AOC removing her "preferred pronouns" is unironically a big deal, because she's not just a left-liberal, she's a lunatic Cultural Marxist whose been a rabid supporter of tranny rights until now. The Cultural Marxist goal has always been to make it obligatory for EVERYONE to list their "preferred pronouns", with a failure to doing so effectively outing them as Nazis, thus normalizing trannies and the whole concept of "gender identity".
The fact that they not only failed to achieve that, but now can't even make some of the most unhinged progressives list their preferred pronouns anymore leaves trannies isolated and exposed.
The fact that they not only failed to achieve that, but now can't even make some of the most unhinged progressives list their preferred pronouns anymore leaves trannies isolated and exposed.
@meso "Cultural Marxist" is a dogwhistle for "I'm retarded and need to log the fuck off"
(Didn't expect to effortpost in a joke thread, but oh well. Effortposting is good for the soul)
Actual Marxism (class marxism) was definitively debunked by every example of communism in existence by authors such as Solzhenitsyn. Despite that, it had so enthralled academics, that they tried to apply the concepts of Marxism to other areas that hadn't yet been debunked.
They created neomarxism which changes the model from a struggle between economic classes of people to a struggle between the majority and marginalized groups of people, and the ruling class uses hegemony of culture to further marginalize groups. From there, the idea that you start to analyze media through marginalized lenses comes in, and soon you're using those lenses on things like law as well.
From there, people with too much time on their hands, far too much education, but no practical skills came up with ideas like intersectionality which creates an amazing game of ideological whack-a-mole, where if neomarxism is debunked for blacks, what about gay blacks? If not them, what about trans gay blacks? If not them, what about trans gay black amputees? And so on and so forth until society collapses because too many people are worrying about trans gay black amputee midgets and not enough about how to feed, clothe, and house the population.
Now, some people might ask what the purpose of neomarxism is -- why did academia create it? The purpose of academic work is to find ways to pay for more academic work. The most popular phrase in academic works is "more research is required" for a reason. Therefore, the primary purpose of neomarxism is finding more ways to pay for more academic works about neomarxism.
Advocates of neomarxist or intersectional approaches might counter that addressing cultural and systemic inequities is integral to solving those material problems, but they're wrong and stupid and should get back into their box and write more neomarxist papers so we can get funding to write more neomarxist papers. Now you might assume my attack would be based on the idea that it's purely theoretical and thus has no value, but that's untrue -- there are many purely theoretical pursuits that are important regardless, and it isn't purely theoretical because gay race communism has taken hold in the culture as something we have to deal with for a little while longer. My attack is based on the idea that you've got a fundamentally materialist ideology that considers the effects on the material well-being of a group, that destroys the civilization it's a part of, thus ensuring that nobody's material well-being is any good. At least if something isn't purely materialist you could make an argument that it's good for the soul!
The final nail in neomarxism's coffin is the fact that in spite of being materialist and having nothing to do with improving one's soul, people who believe in it end up taking it up as a religion as if it can improve one's soul. Such people can start off as beautiful pure souls of light and slowly fall apart into tar black sludge, filled with hatred and envy and loathing, because they're always looking at most of the population as oppressors
Actual Marxism (class marxism) was definitively debunked by every example of communism in existence by authors such as Solzhenitsyn. Despite that, it had so enthralled academics, that they tried to apply the concepts of Marxism to other areas that hadn't yet been debunked.
They created neomarxism which changes the model from a struggle between economic classes of people to a struggle between the majority and marginalized groups of people, and the ruling class uses hegemony of culture to further marginalize groups. From there, the idea that you start to analyze media through marginalized lenses comes in, and soon you're using those lenses on things like law as well.
From there, people with too much time on their hands, far too much education, but no practical skills came up with ideas like intersectionality which creates an amazing game of ideological whack-a-mole, where if neomarxism is debunked for blacks, what about gay blacks? If not them, what about trans gay blacks? If not them, what about trans gay black amputees? And so on and so forth until society collapses because too many people are worrying about trans gay black amputee midgets and not enough about how to feed, clothe, and house the population.
Now, some people might ask what the purpose of neomarxism is -- why did academia create it? The purpose of academic work is to find ways to pay for more academic work. The most popular phrase in academic works is "more research is required" for a reason. Therefore, the primary purpose of neomarxism is finding more ways to pay for more academic works about neomarxism.
Advocates of neomarxist or intersectional approaches might counter that addressing cultural and systemic inequities is integral to solving those material problems, but they're wrong and stupid and should get back into their box and write more neomarxist papers so we can get funding to write more neomarxist papers. Now you might assume my attack would be based on the idea that it's purely theoretical and thus has no value, but that's untrue -- there are many purely theoretical pursuits that are important regardless, and it isn't purely theoretical because gay race communism has taken hold in the culture as something we have to deal with for a little while longer. My attack is based on the idea that you've got a fundamentally materialist ideology that considers the effects on the material well-being of a group, that destroys the civilization it's a part of, thus ensuring that nobody's material well-being is any good. At least if something isn't purely materialist you could make an argument that it's good for the soul!
The final nail in neomarxism's coffin is the fact that in spite of being materialist and having nothing to do with improving one's soul, people who believe in it end up taking it up as a religion as if it can improve one's soul. Such people can start off as beautiful pure souls of light and slowly fall apart into tar black sludge, filled with hatred and envy and loathing, because they're always looking at most of the population as oppressors
I can't tell if you are sad about this outcome or not. It's been wild watching all these propagandists backpedal and get in line for Trump
