/lit/ - Literature

>>15098829
ask /pol/

>>15098829
>why are there so many leftists in the humanities
the Holocaust basically discredited the Right for awhile. it's simple really.

>>15098847
/Pol/ doesn't read anymore. Too much shit posting. My lit/philosophy/history theads hardly gets (yous) anymore. Too many low iq, illiterate newfags.

>>15098848
The Holocaust was not as extreme as is taught.
Also, I didn't ask why the left dominates the humanities. I asked why they put so much paeudo-philosophy and bad ideas.

>>15098887
What pseudo-philosophy and bad ideas are you thinking of?

>>15098894
Trans pseudo-science. Debunked liberal ideas that science has disproven, like equality. Gender shit. Intersectional philosophy.

>>15098925
Intersectionality is just the Civil Rights Movement developing from 1965 until now.

>>15098925
>like equality
How can science (an is) disprove a normative ambition (an ought)?

Also, the rest of your post is just vague strawmannish shit. Which gender theory? Which "intersectional" philosopher in particular do you take an issue with?

>>15098894
Not who you're responding to, but shit like critical race theory, feminist epistemology, whiteness studies, intersectionality, etc.

>>15098925
You're speaking very vaguely. You could you give an example of one being debunked?

>>15098973
What's wrong with intersectionality? It seemed sensible to me, what would even be controversial about it?

>>15098973
These are broad categories with a lot of different thinkers in them. What makes you think there is a book big enough to cover all of that in one go?

been a while since I read it but I remember liking The Righteous Mind by Jon Haidt

also moldbug sorta

>>15098973
they're just various forms of "concern for the victim" that became prominent due to the Holocaust, slavery, colonialism etc. and the failure of ML/MLM to provide a vision for the left.

>>15098987
it doesnt include stuff like intelligence or being attractive for one thing. For another it acts as though being a woman/black is bad in every single situation, which is ridiculous.

>>15098987
Because it's used strategically to simultaneously deconstruct the ideologies of the native populations in the West while bolstering the ideologies of "minority" groups. It's just a weapon.

>>15098989
I don't see why you couldn't cover several different topics in a single book and explore why they were created, who created them, and how they've been used as political weapons of the left. sort of what Kevin MacDonald does but focusing on leftism in general rather than Jews.

>>15099001
sure but OP is looking for a book that explores this in a bit more detail

>>15099057
>I don't see why you couldn't cover several different topics in a single book and explore why they were created, who created them, and how they've been used as political weapons of the left
Sounds like you're looking for a book to confirm whatever biases regarding the intellectual left you already have, rather than actually wanting to know whatever the truth might be. The book you're describing sounds very much like spin rather than an in-depth historical account of the development of leftist thought in academia.

Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism
Jay's The Dialectical Imagination
MacDonald's Culture of Critique series

At least you'll know the main actors. Maybe also look into something by the Platypus Marxists since they dislike the New Left and identity politics shit and critique it internally as bad Marxism.

>>15099080
Of course I want a book that conforms to my biases, because on this topic my biases are correct. I've been fairly open about this since my first post lmao

>>15099274
>because on this topic my biases are correct.
How would you know? you are asking for books on the subject, is that not in itself an admission of ignorance?

>>15098829
sounds like Fools, Frauds and Firebrands or Fashionable nonsense could be what you're looking for. haven't read them.

>>15098925
Wait, what? How could science “disprove” normative moral ideas like equality and intersectionality? Also you’re speaking way too generally when you say “gender shit”. Say what you’re referring to specifically so I can bytfo.

