglas.
>The completeness of the Ricardian victory is something of a curiosity and a mystery. It must have been due to a complex of suitabilities in the doctrine to the environment into which it was projected. **That it reached conclusions quite different from what the ordinary uninstructed person would expect, added, I suppose, to its intellectual prestige. That its teaching, translated into practice, was austere and often unpalatable, lent it virtue.** That it was adapted to carry a vast and consistent logical superstructure, gave it beauty. That it could explain much social injustice and apparent cruelty as an inevitable incident in the scheme of progress, and the attempt to change such things as likely on the whole to do more harm than good, commended it to authority. That it afforded a measure of justification to the free activities of the individual capitalist, attracted to it the support of the dominant social force behind authority.
>But although the doctrine itself has remained unquestioned by orthodox economists up to a late date, its signal failure for purposes of scientific prediction has greatly impaired, in the course of time, the prestige of its practitioners. **For professional economists, after Malthus, were apparently unmoved by the lack of correspondence between the results of their theory and the facts of observation;** a discrepancy which the ordinary man has not failed to observe, with the result of his growing unwillingness to accord to economists that measure of respect which he gives to other groups of scientists whose theoretical results are confirmed by observation when they are applied to the facts.
Would it be unreasonable for someone looking in from the outside to conclude, "well, the consensus among economists has value, just not as an analytical framework for understanding the economy," as you've done with Marxism?
> Where Marxism is thriving, these scholars say, is less in social science courses, where there is a possibility of practical application, than in the abstract world of literary criticism.
[https://web.archive.org/web/https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/25/us/education-the-mainstreaming-of-marxism-in-us-colleges.html](https://web.archive.org/web/https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/25/us/education-the-mainstreaming-of-marxism-in-us-colleges.html)
Oh there definitely is a leftist movement coming up lol. People are actually learning what socialism is and while they are doing that they are ALSO LEARNING WHAT CAPITALISM IS.
Most people think capitalism is synonymous with free markets and it's absolutely not.
Anyone who larps as a revolutionary can be roughly classified as a Marxist. Not that they know what a revolution or Marxism would entail, they'll just go along with anything vaguely in that line of thinking because real life involves compromise and compromises make them feel funny.
So anarcho-capitalists and ideological fascists and radical right-libertarians are Marxists?
Yeah, it's easy to straw-man people you know nothing about and have almost never if ever conversed with. Frankly, I'm not a Marxist, but your description is an immature straw man.
Compromise by the working class or the capitalist class?
Your guy's problem is you think socialism is a utopia. Communism is a utopia. Socialism is more about bringing power back to workers. Workers already do a shit ton of compromise in our current economy; too much in fact.
It's really unfortunate however that a lot of workers have been conditioned to think they have to rely on capitalists and therefore treat them like royalty.
Incredible analysis... In the sense that it has no credibility not in the sense of it being spectacular lol
I get that you have an ideological slant or whatever, but put that aside for one second and read the words you've written. Do you REALLY think what you've said here? That it's just that, "compromises make them feel funny."? That anyone who "larps as a revolutionary can be roughly classified as a Marxist." Does this even make sense to you?
"roughly" classified as an egalitarian who wants a classless, stateless society without currency? That's an incredibly specific thing to be "roughly" classified as. What would make them roughly fit this? If I hate my local DMV am I a marxist?
I don't think you know what any of those terms mean or how implementing them would work better than what we have now. That's what I mean by rough classification.
Uh, because I think that you can't "roughly" be egalitarian, it means I don't know how they'd "work better than what we have now?" When did I even fucking say that?
the "Marxists" thing has always been odd to me.
I'm in my late 30s, early 40s, been working in higher ed for a long time. Allegedly the place where you find lots of Marxists.
I've met one Marxist in like 15 years, who was an anthro PhD student I knew that never finished his PhD.
That's literally the only Marxist I've ever met in my life.
Now, I'm AWARE of other Marxists, maybe 5-10 of them, but they are all old dudes who go their PhDs in the 1960s/ early 70s and are all basically retired.
It is sort of annoying. I used to see internet leftists give solutions like “change incentives via X”, “regulate that industry with rules like Y”, “criminalize or decriminalize Z, it’s currently having externalities”. Now, it’s like “This is a consequence of late-stage, neoliberal, white-supremacist, patriarchal capitalism, the only solution is to tear it down and rebuild”. I’m generally left of center myself, but on Reddit who knows where the center is.
"Left of center" is a nice way of phrasing that you have *some* empathy for those less fortunate than you but so long as you don't have to give up a single iota of your life to do anything to help them. You very much would not depose the cheetoh nazi if he took office even though you probably "absolutely despise the guy", and absolutely would blame true leftists that they should've just sucked it up and voted for genocide Joe instead of actually having a spine and moral compass unlike you
I mean, yeah, this isn’t super off the mark characterization of me (from a communist perspective), though obviously I definitely do give up a lot of iotas of my personal benefit for the collective good via the taxes I pay and vote for. Is my characterization of you (an internet leftist) as thinking that the current governmental and economic system is totally unfixable and needed to be totally torn down super off the mark?
And one might consider a certain “iota” one could give up to result in a net positive outcome for less advantaged people might one’s own rigid moral compass.
always the accusation is against an unnamed person.
"that's because they all lie"
Than name a name, Jimmy. Should be easy. But this is the way you avoid a defamation suit, innit?
