Bad faith interpretations.

[Danioover9000]

   If this is the average for debates, bad faith tactics and dogmatic answers, versus open minded good faith charitable takes, then we'll get almost nowhere:

   So many good lessons of ignorance and delusions from both sides, plus ignorance of stages of development, cognitive and moral development, personality types/traits, ego development, life experiences and other lines of development, ideological beliefs indoctrinated and gaslight into a person's mind from upbringing and culture, and self biases and preferences projected.

   The one phrase that IMO made this trans debater win regardless if he's specifically right within context, is when he states to the other how he's arguing in front of a mirror. ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! This whole debate is a sham to maintain both your egotistical projections and both your boogeyman. However...you're also arguing at a mirror too, so both of you have lost the moment you both decided to bad faith each other like this and act immature, and not try to be mature and seek mutual understanding and empathy instead of bad faith tactics each other to death.

   Partial credit to the YouTuber for the culture Marxism history explanation. which kind of reminded me of Noam Chomsky's Manufactured consent work.

Edited July 13, 2023 by Danioover9000

[Israfil]

About the Social Credit System:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System#For_government_institutions

The Chinese Government suffers more sanctions of the system than individuals in China. The system is a credit score system, that encompasses more than financial behavior. Many countries have credit scores, China ties its system to civil behavior besides simply financial behavior. The alarmism of the west about it is ignorance.

The Jack Ma stuff is just conspiracy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ma#Disappearance_from_the_public_eye

The Indian Genocide figure is truly farfetched. The estimated population of American Indians was about 150 million before Europeans reached the continent. The remaining population after 200 hundred years was between 5 and 10 million. 

Critical Theory is the actual name of the movement that the Frankfurt School and Antonio Gramsci were a part of. When asked "Who coined the term Cultural Marxism?" to GPT-4, this is the answer:

The term "Cultural Marxism" has a complex and controversial history, and it's not entirely clear who specifically first coined it. The term is associated with a conspiracy theory that suggests there's a subversive effort to undermine Western values and institutions via cultural institutions, influenced by the Frankfurt School and their neo-Marxist ideas, also known as Critical Theory.

However, it's important to note that the term "Cultural Marxism" itself was not used by members of the Frankfurt School or by other Marxist theorists. Rather, it has been used in the late 20th and early 21st centuries primarily by critics of these theorists and by those who assert the existence of the aforementioned conspiracy theory. In academic contexts, the term is rarely used, and when it is, it's often in critical discussions about its problematic use in popular discourse.

It has also been popularized by right-wing commentators and politicians who believe that various social changes—such as multiculturalism, political correctness, and certain types of social justice advocacy—are part of a deliberate attempt to undermine traditional Western values.

It's important to recognize that this term and its associated theories have been widely criticized as simplistic, misrepresentative, and potentially harmful in their framing of complex cultural and social changes as a deliberate and monolithic plot. As such, the term's use is often contested and controversial.

Critical Theory just states that culture itself is a means of perpetuating the liberal paradigm, exerting deep control over people's opinions and biases. Many Critical Theorists would agree with right-extremists on how the media control people, they talked about this 80 years ago. 

He then mixes up postmodernists and "deconstruction". Postmodern thinkers didn't even like critical theory and deconstruction is a tool for discourse analysis. If he actually read all this philosophy, he wouldn't make these mistakes that a 3rd-period student of philosophy undergrad would know is bullshit.

As a Brazilian, I can't oversee the mischaracterization of Paulo Freire. Here's the abstract of Freire's theory of education:

Freire outlines his theories of education. The first discussed is the banking model of education. He believes the fundamental nature of education is to be narrative. There is one individual reciting facts and ideas (the teacher) and others who just listen and memorize everything (the students). There is no connection with their real life, resulting in a very passive learning style. This form of education is termed the banking model of education. The banking model is very closely linked with oppression. It is built on the fact that the teacher knows all, and there exist inferiors who must just accept what they are told. They are not allowed to question the world or their teachers. This lack of freedom highlights the comparisons between the banking model of education and oppression. Freire urges the dismissal of the banking model of education and the adoption of the problem-posing model. This model encourages a discussion between teacher and student. It blurs the line between the two as everyone learns alongside each other, creating equality and the lack of oppression. There are many ways the banking model of education aligns with oppression. Essentially, it dehumanizes the student. If they are raised to learn to be blank slates molded by the teacher, they will never be able to question the world if they need to. This form of education encourages them to just accept what is thrust upon them and accept that as correct. It makes the first step of humanization very difficult. If they are trained to be passive listeners, they will never be able to come to the realization that there even exist oppressors.

The Gramsci quote is also bullshit: https://socdoneleft.substack.com/p/that-capturing-the-culture-quote

The cherry on top of the shit cake of implying that any of that was good faith from the side of right-wing propagandist "debater" is simply misleading. The boy was uneducated, not acting from bad faith. 

[Danioover9000]

@Israfil

On 2023-07-13 at 11:13 PM, Israfil said:

About the Social Credit System:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System#For_government_institutions

The Chinese Government suffers more sanctions of the system than individuals in China. The system is a credit score system, that encompasses more than financial behavior. Many countries have credit scores, China ties its system to civil behavior besides simply financial behavior. The alarmism of the west about it is ignorance.

The Jack Ma stuff is just conspiracy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ma#Disappearance_from_the_public_eye

The Indian Genocide figure is truly farfetched. The estimated population of American Indians was about 150 million before Europeans reached the continent. The remaining population after 200 hundred years was between 5 and 10 million. 