>>15098829
if you think you can distinguish philosophy from humanities be my guest. But my guess is that you have no fucking idea what you are talking about

>>15099274
>correct biases
You have literally no idea what you are talking about

>>15098829
Marx's theory of value is scientific by mainstream criteria. it's neoclassical theories of value that are pseudoscience

>>15099017
black women tend to less attractive and intelligent than average

>>15099017
>it doesnt include stuff like intelligence or being attractive for one thing
I mean that just seems over-specific compared to things like race and gender, and dramatically more difficult to class. We don't have a reliable means of surveying general intelligence or attractiveness whereas race and gender can at least in a pragmatic sense offer themselves as blunt facts. They also seem like categories of a fundamentally different kind from intelligence and attractiveness. You couldn't really imagine identifying yourself as intelligent and attractive on a poll, for instance, and expect it to have the same significance as identifying yourself as a certain race or gender. Moreover, the intelligent and attractive make for vague demographics. A random set of intelligent or attractive people will be many different things and you'd be in a far worse position to speculate about their experience than if they were organized by one of the conventional categories of intersectionality.

Apart from that, neither of these >>15099017
>>15099057 would be truly problems of the theory itself, just complaints about ways in which its carried out. I agree that the modern state of academia permits a lot of bullshit in the humanities, especially in psychology which I've lost a lot of respect for over the course of my education, but it's not nearly so bad as you guys are making it out to be.

At the end of the day, leftism and education have had a strong correlation for a long time, across a variety of settings in time and place. I think conservatives struggle to reconcile with this fact, and they come up with all sorts of explanations, but taken realistically it's clear what's really going on. The right is just lame right now

>>15099284
I've dealt with academics for years, I'm broadly familiar with disciplines that aren't my own, and I've followed other people's problems in this setting through places like Quillette. I'm looking for a deeper dive than I've had.

>>15099338
What was the point of this post?

>>15099422
>The right is just lame right now
Idk I began my move from the Bernie sanders left to the far right because being lectured about pronouns in a professional setting where you're obliged not disagree was about the lamest thing ever.

>>15099518
>Idk I began my move from the Bernie sanders left to the far right because being lectured about pronouns in a professional setting where you're obliged not disagree was about the lamest thing ever.
it sounds you're easy to move

>>15099422
The Right is not allowed to exist in academia. You can't actually advocate monarchy, fascism, patriarchy, racism, whatever. The question is how did the academy become a progressive church, which is harder to answer than it sounds.

>>15099518
>I'm broadly familiar with disciplines that aren't my own
if that was the case, then you'd be informed enough to know what exactly you're asking for, but the fact that you say things like this >>15098925 leads me to believe you have no experience or familiarity with the topics whatsoever. Everything you've said is broad-brush and demonstrates a strong effort not to engage apart from the angle that suits you the most.

>Quillette
Okay, this makes a lot more sense now. When you read a magazine that is infamous for reporting on hoax stories, it isn't surprising that you think this way.

>>15099573
Of course you can advocate monarchy, that's not really a controversial position. But if you're genuinely wondering as to why the others you've listed aren't accepted in academia, well, that's because they're not accepted anywhere else in society either. Did the 20th century just not happen for you or something?

>>15099611
Because progressives won, and academia was important in this victory. And no you can't actually advocate monarchy, it's just so out there nobody even really thinks about it.

>>15099573
I agree that this is a problem, albeit overstated. I went to a hyper-liberal school, I'm mildly liberal but I found it tiring. While they certainly had distaste for conservatives, with that alone being dissuading to conservatives, they at least for pride's sake wanted discourse to be open and to be able to speak with someone of an opposing . Not that they'd necessarily do it well or in a friendly or charitable manner, but it was hardly suppression. And even if it was, the question remains of how profound of a problem this is and whether it suffices to discredit the whole of academia with neglect to everything else it consists in.

>>15099549
That was more of a "what the fuck is even going on I'm out of the loop on something" moment that started a multi-year journey.

>>15099598
>but the fact that you say things like this
That's not me, this was my first post in the thread >>15098973

>a magazine that is infamous for reporting on hoax stories
It's no more infamous for being wrong than any other news site.

>>15099627
Regardless of who you think "won", it just isn't tenable to accommodate or encourage views like that in academia, the workplace, wherever. Do you not think it sad that the right needs such hateful ideas in order to survive? Is there really no such thing as a right that is totally devoid of racism, sexism, fascism, etc?

