liquidnature wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 8:37 pm
The cognitive dissonance of modern leftist progressivism, especially when marinated thoroughly in manipulated journalistic propaganda and embroidered in grave-clothes cultural marxism, is astounding.
I know I shouldn't dive into this, but I think you have been mislead, and best to try to clarify this a little.
I think the most important thing here is understanding that
Cultural Marxism is nazi propaganda, originating in the Third Reich as "Cultural Bolshevism", and surviving to this day.
It doesn't actually exist, or rather it is, when defined a contradiction, i.e. post-modern Marxism. This is nonsensical as Marxism is a modernist philosophy, and more so because cultural Marxism would essentially be advocacy for class-consciousness, etc.
The term is typically used as a buzzword to scare people, and spread the lie that Marxism is somehow infiltrating all walks of life - despite that what is referred to is generally standard liberal social justice, i.e. elements of the centre-right to centre-left. Or, for the neo-nazis a symbol of degeneracy in the west. It doesn't have anything to do with Marxism, and not even the left (in a real sense).
That a singular mind could doubly execute the mental gymnastics of deriding decades old trump marital affairs while praising a piece of lauded trash such as "WAP" openly is a hilariously profound exercise in moral hypocrisy.
1. Actually, no, if this was the case there would be no hypocrisy. There is no contradiction whatsoever in being against infidelity while simultaneously having no issue with lude acts.
2. The attack is typically at him portraying himself as a Christian, and the odd way conservative Christians support him. I.e. you can oppose monogamy and not be a hypocrite for pointing out someone else being a hypocrite.
The Left are pure hypocrites. Cut and dried. Having the gall to libel trump's geopolitics while offering unflinching support of obama's endless civilian dronestrikes and clinton's intoxication with sinister globalism and open child exploitation.
I don't understand this point at all.
The left hates Obama and Clinton. They protested them, and hate them to this day. Are you referring to Liberals? You started by talking about Leftist Progressivism. Leftist specifically mean anti-capitalism - many even hate Sanders, AOC, etc. and view them as Liberals. Ideologically Liberalism is a right wing ideology. While they are, due to the far right political spectrum in the US, considered to be to the left, this does not make them Leftist, or even Progressive.
So no, there is no hypocrisy here, the case you made is simply not true.
Supporting bernie's plan for redistribution while he sits on millions and three houses garnered through the capitalist system to which he feigns contempt.
This does not make sense.
Sanders is not anti-capitalist. He is a Democratic Socialist (Social Democrat, or SD-adjacent).
He openly supports capitalism. He simply wants a baseline-strong social safety net and more economic accountability.
His policies would be centre-right in my country.
How is having 3 houses an argument against thinking US people should have universal healthcare - like almost all other people do? In fact isn't it better that the person advocating it shows he is willing to be taxed slightly higher himself? It shows a degree of integrity.
Also - even if Sanders was further left, and actively opposed capitalism, it would not be hypocritical to have 3 houses.
Standard socialists are not opposed to "wealth". The difference between Sanders and "economic socialists" is that the latter want the majority of the economy owned by the people or the workers themselves, i.e. state companies or co-ops. They don't believe in everyone getting the same pay. etc. I am personally well to the left of Sanders, and I would not have an issue with someone having 3 residences (which makes sense for someone who lives in two states for work purposes + 1 summer home - in my country this is not even out of the ordinary for working class people).
This would only be potentially hypocritical if he was a communist and staunchly opposed to personal property.
Pretending to care about the constitution while daily advocating for its disintegration.
Different people maybe? The left is pretty diverse.
Deeming words violence, and silence violence, but violence itself not to be violence.
Not sure who says violence is not violence.
Claiming to be anti-fascist while forcefully shutting down every facet of free speech, censoring every wellspring of truth, altering history, and banning any dissenters.
The free speech issue is simply propaganda, confusing people calling others out, i.e. using their free speech - as anti-free speech. Even boycotts, i.e. free speech, is being portrayed as anti-free speech, and made illegal by several U.S. states in the case of Israel.
As for altering history, this is tyically an issue of the right - are you referring to people presenting history as a reason to remove statues, etc?
Burning down the American cities and black neighborhoods they pretend to enshrine. Give me a break. Hypocrites.
This appears to be conflating a sub-group of a sub-group (i.e. the minority of rioters that start fire with the minority of rioterss) with all BLM protestors with all progressives. That doesn't seem very reasonable.
If you asked the specific rioters causing property damage many would likely not be hypocrites, but advocate targetted attacks against the state. Others again may simply just like chaos and find this an outlet - which isn't technically hypocritical either - and you appear to be making the case that BLM protesters and Leftist Progressives all do this or all support this - which is simply not true.
-
Hope that was fairly helpful, and respectful.Luckily I don't have much of a bone in this fight or thread as I'm not an American - but wanted to clear up any confusion here.
(P. S. Don't know what WAP is)