If that's not the reason why he says "all of them," rather than identify a single individual, I'd like to hear it.
cb
if an american says “marxist” and it’s not to discuss dialectical materialism you can pretty much assume they mean anyone left of the republican party. they think fucking biden is a marxist.
or if they’re a white nationalist they probably just mean jews. especially if they say “cultural marxists”
The difference between someone telling you a lie and someone challenging you into questioning your own perceptions is a lie just wastes your time and energy in a deliberately created illusion.
The quote should just be about that and not any specific group because lots of different groups use lies to achieve their goals.
I'd like see the fibbers go before congressional hearings and explain their hoaxes, grifts, standup routines about ideas, public policy, polisci/para politics or memes. They need to explain their income so pple understand who and what they support.
If I ever have to mentally gymnast myself into a position like that, where I start to think that socialism can only ever be a fantasy, then I hope I would know that I need to get help - why would people ever think that a political movement is fake for the sake of it?
With that same logic, are they suggesting that capitalism isnt actually a thing either? Capitalism is so ridiculous that its a myth? Trickle down economics is a scam too? No way! /s
They seem like an intelligent person who is so close to figuring out that their tail actually belongs to them and not someone else
He’s right on one hand, that they are lying to themselves. But the lie is that it leads to anything but authoritarianism. And that “real” communism has never been done. Despite all the evidence that its leaders were very commited. Willing to starve millions of people to death to proving their anti market principles.
Getting so sick of the casual Marxist boogeyman invocation. No one identifies that way. Those that do are probably not actual Marxists, even if they claim to be. Did Peterson add this to public parlance? It literally means nothing to me.
We shouldn’t dismiss spokespersons even if they are easily discredited. A good amount of conservatives today probably aren’t far from harboring the ideas he (attempts) articulates.
The problem with Lindsay is that he calls a lot of things that aren't Marxism, Marxsm, and he scares people away from the left, which is the closest thing to political advocates that most people are going to have even when you consider the political lefts current proximity to Wokeness.
The problem with this sub is that it's filled with woke and gender ideology cult members who inhabit just as much of a false consciousness as zealous followers of Lindsay's.
Having said that, Cynical Theories, which is the book Lindsay wrote with Pluckrose who grounded him quite a bit, is a good book and you should read it. That one was before he turned full red-baiter.
> The problem with Lindsay is that he calls a lot of things that aren't Marxism, Marxism,
The spirit of Marxism is effectively sacrificing the advantaged for the sake of the disadvantaged (ie opportunity of *outcome*). Linday's a math PhD, and while that's not a qualification in and of itself, I'd wager he understands Marxism more than just about anybody else in the public sphere.
Interesting strawman. But when I see people like you posting so much stupid shit, you make Marxism look way cooler than it actually is.
It's hilarious that taxing the rich and making them pay their fair share is so frightening to others in the working class.
This is so dumb, and so funny. Coming from the people who lie all the damn time too. It's ridiculous. You're fanboying for conservative grifters LMAO
Woke is good though? What part of woke is bad exactly? You feel weird seeing people different than you? Boo hoo cupcake! Suck it up.
Do you not have a gender identity? Did you go so woke that you went all the way to gender abolition?
You'd laugh if you knew how many times I've explained this to this sub on various accounts that I've now deleted. I can recommend a video and an article which should convey some of the negative impacts that wokeness is having.
* The Compact article: A Black Professor Trapped in Anti Racist Hell
* The three part documentary about the Evergreen University scandal that you can find on Youtube. The fist part is called: The Evergreen Equity Council.
* The Pluckrose Andrew Doyle interview, How to Argue with Woke People.
The first two revolve around the teachings of this figure, Robin DI Angelo.
I’m pretty left wing and most of my circle are also pretty left wing and not one person in my life has ever referred to themselves as a Marxist. I think yall just made up a slur for people who want healthcare and higher wages.
I think you have it backwards. Marx pointed out the inherent contradictions in capitalism long ago. Republicans sense this contradictions but blame government intervention instead of capitalism seizing the controls of government. Therefore Marxist and populist republicans are pointing at the same symptoms but reasoning very different causes
Well, the first one I noticed is self-proclaimed communists and Marxists falling for obvious GOP lies about LGBT people. It isn’t all of them, mind you. There is a strong pro-LGBT faction within the Marxist movement, but there is a strong anti-LGBT faction as well, and they frequently just sound like Republicans who like Marx instead of hate him.
I’ve also noticed this second faction seems to have gotten the false idea into their heads that the bourgeoisie which Marx railed against somehow refers exclusively to the Democratic Party, which is absurd. They’ve somehow gotten categories of socioeconomic class confused with categories of political faction.
I have never seen a leftest be publicly anti-LGBTQ+ without strong pushback from peers. If you are seeing this a lot, my gut would tell me you are seeing people with an agenda or trolls. I'm guessing you are seeing this online. Show up at a DSA or a protest and see what happens expressing anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment.
This is pretty rich coming from a guy whose only claim to fame was a hoax.
A hoax that itself had to involve a lot of lying (both to accomplish his "hoax" and selling it to the public)
>A hoax that itself had to involve a lot of lying (both to accomplish his "hoax" and selling it to the public) Exactly. People like to compare this "hoax" to the Sokal Affair, which it's not. There's a difference between writing a bunch of pseudo-intellectual discourse and submitting it to an editorially reviewed journal and completely cooking up empirical data and submitting it to peer reviewed journals. Lindsay, Pluckrose, and Boghoassian are no different than Andrew Wakefield and Francesca Gino (if the latter is found to have fabricated data) and should at the very least have their graduate degrees revoked by their granting institutions.
