Charlie Kirk calls France socialist.
MrDane claims "neoliberalism" is a term invented in 2016.
They are just two examples.
Is there *anyone* on the Left with a following that makes equally dumb, easily disprovable claims?
Conversation
Replying to
Some.
Obviously, given the constant arguments between various leftists, there's many misunderstandings of theory to point to.
But nothing on the scale of those examples, that I've seen.
It'd be like a leftist calling Marx a capitalist.
1
1
Replying to
Leftist distortions are of different orders than those committed on the right.
It's a centrist fantasy that the distortions are *similar*, but it's a universal partisan fantasy that there aren't gross distortions on all sides.
1
2
Replying to
It makes sense..
To be a leftist in a neoliberal hegemony, you have to have either seek out and learn theory, or learn from people who learned theory.
To be a liberal or conservative, one merely needs to exist in your community and voice your opinion.
1
Replying to
M-hm. But death-by-theory isn't constrained to the left. You also see it with libertarians.
There's the same expectation that you have some perverse obligation to read X thinker before you can have an opinion.
Even if there is no reason at all to rate said thinker.
2
Abstraction of a conversation I've had a few times too many in my life:
"This theorist, who only coincidentally happens to inspire/align with *my views*, is required reading."
"What is your proof that they're credible?"
"What is your proof that they AREN'T CREDIBLE?"
But yeah, the alt-right and neocons are more po-mo.
There are a few scattered facts, a lot of definitely-not-facts, and a whole bunch of narrative reconstruction that relies on a smattering of shibboleths and in-group credibility.
It's not even wrong.
1
2
"Soy boys", "NPCs" et al. are essentially fanfic. It has all the credibility of someone's headcanon of a fantasy setting.
But then, credible influence is not the goal - memetic appropriation and Overton-shifting is, as well as the ever-present intellectual inferiority complex.
1
1
2
Show replies
Replying to
Any Rand comes to mind. Even Marx tbf.
At least the former doesn't claim to be a science. With the latter, I'm always confused by why Marxists don't focus on contemporary thinkers.
I mean, if it's a science, and evolves, why retain focus on 150 yo ideas when they've evolved?
1
Replying to
Because, unironically, it is actually a religion.
Back in school, I once sent a Marxist into a hissy fit by responding to "religion is the opium of the people" with "isn't argument by received aphorisms a mark of religious fundamentalism?"
1
Show replies