Critical Theory is the actual name of the movement that the Frankfurt School and Antonio Gramsci were a part of. When asked "Who coined the term Cultural Marxism?" to GPT-4, this is the answer:

The term "Cultural Marxism" has a complex and controversial history, and it's not entirely clear who specifically first coined it. The term is associated with a conspiracy theory that suggests there's a subversive effort to undermine Western values and institutions via cultural institutions, influenced by the Frankfurt School and their neo-Marxist ideas, also known as Critical Theory.

However, it's important to note that the term "Cultural Marxism" itself was not used by members of the Frankfurt School or by other Marxist theorists. Rather, it has been used in the late 20th and early 21st centuries primarily by critics of these theorists and by those who assert the existence of the aforementioned conspiracy theory. In academic contexts, the term is rarely used, and when it is, it's often in critical discussions about its problematic use in popular discourse.

It has also been popularized by right-wing commentators and politicians who believe that various social changes—such as multiculturalism, political correctness, and certain types of social justice advocacy—are part of a deliberate attempt to undermine traditional Western values.

It's important to recognize that this term and its associated theories have been widely criticized as simplistic, misrepresentative, and potentially harmful in their framing of complex cultural and social changes as a deliberate and monolithic plot. As such, the term's use is often contested and controversial.

Critical Theory just states that culture itself is a means of perpetuating the liberal paradigm, exerting deep control over people's opinions and biases. Many Critical Theorists would agree with right-extremists on how the media control people, they talked about this 80 years ago. 

He then mixes up postmodernists and "deconstruction". Postmodern thinkers didn't even like critical theory and deconstruction is a tool for discourse analysis. If he actually read all this philosophy, he wouldn't make these mistakes that a 3rd-period student of philosophy undergrad would know is bullshit.

As a Brazilian, I can't oversee the mischaracterization of Paulo Freire. Here's the abstract of Freire's theory of education:

Freire outlines his theories of education. The first discussed is the banking model of education. He believes the fundamental nature of education is to be narrative. There is one individual reciting facts and ideas (the teacher) and others who just listen and memorize everything (the students). There is no connection with their real life, resulting in a very passive learning style. This form of education is termed the banking model of education. The banking model is very closely linked with oppression. It is built on the fact that the teacher knows all, and there exist inferiors who must just accept what they are told. They are not allowed to question the world or their teachers. This lack of freedom highlights the comparisons between the banking model of education and oppression. Freire urges the dismissal of the banking model of education and the adoption of the problem-posing model. This model encourages a discussion between teacher and student. It blurs the line between the two as everyone learns alongside each other, creating equality and the lack of oppression. There are many ways the banking model of education aligns with oppression. Essentially, it dehumanizes the student. If they are raised to learn to be blank slates molded by the teacher, they will never be able to question the world if they need to. This form of education encourages them to just accept what is thrust upon them and accept that as correct. It makes the first step of humanization very difficult. If they are trained to be passive listeners, they will never be able to come to the realization that there even exist oppressors.

The Gramsci quote is also bullshit: https://socdoneleft.substack.com/p/that-capturing-the-culture-quote

The cherry on top of the shit cake of implying that any of that was good faith from the side of right-wing propagandist "debater" is simply misleading. The boy was uneducated, not acting from bad faith. 

   I partly agree, but I do feel like not only was he and the other uneducated but both are being bad faith. You can tell from the discourse that the main goal is to convince and persuade by attacking and demonizing the other side. Very little attempt to being good faith and trying to learn from each other, the symptom of today's increasing polarization, and other negative developmental factors.

[Israfil]

7 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Israfil

   I partly agree, but I do feel like not only was he and the other uneducated but both are being bad faith. You can tell from the discourse that the main goal is to convince and persuade by attacking and demonizing the other side. Very little attempt to being good faith and trying to learn from each other, the symptom of today's increasing polarization, and other negative developmental factors.

Sure, but the dominant position was from the right winger, so I took on the role of displaying his disingenuousness. The leftist was simply not educated enough to answer these questions. His ignorance stops him from being less confrontational.

[Danioover9000]

@Israfil

2 hours ago, Israfil said:

Sure, but the dominant position was from the right winger, so I took on the role of displaying his disingenuousness. The leftist was simply not educated enough to answer these questions. His ignorance stops him from being less confrontational.

   Oh I see, thought it was the other way around. Also, not just his ignorance, but even how he marketed himself as a TRANS MARXIST debater...that's a mouthful and loaded terms already, which already triggers close mindedness in the biased different person. Maybe the hero of the left?

   Even then, Charlie Kirk still, even if the leftist was solidly educated and communicating skillfully, would still frame him as a fool with a hysterical laugh, thought I was listening to the joker for a minute. 

[Leo Gura]

China is definitely NOT a democracy. What is that Greenie smoking?

Also, only about 20 million native Americans were killed by disease.

People like that make the left look bad.

Edited July 15, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Heart of Space]

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

China is definitely NOT a democracy. What is that Greenie smoking?

Also, only about 20 million native Americans were killed by disease.

People like that make the left look bad.

What's next, Pet Cemetary is a racist narrative because a few native Indians died by the truck load??

Indian burial grounds are meant to be toyed with because we're all a bunch of sissy liberal wankers.

Ball ox

[Israfil]

On 15/07/2023 at 6:30 PM, Leo Gura said:

Also, only about 20 million native Americans were killed by disease.

 

North americans*

If you take central and south american into account, you had 100 million + deaths. Most of them of disease. The rest through slavery/war/scarcity.