>you can't actually advocate monarchy
maybe I'm being naive here, but I'm a britbong and there is nothing wrong with being pro-monarchy here.

>>15099707
You scare quote 'won' but the rest of your paragraph makes it clear they won so badly that you cant even conceive of the perspectives they won against except in comical terms of 'hate'. It's not tenable because they won, I'm not sure what you don't grasp here.

Saudi Arabia for example has no problem with patriarchy, racism, and hereditary monarchy. Because progressives did not win there.

>>15099518
>Quillette

Yeah man when I'm debating people in YouTube comments and I tell them I did my research on Quillette they laugh at me, so I'd like a book that says all the same things but will make me look smarter. You know, because it's a book.

>>15099685
>It's no more infamous for being wrong than any other news site
fair point, I guess. All print media is trash, I'm a leftie and I wouldn't even use the guardian to wipe my ass. I can't offer you any reading unfortunately, its not something I've looked in to, but then again, to try and weave together a narrative that encompasses ALL of those ideas into a singular, unified agenda would be to vastly underestimate the sheer amount of conflict that goes on between those groups. The war between the TERFs and mtf trans women, for example, or race theorists and "white feminism". I know it seems like its all part of the same progressive agenda, but its really not as unified as you think it is, and that fragmentation bleeds into popular politics too. It's why the left is such an absolute shitshow atm, and the fact that you were a Bernie supporter who was driven away by that sort of thing is indicative that it simply isn't working.

>>15099722
Yeah i can't believe people strawman "racism" with "hate". I'm actually a very compassionate person who, incidentally, thinks blacks are inferior and that the Jews are using them to destroy whites.

>>15099752
If different populations of humans are in fact different in average intelligence that will be true regardless of whether you feel hateful about it.

>>15099722
>you cant even conceive of the perspectives they won against except in comical terms of 'hate'
How do you conceive of them, then? open me up to your kind of thinking. Like I said, I'm curious to know if a right-wing is possible without all of those aspects which make it wholly irreconcilable with modern society. I just don't see how those aspects can be considered anything except hateful.

>Saudi Arabia for example has no problem with patriarchy, racism, and hereditary monarchy.
Saudi Arabia does not recognise those as problems, it doesn't mean they aren't problematic (apologies for the "woke" term). That said, I find it very odd to see right-wingers appropriating ideas of cultural relativism now to defend the practises that they want to see returning to the west.

>>15098848

So why does the Holodomor/Great Purge/etc. not discredit the left?

My hypothesis is because they're all intellectually dishonest and ego-driven.

>>15099738
it's literally just "Great Chain of Victimhood". White Christian Males are the central victimizer, other groups exist in a state of relative victimhood towards them. However, groups higher on the chain can also victimize those lower on the chain. This is why you can have leftists simultaneously celebrating the Iranian Revolution (for example) while criticizing Hindu nationalists - Muslims are lower than Hindus on the chain of victimhood, and as victims themselves Hindus ought to know better and show more concern for the victim. Same story with alleged left-wing antisemitism - they aren't anti-semitic, just disappointed. Same thing with "white feminism", TERF wars and so on - white women are above transexuals or poc on the chain.

>>15098987
>What's wrong with intersectionality?

It was developed to fracture the lower classes and prevent class consciousness from among them.

See Bernie Sanders: "When you're white you don't know what it's like to be poor" which alienates people in trailer parks from those in ghettos, when they should be united.

>>15099799
Because Communism was in theory about equality and Nazism wasn't, for the left, mass killing is acceptable in the name of equality. Also the Anglosphere was both 1. among the winners of WW2 and 2. more sympathetic towards ideas of equality than towards Nazism, so obviously things like the Holodomor would be whitewashed a bit.