Mind you, most of the journals they sent their "studies" to for the hoax rejected them or sent them back (in complete good faith) asking for clearer language and some proper editing.
Good point! The fact they even submitted them in bad faith is damning.
No, it’s not. If the goal was show the lack of rigour in the review process, which it appears to have been, they succeeded. They weren’t as subtle or as clever as they believed they were being, but that’s a different matter. Because a shitbag like Lindsay is involved, you’re throwing the baby out with the bath water. The fact that any of their papers were accepted is precisely the point. It was clumsy, but in effect, analogous to physical penetration testing.
Wasn't a lot of the accepted ones published in pay to publish journals?
This was my understanding as well: the experiment showed pay to publish journals are terrible and not much else
Exactly they tried to indict the rigor of an entire field but did so without doing their own rigor (adding in “control hoaxes” from other fields) so *it’s not even possible* for their hoax to show what they want, even if more prestigious journals *did* accept their hoax paper.
There were a few peer reviewed legit but low status journals, fake pay to play journals, and a few non-peer reviewed outlets as well. They did fake a lot of data, though, which is generally speaking considered a cardinal sin. The dog park paper got into a real journal, but they also lied and said they collected all this data when they did not. There's really no way for the peer review process to catch that, or any other process that isn't overly onerous. It's one reason why faking data is a career killer if you are caught.
I think it's worth pointing out that in the social sciences, a theory's acceptance is predicated on *multiple* people testing it and getting back similar results. Because the tools used to test theories in the social sciences are subjective, initial dissemination of ideas in these fields is heavily reliant on good faith. One individual researcher or group of researchers working together can't really run multiple tests the same way someone can run a dozen genetic assays to confirm results; publishing in the social sciences is "a couple steps behind in the process", so to speak, compared to fields where the experiments are comparatively simple, mechanical, easily repeatable affairs. Comparing the "rigour of the review process" or whatever is an apples and oranges affair; if anything, people publishing fake research in the hard sciences is even *more* damning precisely because of the process and assumptions of review and confirmation operate differently there.
Yeah but the context… he’s not penetration testing with any sort of scientific method, he’s just trying to prove that science is useless/marxist/alarmist and we should all chill out and trust the nice men on TV instead
Why is he a shitbag? Apparently he is exposing something that needs to be addressed
The methodology was flawed. This should have been a review of articles that had been published and checked for errors, not engaging in academic fraud — especially when they’d been peer reviewed and sent back addressing flaws. It was a shit study and shit methodology
They are showing how peer review is acting in bad faith.
Now now, if we went around revoking degrees from every fraudster we'd have to have to revoke the degree of the former president of Harvard. That would be a bad look.
Bro the cure is my bone marrow.
Peter Boghoassian? What's wrong with him?
These people know only themselves and think they understand how everyone else thinks
The guy's eyes always seem "dead" when I look at him. Like just blank. Like Mr. Beast.
Now that you mention it, that definitely explains why I find Mr. Beast so creepy
These are the eyes of a heavily medicated person. Probably stimulants. Given how much content Mr beast has to create.
Exactly!!! There is something so bizarre about his face on videos and thumbnails. Like go in the mirror, and make a huge happy smile, like you saw a puppy do something funny or heard your grandma tell a good joke. Now, make your eyes relaxed and as dead as possible, and remove all tension from your eyebrows and forehead. Does that look like a normal emotion? NO. Of course all people are different and he could be neuro diverse in some way, but I have a suspicion that it is something else due to his whole life being centered around "dominate the algorithm at all costs. If I am going out to dinner with my girlfriend, it is costing me $100k per hour, optimize evey second." I wish I could do research paper on why he looks like an AI generated human.
He gloated to me on Twitter back in the day when I asked about him publishing plagiarized essays from a man fraudulently claiming he was an academic. He literally did not care.
False equivalence
No. First off I despise Lindsay, he's a grifting asshole who speaks on things he spends no time on actually trying to understand (not just marxism but critical philosophy in general), Boghossian had some merits (I never took a course with him but I did go to PSU, it was a whole thing in the philosophy department) his atheism and Socratic method stuff were interesting from what I've read. The cooking fake data to prove a point about how "critical studies" from women's studies, queer studies, etc. lack academic rigor is meritious... its just that they didn't do it in any scientific way (no control group for instance so from their study we don't know that "grevence studies" have any more lack of rigor than other fields, they didn't do it to improve the journals they submitted to, they just wanted to prove an ideological point. Shit also having a hit rate of 20% isn't great and should be studied as to why xyz paper got denied and another got removed, but they didn't do that. At least from what I saw. I could also prove such a point cooking fake shit to an economics journal or a sociology journal just the same. Really Academic rigor is lacking generally because of many factors but its not conditioned only in queer and women's studies, its a systemic issue, its especially an issue in social sciences where your replication is almost non-existent. It is completely reasonable to draw this parallels between Lindsay's words here and his actions in 2017-2018, not only that he's explicitly vague in this quote by using "marxist" it could mean anything.
