Red Mosquito

run2death wrote:

tree_ wrote:

run2death wrote:One thing I've noticed about this guy is that he's constantly complaining about the "extreme language" of the left and being called a fascist while at the same time consistently referring to the left as "Maoists" and "Communistic."

He's referring to the extreme left, not all left. He's actually more left than right.

OK. But... don't bitch about group identity politics while dabbling in it yourself. To call trans activities "Maoists" (which he has done several times) is about as ridiculous as calling him Hitler.

What group is he identifying with?

run2death wrote:

tree_ wrote:

run2death wrote:One thing I've noticed about this guy is that he's constantly complaining about the "extreme language" of the left and being called a fascist while at the same time consistently referring to the left as "Maoists" and "Communistic."

He's referring to the extreme left, not all left. He's actually more left than right.

OK. But... don't bitch about group identity politics while dabbling in it yourself. To call trans activities "Maoists" (which he has done several times) is about as ridiculous as calling him Hitler.

One can be both, right? And when your logo is this:



It's pretty clear where you are going with things from an economic policy perspective.

I, for one, don't see anything Maoist about university students holding signs with short, radical slogans.

Bi_3 wrote:

run2death wrote:

tree_ wrote:

run2death wrote:One thing I've noticed about this guy is that he's constantly complaining about the "extreme language" of the left and being called a fascist while at the same time consistently referring to the left as "Maoists" and "Communistic."

He's referring to the extreme left, not all left. He's actually more left than right.

OK. But... don't bitch about group identity politics while dabbling in it yourself. To call trans activities "Maoists" (which he has done several times) is about as ridiculous as calling him Hitler.

One can be both, right? And when your logo is this:



It's pretty clear where you are going with things from an economic policy perspective.

Jesus Christ read a fucking book, none of those symbols are Maoist and there is literally no indication that these students are going to make pig iron in their backyards.

bart wrote:I, for one, don't see anything Maoist about university students holding signs with short, radical slogans.

The clench fist in this context is Marxist solidarity not Maoist, so technically you are correct.

Mickey wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

run2death wrote:

tree_ wrote:

run2death wrote:One thing I've noticed about this guy is that he's constantly complaining about the "extreme language" of the left and being called a fascist while at the same time consistently referring to the left as "Maoists" and "Communistic."

He's referring to the extreme left, not all left. He's actually more left than right.

OK. But... don't bitch about group identity politics while dabbling in it yourself. To call trans activities "Maoists" (which he has done several times) is about as ridiculous as calling him Hitler.

One can be both, right? And when your logo is this:



It's pretty clear where you are going with things from an economic policy perspective.

Jesus Christ read a fucking book, none of those symbols are Maoist and there is literally no indication that these students are going to make pig iron in their backyards.

These is no indication they are not going to either

Bi_3 wrote:

Mickey wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

run2death wrote:

tree_ wrote:

run2death wrote:One thing I've noticed about this guy is that he's constantly complaining about the "extreme language" of the left and being called a fascist while at the same time consistently referring to the left as "Maoists" and "Communistic."

He's referring to the extreme left, not all left. He's actually more left than right.

OK. But... don't bitch about group identity politics while dabbling in it yourself. To call trans activities "Maoists" (which he has done several times) is about as ridiculous as calling him Hitler.

One can be both, right? And when your logo is this:



It's pretty clear where you are going with things from an economic policy perspective.

Jesus Christ read a fucking book, none of those symbols are Maoist and there is literally no indication that these students are going to make pig iron in their backyards.

These is no indication they are not going to either

Lisa, I would like to buy your rock.

Bi_3 wrote:

bart wrote:I, for one, don't see anything Maoist about university students holding signs with short, radical slogans.

The clench fist in this context is Marxist solidarity not Maoist, so technically you are correct.

The clenched fist inside the Venus symbol is a traditionally Feminist/Feminist solidarity symbol--the adaption here is for trans and nonbinary representation. Any presumed connection to Marxism is spurious at best.

Who gets to decide what is and isn't hate speech?

Mickey wrote:Any presumed connection to Marxism is spurious at best.

That would depend on your perspective on the motivations of third wave and anarcha-feminism that originated the modern version of the symbol as they relate to anti-capitalism and the incorporation of Marxism into modern feminist thought.

Bi_3 wrote:

Mickey wrote:Any presumed connection to Marxism is spurious at best.