>>15099752
>>15099769
But what is that inferiority predicated on? Intelligence is not the only contributing factor to social integration, nor is it the only one when it comes to societal contribution. The JQ, on the other hand, I suppose is not hatred. its just one of the most firmly-held inductive fallacies in the world, and one that motivates all the other forms of discrimination; IE, Jews are controlling blacks, women, gays, trans, etc...

Caleb Maupin is writing a book on it. Should be out in a couple weeks. Otherwise, he has some videos on the “synthetic left” and the congress for cultural freedom. So check those out

>>15099798
I conceive of them as being more functional and in the case of racism simply true. Modern society means nothing, it is a blip in history, and it's committing suicide.

>>15099733
Think you responded to the wrong person

>>15099738
At this point I really don't see any future for the left, it's all way to subverted by identity politics, the handful of straight white New England guys I know who were big Bernie guys in 2016 are all pretty much fed up with the left in a way that's eerily reminiscent of how I felt years ago. When your entire ideology revolves around pushing the same policies as Fortune 500 HR departments while claiming to fight capitalism, you've got a problem. If there is a future where 21st century liberal capitalism is seriously opposed, it's going to come from the right. My worldview is pretty consolidated at this point and I really only stopped in this thread to see if there would be any interesting recs.

>>15098848
>National SOCIALISM
>Right

>>15099848
t. Dinesh D'Souza

>>15099573
>The question is how did the academy become a progressive church, which is harder to answer than it sounds.

I would assume you are familiar with Yuri Bezmenov? He basically covers it. I don't think he's at all actually what he claims to be, but on his points of a coordinated attack to implant a multi-generational ideological virus, he's definitely correct.

>>15099821
Intelligence tends to correlate with other prosocial measures. I see Jews as a group of ethnocentric assholes and not much else, theyll probably just keep getting thrown out of countries forever.

>>15099848
>AC/DC starts playing in the background

>>15099848
They branded it socialism to jump on the folk revolution/rising labour movement bandwagon.

>>15098877
So you’ve come to shit up /lit/ with your off topic shitty low iq threads?

>>15099812
See, this is my big problem with intersectionality being touted as a "leftist" idea: it is decisively incompatible with classical marxism. I would argue that it far better serves the interest of the neoliberal hegemony that wants to maintain its grip over the leftwing parties in the west, whether that be Hilary's ilk in America, or the Blairites in the UK. I don't even recognise Bernie as a sincere leftist candidate anymore, I'm deeply suspicious he was simply a fall guy intended to suck up the young/minority vote, drop out of the race, and then endorse whoever was the mainstream candidate to get the younger radical left to vote for them.

>>15099870
left/right are historically contingent, Marxism and its derivatives were the product of a late-19th to early-mid-20th century worldview and are essentially irrelevant nowadays, as can be seen by the irrelevance of Communist parties and organizations in the West.

>>15099840
>If there is a future where 21st century liberal capitalism is seriously opposed, it's going to come from the right.
What scares me the most is that you're probably right, and this is kinda the direction my thought has been going in for quite some time now. While I'm not on board with the focused-grouped, zeitgeist-baiting intersectional bullshit that is so typical of the mainstream left these days, I still do not approve of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., even if I don't see myself or my opinions adequately reflected in the movement. I honestly feel at a loss.

>>15098829
That would be the right, not the left. Climate change denial, pseudoscientific transphobia etc, all peddled by right wingers.
And philosophy was always 90% crackpottery, that has not nothing to do with left vs right, but rather with empiricism vs all other schools of thought.

>>15099896
>guys, I agree with everything you're saying morally, but can we like, get back to class struggle? Please?
kek

>>15099896
>I still do not approve of racism, sexism, homophobia
I honestly think the ship on that has sort of sailed. The Left has taken up opposing those things radically and now tolerating that stuff is seen as an implicit ingroup marker on the right. If you take issue to people meaningfully using words like nigger and faggot in at least a private setting, nobody on the far right is going to view you as on their side. It turns out when you treat teenage boys like literal nazis for being edgy they turn into real nazis. Anyway, I'd make my peace with racism if I were you because I don't see any meaningful anticapitalist tendencies coming from anyone who doesn't embrace it.