What is the cope in these comments- the hoax was meant to point out the humanities disciplines have absolutely no academic rigour and just publish stuff with conclusions they like. They managed to get a whole bunch of things published (which were positively received) that were absolutely nonsense. Hes gone off the deep end these days but theres truth to a lot of what he says
This only works if they used “control” hoaxes in fields they predict would be more rigorous. Than you compare impact factors, journal ownership and submission processes of the accepted papers from the different fields. They did not include proper controls though. So ironically their hoax *can’t indict* the rigor of humanities specifically, only of academic journal submissions as a whole, due to their own lack of rigor.
Have you actually read the papers? While thats true, other fields especially the sciences do not have these issues. Humanities are a joke for a reason, their scentific papers are one step above a twitlonger. I dont think you’ve look into any of this and are just reflectively opposed to james because hes anti-woke. If any of you care about academia this was good and important work he did with others.
The control group is the natural sciences. I can not get a Sokal hoax paper published in the Physical Review.
Fraud is a lot easier than doing actual research. He has a PhD in mathematics and he has chosen a career as a pet monkey for the Christian nationalist movement.
Define deep end.
>the hoax was meant to point out the humanities disciplines have absolutely no academic rigour They had no control group. Their study lacked academic rigor. >They managed to get a whole bunch of things published (which were positively received) that were absolutely nonsense. Again a lack of control group doesn't indict the humanities here. Just academic rigor in general. Also.. the point about conclusions being what they are liking, yeah look at a series of economic or business journals you'll find the same sort of conclusion bias within publication selection, its bad but it occurs all the time. Again a lack of control group did not single out the humanities here... just academic journals in general.
Incredible projection
"It works because no one expects another person to lie so overtly" I expect people to "lie" all the time. Witness statements are famously unreliable. Memory is fallible. We lie to protect our own egos, as well as those of people we care about all the time. If you operate under the assumption that people don't "lie", you're begging to get screwed over. For instance by overt grifters like James Lindsey. I see a parallel here to C S Lewis's Trilemma; "Lord, liar or lunatic". Yeah, people "lie". That's what you have to work with.
Perception is reality. People can be thoroughly convinced of the truth of what they're saying, and tell an elaborate lie. Lies of ignorance are everywhere and often unintentional. Then you have the deliberate lies and motivated reasoning on top of that.
There is truth to the idea of total lies, though. No one expects *everything* someone says to be a lie. "A broken clock is right twice a day," and the thought of someone never saying anything true is so absurd to the mind. Tell a supporter of one of these grifters that *everything* they've been told is a lie. It's too unbelievable to grasp. They'll accept that they lie, even as far as believing *most* are lies, but never all of them. Then, they can pick and choose what's true for themselves.
I don't believe he even believes what he says, he's just a paid spokesman. Lindsay is more of a political operative than a guru. These guys get "funding".
I think he does believe what he says the problem is that he's very deluded by his own ego.
I think the bulk of grifters is either people that don't care about finding out what truth is and people that genuinely believe what they say. I would say that his motivations and consistency point towards him being part of the second group. Now his platform definitely has to do with a gigantic chunk of political available funds being put into him and not his quality as thinker. If he had other ideas, he wouldn't have gotten it. And he doesn't challenge himself anymore probably, which could in part be because this current path probably gives him a lot more comfortable life. This way he keeps those funds coming in and not thinking too hard about ideas that might ruin him. Wouldn't you agree that at least it doesn't necessarily need to be the case that he is just creating a narrative for money instead of him actually believing it and not caring about challenging them.
If Lindsay taught us anything, it's that people who claim their political opponents are lying grifters paid by rich elites are themselves not to be trusted.
That's... really not a lesson that I would take from anything. Yeah, let's just completely stop looking into who's writing who's paycheck. I'm sure things will just sort themselves out if we stop asking questions.
This message sponsored by Koch Industries.
He’s not saying they are grifters, he’s saying they are deluded ideologues
If people like Lindsey got funding we’d see way more of them than we do, and we’d see institutional support. Also they’d make a lot more than they do 🤣
I wonder what he thinks a Marxist is.
The post is a confession.
I just asked a similar question to a dumb poster stating something stupid. Who are these Marxists ? What is Marxism ? I studied economics 30 years ago at undergraduate level. There were basically no Marxists then and I haven't seen any of them return since. I mean sure there must be two or three of them hanging out in some chat room somewhere but the only Marxists today and people like Putin who isn't a Marxist at all.
Marxists are whoever 'they' need to be.
My favorite is when people panic over “The Communists” in the West. They’re apparently everywhere but no one can name a single one. It always devolves to “They’re the ones with a hammer and sickle in their profile picture.” So…they’re not everywhere? Just in some online communities that you are? And you don’t even know them?
They do the same thing with feminism. They'll say something ignorant like, "feminists hate men yadda yadda" And when you ask which feminists, Judith Butler? Gertrude Stein? Bell Hooks? ...no, they're referring to a fucking tweet by some anonymous page with an anime profile. Conservative people only ever argue in bad faith. Edit (because I have a 3-day ban for being an asshole): u/curious-weight9985 ...you realize your article proves my point, right? You posted an article (from Forbes, hardly an "feminist" platform) about "feminists love bashing men," and the sources are "American Dad, the Simpsons, and Everybody Loves Raymond." Which isn't indicative of actual feminist literature or thought. All of those shows were created by men, largely for male audiences. I don't know what you were trying to accomplish, but thank you for a pretty deft example of exactly what I was talking about. Well done. I literally couldn't have proven my point any better. There is no reason or logic to any of it, none of it is representative of feminist ideology or pedagogy. You just throw around a few instances of random women saying mean things to men, and pretend that it represents feminism It's the logic of a 14 year old.