That would depend on your perspective on the motivations of third wave and anarcha-feminism that originated the modern version of the symbol as they relate to anti-capitalism and the incorporation of Marxism into modern feminist thought.

Lol yes I am well aware of the nuances of anticapitalist Feminism. It is nonetheless a spurious claim to assume that the pictured students are using it with the same 1970s understanding or that from this, it's "pretty clear where they're going from an economic policy perspective." And then, again, anti-capitalism is not reducible to Maoism, which was your original line (repeating the trope that none of you soft-right baboons, Peterson included, are even aware of what you're arguing against).

I give Mickey 5 more days here until he walks away in frustration again.

Simple Torture wrote:I give Mickey 5 more days here until he walks away in frustration again.

I can't tell if I think that's over or under generous.

just got around to reading the NYT article, LMAO I can't believe anyone can take this clown seriously

Mickey wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Mickey wrote:Any presumed connection to Marxism is spurious at best.

That would depend on your perspective on the motivations of third wave and anarcha-feminism that originated the modern version of the symbol as they relate to anti-capitalism and the incorporation of Marxism into modern feminist thought.

Lol yes I am well aware of the nuances of anticapitalist Feminism. It is nonetheless a spurious claim to assume that the pictured students are using it with the same 1970s understanding or that from this, it's "pretty clear where they're going from an economic policy perspective." And then, again, anti-capitalism is not reducible to Maoism, which was your original line (repeating the trope that none of you soft-right baboons, Peterson included, are even aware of what you're arguing against).

Let’s recap:

1.) Peterson is stupid compared to you
2.) I and other banana munchers here are stupid compared to you
3.) the protesting students are stupid compared to you (just added!)

Of course anti-capitalism and Maoism are not the same, but Peterson’s point in calling them that is in the context of the Cultural Revolution, where dissenting opinions were treated like his own is being treated (from his perspective and his reading of the c-16 bill).

As we speak, roving bands of Quebecois middle schoolers are torturing people to death for not using gender neutral pronouns.

1) I do not think Peterson is stupid, I think he's a clever but absurd huckster hawking insidious ideas to stupid people.

2) I do think anyone who buys Peterson's canards is stupid, or in some way undereducated and unthinkingly accepting ideas that merely play to their own resentment (much of which is rightly felt, though caused not by drawn-up boogeymen of Marxism but by actually existing capitalism and neoliberalism).

3) I now especially think you're stupid, not only because you and every other Person acolyte here parade around strawman versions of the left with zero irony and zero historical nuance, but especially because you think asking for someone to honor a personal identity choice expressed in your preferred pronouns is akin to some sort of authoritarian purge. I think this even more so because the real attacks on free speech overwhelmingly come from the right and not a handful of campus activists, even if those activists sometimes do take overtly hardlined or somewhat noodle-brained positions.

4) I do not think anything about these students, who I do not know and ultimately do not care about, but I certainly think anyone who sees their banner and thinks "Ah yes, these 19 year olds are definitively using this symbol to express ideas directly in accordance with any number of divergent Marxist-affiliated Feminisms from the 1970s" is probably a bit of a dunderhead on how symbols can shed and accrue meaning over time, or more likely looking to make baseless red-baiting character assassinations.

When did I do these things?

Really cant have this thread without this interview. Its required viewing

Bi_3 wrote:

Mickey wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Mickey wrote:Any presumed connection to Marxism is spurious at best.

That would depend on your perspective on the motivations of third wave and anarcha-feminism that originated the modern version of the symbol as they relate to anti-capitalism and the incorporation of Marxism into modern feminist thought.

Lol yes I am well aware of the nuances of anticapitalist Feminism. It is nonetheless a spurious claim to assume that the pictured students are using it with the same 1970s understanding or that from this, it's "pretty clear where they're going from an economic policy perspective." And then, again, anti-capitalism is not reducible to Maoism, which was your original line (repeating the trope that none of you soft-right baboons, Peterson included, are even aware of what you're arguing against).

Let’s recap:

1.) Peterson is stupid compared to you
2.) I and other banana munchers here are stupid compared to you
3.) the protesting students are stupid compared to you (just added!)

Of course anti-capitalism and Maoism are not the same, but Peterson’s point in calling them that is in the context of the Cultural Revolution, where dissenting opinions were treated like his own is being treated (from his perspective and his reading of the c-16 bill).

Mickey comes across as immensely insecure. I wouldn't take it personally.