Bump. Transgenderism is the apex of Leftist pseudo-science.
They want you to believe so badly that it’s scientific. But it’s not.

>>15099995
it's not really about transexuality being scientific, even if they say it is - it's an obligation to defend transexuals, because if they aren't defended, then what other groups might the left fail to defend? if you fail to defend a victim class, you're uncaring towards a victim. know who else was like that? Hitler.

the Holocaust has basically warped the whole Western world irreversibly.

>>15099965
Yes, I'm fucking cucked, being leftwing it goes without saying.

>>15099984
>If you take issue to people meaningfully using words like nigger and faggot in at least a private setting, nobody on the far right is going to view you as on their side
I don't have a problem with the language as long as its not actively being used in a discriminatory way, edgelords are edgelords and are unlikely to beat on a black kid or trans woman because they like to use rude words every once in a while. I can't help but feel too many people on the right are now simply trying to fit the frame that the left has imposed on them, in a willful attempt to distance themselves from everything that the left has come to represent. I just find difficult to see it as sincere (not in everyone, just the edgy teenage boys who embraced fascism as a counter-culture).

I'm still curious, though– do you think "the right" as a political category would even exist without those particular forms of discriminatory attitudes? Is there anything that actually remains when you strip them away?

>>15098925
dumbass

>>15099995
>They want you to believe so badly that it’s scientific.
How is "gender is a social construct" in any way meant to be a scientific statement?

>>15100074
saying something is natural and normal is a truth statement being made that pertains to the science of life.

>>15100059
many of those Racists have more brown friends than the average white leftist. it's more about mocking the contemporary Imperial Cult and its stupidity than about actually hating anyone. young Chinese for example have way harsher attitudes towards Taiwan than the average western internet racist has towards brown people - they just want them to stop moving in next door.

>>15099057
>Kevin MacDonald

>>15100074

Because 'social science' is just as much of a science as physics or chemistry, which just so happen to be constructs of the white male patriarchy.

>>15100084
anyone who say it is "natural" is making a naturalistic statement, and should be disregarded for not knowing what they are talking about.

Anyone saying it is "normal" is making a normative statement, which is an ought, not an is, and subsequently does not require any recourse to scientific grounding for its ideas.

"natural" and "normal" are not one singular truth statement, they have distinct meanings and should not be conflated.

You won't find much because most of Academia/Media/"Cathedrial" is memed by leftists memes.

>>15098925
Academics who are decent people and aren’t full-on “kill white people and castrate men” libtards exist. There’s about 3 major attitudes, roughly speaking, you can have towards the phenomenon you’re speaking of (demagogue politics thinly veiled as “philosophy” and “literary theory”) as an academic:

>you can full-on oppose it or some aspect of it and risk your career and reputation publicly doing so
>you could be neutral about it, not being particularly for it but not strongly enough opposed about it to speak out against it. You’ll probably do the minimum token contributions towards it or acknowledgments of it to get by without offending anyone.
>You’re one of the people producing this stuff

So what does it come down to? It comes down to the fact that being offended is a great way to gain power today. The more easily a group of people is offended and is willing to raise hell about being offended, the more that means more people are likely to be quiet about it, not want to risk their reputations opposing it, etc. So now a loud minority constantly harping about how offended they are has gained a disproportionate amount of status and social power.

>>15100104
>Anyone saying it is "normal" is making a normative statement
no they're saying that it is the norm which is descriptive

>>15100100
I get that you're being sarcastic, but this is a classic map/territory problem. Science is real, but science in its discursive form does often take the male subject as primary. There's a good book on this phenomenon in relation to data bias called Invisible Women, I'd recommend looking in to it

>>15100149
But what is considered "normal" is necessarily historically contingent, it still isn't determined by anything to do with science.

>>15100152
>A book on Feminist Narcissism

No thanks. It's a book supposed to be about Data but written by an English Major and 'feminist economist'. This is just more feminist propaganda, which has been shown to be the leading reason women feel oppressed. A quick skim of the reviews quickly reveals the readers are all brainwashed sheep.