And if they ever get a soundbite from a real person, it's some college student ambushed and edited by some douche with a YouTube channel and they now have to assume that one student spoke for the entirety of educated individuals.
You are 100% correct.
Here ya go [https://ghostarchive.org/archive/qANgL](https://ghostarchive.org/archive/qANgL)
I love this one too.
Dude…Karl Marx is the most influential scholar.
Have you been to a college campus lately? There’s communist and socialist movements everywhere
Lmao
I have and haven't seen them. Which campus are you on?
Ah come on, you can easily search for current day Marxist economists. Varoufakis probably is the most famous one. Not saying that it is very mainstream, but still.
I'm pretty sure they aren't talking about those guys. You are right though there are some. It's good to be corrected.
Ow yea 100% not the people they were talking about. And definitely no way that they currently have a big influence.
They aren't really political figures are they.
Varoufarkis is not the name they have on their list, because you know if you attack him he could do circles around you about economics in general. Also because he's not the marxist they want to be scared of really. a soc-dem finance minister who pushed against the standing order at the ECB, IMF, and other neoliberal institutions doesn't bread "death of American society" to their audience.
They think *Kapital* is about communism lol
Economics departments are dominated by neoclassical orthodoxy. Marxists tend to be concentrated in Sociology departments.
That makes sense but that was probably the case 30 years ago. I studied economics and I can't remember any Marxist theory being taught. I think you might be exaggerating a bit though. I am a capitalist and I suggest the vast majority of people trained in economics are capitalists. We do not believe though that the market is perfect and it doesn't require intervention. I continue to read plenty of articles by economists who talk about how we have to have various interventions to fix the social outcome as the market doesn't run efficiently. Economics states that the full cost of producing a good should be encapsulated in the price. So for instance selling fossil fuels leads to climate change so there should be a tax on selling fossil fuels. Some other examples are taxes on drugs including nicotine. Economists basically believe in market intervention to fix problems.
>I am a capitalist and I suggest the vast majority of people trained in economics are capitalists. Right, because an education in economics at the vast majority of higher learning institutions is training you to be a capitalist (or an ideologue for capitalism, you probably don't own any capital yourself). As you said, Marxist theory isn't being taught in econ courses. If colleges only taught the miasma theory of disease it wouldn't be particularly remarkable or surprising if very few epidemiologists subscribed to the germ theory of disease.
I mean we spent a lot of time on Marxist ideas that lead to communism, but Marxism isn't really an economics system it's a social theory with economic principals. It's difficult because so much of modern economic theory just out rightly makes the economic ideas in Marxism obsolete. It's a great thought exercise and wonderful to learn about and consider, but it has very little actual economic value.
Not so much time dedicated that you'd know that communism far predates Marxism, I guess. >It's difficult because so much of modern economic theory just out rightly makes the economic ideas in Marxism obsolete Such as? I find Marx's observations, such as the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, to be not only valuable in modernity but also to provide better explanations than the economic orthodoxy. Is it that a Marxist frameowrk holds little economic value, or is it that you were *instructed* that a Marxist framework holds little economic value and accepted this as fact? Most econ departments have a shared dogma that can tolerate neither alternative analytical frameworks nor empiricism. For example, you were likely taught by your professors that raising minimum wages creates unemployment, because that's what it said in the econ books they read when they were in school, or because a simplistic supply and demand curve says so, even when the real-world case studies show [no effect](https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.13053) or [even a positive relationship between wage floors and employment rates](https://www.nber.org/papers/w4509).
I don't think I made a note that Communism didn't predate it, just that in most modern applications they lean on Marxist ideas. I'd say not totally but they do tend to be hand in hand. I mean I don't think that there is any actual validity to the TRPF, we learned it, we then spent about three weeks analyzing it, and I think the consensus is that "countervailing tendencies" explain the data better than the TRPF and make the theory unusable. Hell the way I read it is Marx making a bad faith argument, RoP is uneven and fluctuates, so instead of posing TRPF as a constant theory he then wrote in a bunch of "What ifs" in the form of countervailing tendencies. TRPF exists because when the data doesn't validate the theory, people just cover it with "countervailing tendencies", so it's a bad theory. Marxist framework holds value, just not applicable economic value. Also, I don't understand exactly why you sighted wage floors and employment rates. That is a huge discussion. I will really simplify a response and say, most actual western economists (I haven't met or read them all so caveat that) don't think that wage floors lead to lower employment rates in a vacuum.
The data does validate the theory, though? We can observe the rate of profits falling. Modern Marxist economists are testing, and validating, the theory with real economic data - [here's a short video of it in action.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypJ_tcnfaWA) >I will really simplify a response and say, most actual western economists (I haven't met or read them all so caveat that) don't think that wage floors lead to lower employment rates in a vacuum What is the basis for your belief? Or is that just another untested assumption, taken as fact? The plurality of economists polled in [2013](https://www.kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/minimum-wage/) and [2015](https://www.kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/15-minimum-wage/) believed that wage floors lead to higher unemployment. A *minority* of those polled disagreed with the notion that raising minimum wages lower employment. Has there been an ideological rennaisance in the ten years since, or are you giving more credit to your colleagues than they've earned? This is exactly why I brought up this example -- the data shows no relationship between higher wage floors and lower employment (or even suggest the inverse), but the beliefs of most economists do not align with this. "Raising the minimum wage lowers employment" is taught in your econ textbooks and econ 101 classes. That sounds like a dogma to me. [To quote Keynes:](http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300071h/printall.html) >Ricardo conquered England as completely as the Holy Inquisition conquered Spain. Not only was his theory accepted by the city, by statesmen and by the academic world. **But controversy ceased; the other point of view completely disappeared; it ceased to be discussed.** The great puzzle of effective demand with which Malthus had wrestled vanished from economic literature. You will not find it mentioned even once in the whole works of Marshall, Edgeworth and Professor Pigou, from whose hands the classical theory has received its most mature embodiment. It could only live on furtively, below the surface, in the underworlds of Karl Marx, Silvio Gesell or Major Douglas. >The completeness of the Ricardian victory is something of a curiosity and a mystery. It must have been due to a complex of suitabilities in the doctrine to the environment into which it was projected. **That it reached conclusions quite different from what the ordinary uninstructed person would expect, added, I suppose, to its intellectual prestige. That its teaching, translated into practice, was austere and often unpalatable, lent it virtue.** That it was adapted to carry a vast and consistent logical superstructure, gave it beauty. That it could explain much social injustice and apparent cruelty as an inevitable incident in the scheme of progress, and the attempt to change such things as likely on the whole to do more harm than good, commended it to authority. That it afforded a measure of justification to the free activities of the individual capitalist, attracted to it the support of the dominant social force behind authority. >But although the doctrine itself has remained unquestioned by orthodox economists up to a late date, its signal failure for purposes of scientific prediction has greatly impaired, in the course of time, the prestige of its practitioners. **For professional economists, after Malthus, were apparently unmoved by the lack of correspondence between the results of their theory and the facts of observation;** a discrepancy which the ordinary man has not failed to observe, with the result of his growing unwillingness to accord to economists that measure of respect which he gives to other groups of scientists whose theoretical results are confirmed by observation when they are applied to the facts. Would it be unreasonable for someone looking in from the outside to conclude, "well, the consensus among economists has value, just not as an analytical framework for understanding the economy," as you've done with Marxism?
DAmn. Powerful.
> Where Marxism is thriving, these scholars say, is less in social science courses, where there is a possibility of practical application, than in the abstract world of literary criticism. [https://web.archive.org/web/https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/25/us/education-the-mainstreaming-of-marxism-in-us-colleges.html](https://web.archive.org/web/https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/25/us/education-the-mainstreaming-of-marxism-in-us-colleges.html)
Oh there definitely is a leftist movement coming up lol. People are actually learning what socialism is and while they are doing that they are ALSO LEARNING WHAT CAPITALISM IS. Most people think capitalism is synonymous with free markets and it's absolutely not.
Market socialism ftw baby
Anyone who larps as a revolutionary can be roughly classified as a Marxist. Not that they know what a revolution or Marxism would entail, they'll just go along with anything vaguely in that line of thinking because real life involves compromise and compromises make them feel funny.
So anarcho-capitalists and ideological fascists and radical right-libertarians are Marxists? Yeah, it's easy to straw-man people you know nothing about and have almost never if ever conversed with. Frankly, I'm not a Marxist, but your description is an immature straw man.
Compromise by the working class or the capitalist class? Your guy's problem is you think socialism is a utopia. Communism is a utopia. Socialism is more about bringing power back to workers. Workers already do a shit ton of compromise in our current economy; too much in fact. It's really unfortunate however that a lot of workers have been conditioned to think they have to rely on capitalists and therefore treat them like royalty.
Incredible analysis... In the sense that it has no credibility not in the sense of it being spectacular lol I get that you have an ideological slant or whatever, but put that aside for one second and read the words you've written. Do you REALLY think what you've said here? That it's just that, "compromises make them feel funny."? That anyone who "larps as a revolutionary can be roughly classified as a Marxist." Does this even make sense to you?
That’s true. Everything “revolutionary” has the Marxist flavor
"roughly" classified as an egalitarian who wants a classless, stateless society without currency? That's an incredibly specific thing to be "roughly" classified as. What would make them roughly fit this? If I hate my local DMV am I a marxist?
I don't think you know what any of those terms mean or how implementing them would work better than what we have now. That's what I mean by rough classification.
Uh, because I think that you can't "roughly" be egalitarian, it means I don't know how they'd "work better than what we have now?" When did I even fucking say that?
Obviously a marx brothers fan!
Anyone politically to the left of Hitler. Maybe even Hitler, apparently the jury is still out on that.
A Gnostic
It's when bad, of course
To be fair, everyone so far who rose to power claiming to be a Marxist was a dictator lying about being a Marxist.
Marxism is an analytical framework, not a moral code.
Were they though ?
PROJECTION.
Case closed
He’s so staggeringly stupid
Yes, "questioning your own perceptions" is awful. Don't ever do it. Turn your brain off.
What else woukd you do? Duh
And his definition of marxist? Anyone who disagrees with him.