>Oh no, my phone is too big. If only there were 1000 different models of phone with different sizes...

>Gender is a social construct.
>Okay, why don't we just construct gender roles that don't require people to cut their dicks off and go on HRT?
>Noooo, that's frickin' authoritarian! You can't just deny me my basic freedom of self-expression! Think of the heckin' marginalized! What about muh basic human righterinos?! You did a bigotry there sweetie, you did a Nazism my guy, you did a real Hitler.

>>15099821
>>15099707
>Is there really no such thing as a right that is totally devoid of racism, sexism, fascism, etc?

I’m not the poster you were responding to but I’ll bite the bullet about how there are valid viewpoints which seem “rightist” that you could hold but be afraid to admit or argue for in academia. You could argue that the fact that African-Americans statistically have lower IQs and a higher rate of crime (especially in poorer inner cities) than whites should be acknowledged as an extremely serious, tragic issue which, however, could hopefully be handled and remedied in different, more nuanced ways besides all-across-the-board affirmative-action which will shunt out more talented applicants just to fulfill a diversity quota, or creating a welfare state.

One could talk about how women and men are different hormonally, and how hormones can and do affect our bodies, brains, and behaviors. One could talk about how women and men have differently structured and sized brains (which has been extensively proven by brain-imaging etc.) and how this is related to well-correlated psychological differences between men and women. One could talk about all this not to argue that we should take away the right to vote from women, but rather to argue that men and women are indeed different, although one is not necessarily superior to the other. One could argue that certain mainstream formulations of feminism don’t necessarily capture all the truth about gender differences, and that strong affirmative-action for women in all fields imaginable is not necessarily the best solution to known gender disparities in socioeconomic status, wages, etc.

One could talk about a lot of things, but what’s the point when there’s some people so ready to get offended that you’ll get called a “sexist” or “racist” before you can even finish giving your long-winded explanation about how you’re not actually sexist or racist in the sense of hating women or minorities and thinking they’re inferior or deserve to be subjugated and mistreated, and instead simply hold a more controversial, more conservative viewpoint than they do?

>>15099995
In charitable fairness, there is quite a bit of avoidance in acknowledging of the existence of things like autogynophiles, genderqueers, and transvestites co-opting the term "transgender since the 70s, but that's probably not where you're trying to go with this.

>>15099707
>>15099821
Oh, and about the JQ, just to follow up — one could easily theorize or talk about corrupt Zionist factions or a fucked-up Israeli government which milks events like the Holocaust and historical incidents of anti-Semitism to paint themselves as utterly blameless no matter what they do, and to paint anyone who criticizes them as anti-Semitic neo-Nazis. One could do this without being an anti-Semite in the sense that one hates the average Jew on the street and refuses to have Jewish friends, etc.

>>15100370

transgenderism is the ultimate male victory, insertion of patriarchy directly into the formerly female sphere. it's disgusting and consumerist.

>>15100395
As if the majority of them are somehow capable of even remotely blending into the female sphere.
And ngl, FTM people are definitely doing a much better job at inserting into the male sphere anyway.

>>15099859
>They branded it socialism
>was Called the WORKERS Party from the beginning
This is a whole other scale of delusion. How hard is it to admit that socialism is left-wing?

>>15100433
They literally killed the Marxists and communists.

>>15100263
>This is just more feminist propaganda
>A quick skim of the reviews
lmao solid refutation. You can posture all you like and shift the attention on to the readership rather than address the validity of the content of the book itself, but there is no question that data models simply fail to account for gender differences on so many levels, simply because the male is taken as a standard. This is the reason why female heart attack symptoms are diagnosed as "abnormal", for example. Calling it narcissism is just wilful ignorance on your part

>>15100349
You still don't seem to understand. Politics (and the political spectrum in general) is not entirely about resistance to or accommodation of minority groups. I'm asking you to give me a model for right-wing thought that is not just defined in terms of its deviance from the left's evangelical crusade to dismantle racial/gendered/sexed "categories", but all you want to do is talk about identity. You cannot define "the right" in any real sense that is not entirely dependent on the leftist paradigm to orient yourself. There really is no hope, is there?