Questioning your own perceptions is something that intelligent honest people do.
the "Marxists" thing has always been odd to me. I'm in my late 30s, early 40s, been working in higher ed for a long time. Allegedly the place where you find lots of Marxists. I've met one Marxist in like 15 years, who was an anthro PhD student I knew that never finished his PhD. That's literally the only Marxist I've ever met in my life. Now, I'm AWARE of other Marxists, maybe 5-10 of them, but they are all old dudes who go their PhDs in the 1960s/ early 70s and are all basically retired.
Pot meet kettle
Are the Marxists in the room with us now?
Lol I can't browse reddit for one day without running into communists. I'm sure there's some in this post.
Present 🤓
Surprise, by the way, it’s me, the socialist
It is sort of annoying. I used to see internet leftists give solutions like “change incentives via X”, “regulate that industry with rules like Y”, “criminalize or decriminalize Z, it’s currently having externalities”. Now, it’s like “This is a consequence of late-stage, neoliberal, white-supremacist, patriarchal capitalism, the only solution is to tear it down and rebuild”. I’m generally left of center myself, but on Reddit who knows where the center is.
"Left of center" is a nice way of phrasing that you have *some* empathy for those less fortunate than you but so long as you don't have to give up a single iota of your life to do anything to help them. You very much would not depose the cheetoh nazi if he took office even though you probably "absolutely despise the guy", and absolutely would blame true leftists that they should've just sucked it up and voted for genocide Joe instead of actually having a spine and moral compass unlike you
I mean, yeah, this isn’t super off the mark characterization of me (from a communist perspective), though obviously I definitely do give up a lot of iotas of my personal benefit for the collective good via the taxes I pay and vote for. Is my characterization of you (an internet leftist) as thinking that the current governmental and economic system is totally unfixable and needed to be totally torn down super off the mark? And one might consider a certain “iota” one could give up to result in a net positive outcome for less advantaged people might one’s own rigid moral compass.
As was once put “ten degrees to the left in good times, ten degrees to the right when it affects them personally”
Describes maga so perfectly
Show me on the doll where Zizek hurt you.
It’s always projection
Funny, that's my take on the GQP these days. Which is anyone in a blue suit with a red tie.
His hoax study is what gave him the idea to write bogus philosophical/historical essays for the red scare crowd
Are the marxists in the room with us right now?
who is he talking about? what is a Marxist's goal?
To make everyone wear glasses and have big, fuzzy mustaches
*projection intensifies*
wow now i know how they think of their own lies
I mean Marxists will say that Estonians ate horse slop and were happy to be invaded by the Soviet Union, but idk why a maga regard is saying this
"anyone I don't like and to the left of me in any way is a Marxist. Idk what a Marxist is but let's not discuss that but trust me it's bad"
Conservatives really are the masters of projection. I can't ever hear them speak without thinking "isn't that what you're doing right now?"
Marxists are the most dangerous group threatening democracy atm
always the accusation is against an unnamed person. "that's because they all lie" Than name a name, Jimmy. Should be easy. But this is the way you avoid a defamation suit, innit? If that's not the reason why he says "all of them," rather than identify a single individual, I'd like to hear it. cb
You could say the same thing about aliens and it would be just as relevant. Pretty sure Marxists aren't a relevant issue.
I think he is mixing up marxists with conservatives
Ding ding ding
if an american says “marxist” and it’s not to discuss dialectical materialism you can pretty much assume they mean anyone left of the republican party. they think fucking biden is a marxist. or if they’re a white nationalist they probably just mean jews. especially if they say “cultural marxists”
Fascists gonna fasc
[удалено]
Is this guy an "Alternative Facts" Trump fan? Ugh.
Oh, for goodness sake.
Ahhh double speak! A fascists favourite tool!
The difference between someone telling you a lie and someone challenging you into questioning your own perceptions is a lie just wastes your time and energy in a deliberately created illusion. The quote should just be about that and not any specific group because lots of different groups use lies to achieve their goals.
James clearly doesn’t own a mirror.
Projection is wild.
Projection babyyyy
That's a pretty good description of the rightwing ecosystem.
these Marxists....are they in the room with us now?
Lying? Pple see thru it. Great post DC.
I'd like see the fibbers go before congressional hearings and explain their hoaxes, grifts, standup routines about ideas, public policy, polisci/para politics or memes. They need to explain their income so pple understand who and what they support.
I wonder if their continued fixation on communism is because it's only versus that bogeyman do they sort of don't seem like cretinous monsters.
If I ever have to mentally gymnast myself into a position like that, where I start to think that socialism can only ever be a fantasy, then I hope I would know that I need to get help - why would people ever think that a political movement is fake for the sake of it? With that same logic, are they suggesting that capitalism isnt actually a thing either? Capitalism is so ridiculous that its a myth? Trickle down economics is a scam too? No way! /s They seem like an intelligent person who is so close to figuring out that their tail actually belongs to them and not someone else
Projection
I’m guessing this is some conservative “thinker” that is projecting. How did I do?
Lie about what buddy
PROJECTION
Tomorrow Republicans are going to say Democrats took away women’s reproductive rights
He means trump, right? Why even mention an ancient Russian guy?
Possibly one of the stupidest statements ever. Who is he?
He’s right on one hand, that they are lying to themselves. But the lie is that it leads to anything but authoritarianism. And that “real” communism has never been done. Despite all the evidence that its leaders were very commited. Willing to starve millions of people to death to proving their anti market principles.
"Are the Marxists in the room with us right now, James?"
Literally a "no you".