>>15100495
>when you can't even defend human progress in the face of a schoolmarmish ethos that doesn't care about living in a stagnant world as long as no one is racist
Sad state of affairs really.

>>15100495
I’m not a rightist and don’t care about being one. However, according to most stupid Americans, most of the views I’ve espoused mean you’re a “Republican” and therefore a “rightist.” Rightism and leftism are just stupid terms to distract you from the fact that you’re getting sodomized and cucked by a ruling elite whatever you do, in my opinion

>>15100495
What are you talking about, there are loads of texts defending monarchy

>>15100532
out of personal interest, do you know of any written during/after the enlightenment era?

>>15100495
>>15100525
If you look at my original post, by the way: >>15100349
>I’ll bite the bullet about how there are valid viewpoints which seem “rightist” that you could hold but be afraid to admit or argue for in academia

I tried to make this clear, even if in an overly wordy way. I’m not talking about rightism as such (since, like “leftism”, it’s a super-broad and nebulous term), I’m talking about how mainstream media and consensus has made a bogeyman of certain views and enshrined certain others. The former views are shunted to “dangerously racist sexist fascist rightism” and the latter to “enlightened modern Democratic progressivism.” This doesn’t necessarily reflect the true reality of what leftism and rightism are, I’ll be the first to admit.

>>15100470
>the readership

Can actually be a decent way of saving my time. And the readership is a perfect example of what I mean:

>I always knew the patriarchy was bad
>This book opened my eyes to just HOW bad

And one of the main arguments of the book WAS that phones were designed for a male hand size, which is as easily refuted as I did:

>I bought the wrong size phone?
>Men did this
>NO I SHOULD NOT HAVE BOUGHT ONE OF THE DOZEN SMALLER PHONES!

I actually have a problem with western medicine, in general. Which is why it's hilarious to me:

>Doctor has poor diagnosis?
>The patriarchy did this

Or let's go to the crash dummy example:

>Crash dummies are the average male body-weight
>Should we talk about how Men have a larger variation in height/weight and this wouldn't protect very large or small men either?
>No, it's misogyny

And on, and on. But again, you have an ideological bent, and this is just mansplaining.

>>15100349
Affirmative action is overall a terrible idea, and it is recognized among some leftists that it's at best a band aid.
The better solution to the IQ issue would be to find ways to remove barriers to education so that impoverished african american children don't end up growing up to be brainlets.
Uninformed performative liberalism != leftism.

>>15100525
>Rightism and leftism are just stupid terms to distract you from the fact that you’re getting sodomized and cucked by a ruling elite whatever you do, in my opinion

Someone with some sense.

>>15100549
Leviathan, Considérations sur la France, Shooting Niagara

>>15100457
And that makes them not socialist? The Bolsheviks killed the Menshevik communists, were they perhaps not socialists either?

>>15100059
> just find difficult to see it as sincere (not in everyone, just the edgy teenage boys who embraced fascism as a counter-culture).
It's a 2-way street, if that makes any sense. It's always been the edgy thing to do obviously but until the last decade everyone recognized it as exactly that: teenage edginess. All of sudden though the whole "boys will be boys" excuse no longer flew and now every guy who jokingly said nigger or kike or scribbled swastikas was treated as a literal ideological national socialist. Every civilization in history has properly ascertained that guys under 30 are testosterone-fueled retards and realized that getting mad at them for acting screwy for a few laughs is like getting mad at women for being cunty once a month. Imagine getting treated like you're in the KKK by full grown adults for making a Jew joke as a teenager and then going online and finding a group of people who also get treated like they're in the KKK and hey they also happen to have thousands of infographics, Youtube videos, and academic papers explaining why the entire system wants to crucify you for being funny.

>Is there anything that actually remains when you strip them away?
Absolutely, I think the far right generally has a much better grasp of contemporary relations. On the left it seems like you either get "neomarxists" who are shoulder deep in intersectional critiques of patriarchal white privilege or more "orthodox" Marxists who recognize that identity politics are a distraction from class but think that you can apply a critique of 19th century industrial capitalism to the 21st century service industry with minimal amendments. At its base the right is about hierarchy, whether that's racial, religious, martial, etc. I think this becomes anticapitalist because at this stage in capitalism you have a need for labor to become interchangeable in order to match the interchangeability of capital that contemporary technology allows. The right clearly has no desire to make people broadly egalitarian and interchangeable, whereas the idpol left is essentially working for capital to find a way to equitably make everyone interchangeable in a world where we clearly aren't.

>>15100581
Fair enough. Again, I’m not the OP, so I’m not necessarily sticking to whatever conception (s)he has of “rightism” or “leftism” so strictly, I’m just bringing up sensitive topics or ideas that could quickly get you called a “racist” or “sexist” “conservative” “rightist” “Republican” “neo-Nazi” “Trump supporter” “cracker” “fucking white male” or something amongst certain factions ready to get offended by everything. It’s no wonder some people just go overboard when faced with this mess of a modern sociopolitical zeitgeist where you’re treated as a possible Nazi even if you’re mildly conservative and so decide to make racist memes on the Internet.

>>15100565
>one of the main arguments of the book
it was one argument from the promo, it is in no way a main argument. You genuinely think you can make that claim despite not having read it?


>Doctor has poor diagnosis
It's not the doctor you cretin, its the model they rely on to diagnose people. it has nothing to do with individual diagnoses.

>Should we talk about how Men have a larger variation in height/weight and this wouldn't protect very large or small men either?
The book is not making a point about misogyny, it is making a point about how women are rendered invisible by data modelling, it has nothing to do with intentional sexism and everything to do with incompetency. The fact that you try to shift the argument to a claim about "smaller men" only proves my point, you are effectively erasing women's experiences to further affirm the centrality of men to the model. And on top of that, small men have only to benefit from modelling that takes into account the smaller stature of women, so the point is entirely redundant.

Honestly, you accuse me of having an ideological bent, and yet all of your arguments are uninformed posturing. Until you read the book and can provide a substantiative critique of the points actually raised by the book, instead of just dancing around it, you literally have nothing to say.

>>15100725
>affirm the centrality of men

No anon, the book, written by a 'feminist economist' is about the centrality of women. Much like your points. My point was that poor modelling can be used to make arguments that are sex-neutral (ie. this fails to account for a significant portion of the population of both sexes). Instead this book is feminist propaganda.

>Just go waste time and money reading feminist propaganda on something you aren't even interested in.

No, I'll go back to reading books that will improve my life. You can go back to spewing feminist drivel.

>>15100836
lmao this post is a pathetic cope, you've backtracked all of your previous claims and simply reverted to the "feminist propaganda" drivel (which you can't even confirm, because you haven't read it). Here's a question– if feminists are constantly looking to assert that "gender isn't real", why does this book– which emphasises the fact that REAL gender differences are overlooked by data modelling – trigger you so much? It is literally confirming the opposite of what most feminists are arguing. The example about heart conditions is a clear demonstration of this, women experience very different symptoms to men, but that difference is simply not accounted for in diagnosis. This is not a point that can be addressed in "sex-neutral" terms. You are literally too stupid to understand why and how statistics can be weighted.

>>15098987

Alot of people believe intersectionality is just some theory ppl talk about on YouTube but it’s actually like a really helpful perspective in mental health diagnosis and treatment.

“Labour in a white skin cannot emancipate itself where it is branded in a black skin.”

Really all that needs to be said right here.

>>15100457
There can be squabbling between different factions of the same core ideology; see ethnic nationalism vs civic nationalism.