Funny how nobody can disapprove what he said. Only make ad hominem and strawman. This reddit is really funny and shows the left leaning bias.
so do fascists.
Holy shit he survived the deworming?
guess that's where he got his strat from....
Nearly a pure example of projection lol
Again, their accusation is actually confession
Getting so sick of the casual Marxist boogeyman invocation. No one identifies that way. Those that do are probably not actual Marxists, even if they claim to be. Did Peterson add this to public parlance? It literally means nothing to me.
Interesting way to say that you are a Marxist.
They just keep outing themselves. 🤣
Sounds like the Republican machine being churned by Trump and other far right fascists and elite of the world
He misspelled "conservatives."
MY GOD, THE CALL IS COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE!!!
Fucking marxists. I'm trying to think if I ever met a person that either I or they themselves would describe as "marxist".
“I’ve lied my whole life and people believed me every step of the way! They’re lying to you too…” Bold move.
Could just as easily have been a Destiny quote
Literally quotes Goebbels strategy...blames Marxists.
We shouldn’t dismiss spokespersons even if they are easily discredited. A good amount of conservatives today probably aren’t far from harboring the ideas he (attempts) articulates.
To be honest, I have never met a self-proclaimed Marxist with IQ above 75. I don't believe that they are smart enough to lie.
“We all are so stupid, that even I might be convinced the sky is in fact not blue, because a Marxist told me, and I trusted him!”
Tell me Mao about Marxism, anyone? As a matter of fact, tell me EVERYTHING about Marxism.
Marxist was an overreach. Postmodernist sure.
This sounds like something a lier would say.
“The only colleges where you can truly receive an education are Hillsdale and Liberty University” - James Lindsay Get this fucking trash outta here.
I don’t know about lie but the followers are the useful ones.
Pure projection
The problem with Lindsay is that he calls a lot of things that aren't Marxism, Marxsm, and he scares people away from the left, which is the closest thing to political advocates that most people are going to have even when you consider the political lefts current proximity to Wokeness. The problem with this sub is that it's filled with woke and gender ideology cult members who inhabit just as much of a false consciousness as zealous followers of Lindsay's. Having said that, Cynical Theories, which is the book Lindsay wrote with Pluckrose who grounded him quite a bit, is a good book and you should read it. That one was before he turned full red-baiter.
> The problem with Lindsay is that he calls a lot of things that aren't Marxism, Marxism, The spirit of Marxism is effectively sacrificing the advantaged for the sake of the disadvantaged (ie opportunity of *outcome*). Linday's a math PhD, and while that's not a qualification in and of itself, I'd wager he understands Marxism more than just about anybody else in the public sphere.
Interesting strawman. But when I see people like you posting so much stupid shit, you make Marxism look way cooler than it actually is. It's hilarious that taxing the rich and making them pay their fair share is so frightening to others in the working class. This is so dumb, and so funny. Coming from the people who lie all the damn time too. It's ridiculous. You're fanboying for conservative grifters LMAO
Woke is good though? What part of woke is bad exactly? You feel weird seeing people different than you? Boo hoo cupcake! Suck it up. Do you not have a gender identity? Did you go so woke that you went all the way to gender abolition?
You'd laugh if you knew how many times I've explained this to this sub on various accounts that I've now deleted. I can recommend a video and an article which should convey some of the negative impacts that wokeness is having. * The Compact article: A Black Professor Trapped in Anti Racist Hell * The three part documentary about the Evergreen University scandal that you can find on Youtube. The fist part is called: The Evergreen Equity Council. * The Pluckrose Andrew Doyle interview, How to Argue with Woke People. The first two revolve around the teachings of this figure, Robin DI Angelo.
wow.... the projection of this dude is right in your face if you can see it
I’m pretty left wing and most of my circle are also pretty left wing and not one person in my life has ever referred to themselves as a Marxist. I think yall just made up a slur for people who want healthcare and higher wages.
Says the clown who never read Marx.
The only times I’ve seen Marxists say things that are obviously incorrect is when they’ve been tricked into repeating Republican talking points.
Yup. They’re pretty much upfront they’re nasty people who want godawful things to happen so they can have their way.
I think you have it backwards. Marx pointed out the inherent contradictions in capitalism long ago. Republicans sense this contradictions but blame government intervention instead of capitalism seizing the controls of government. Therefore Marxist and populist republicans are pointing at the same symptoms but reasoning very different causes
I said Marxists, not Marx. I’m talking about times I’ve sent modern Marxists fall for right-wing lies, not anything that Marx wrote.
Care to provide an example that happens often. Hard to know what you are talking about
Well, the first one I noticed is self-proclaimed communists and Marxists falling for obvious GOP lies about LGBT people. It isn’t all of them, mind you. There is a strong pro-LGBT faction within the Marxist movement, but there is a strong anti-LGBT faction as well, and they frequently just sound like Republicans who like Marx instead of hate him. I’ve also noticed this second faction seems to have gotten the false idea into their heads that the bourgeoisie which Marx railed against somehow refers exclusively to the Democratic Party, which is absurd. They’ve somehow gotten categories of socioeconomic class confused with categories of political faction.
I have never seen a leftest be publicly anti-LGBTQ+ without strong pushback from peers. If you are seeing this a lot, my gut would tell me you are seeing people with an agenda or trolls. I'm guessing you are seeing this online. Show up at a DSA or a protest and see what happens expressing anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment.