Drag to reposition cover

How Critical Theory radicalized universities, culture, media and politics.

bHero

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 19, 2012
38,580
51,117
0
Keller
barkingcarnival.fantake.com
The late Andrew Breitbart (d. 2012) was a stereotypical "troubled genius" visionary. He was one of the first in the business to market politics as entertainment, and he had no problem telling everyone who would listen what his intentions were.

He was a notorious provocateur, not only known for his heavy sardonic satire, but also building up the websites Huffington Post, Drudge Report and Breitbart, where they'd aggregate news and apply political spin for entertainment.

I've always had a peculiar fascination with Andrew. I admired his ability to be brazen and "walk towards the fire," as he liked to say. He'd see a protest and walk directly up to the people holding the signs and start asking them questions about their beliefs. Some really great video clips out there. I also was amazed at his insight into the American culture. He predicted "this."

"Celebrity is everything in this country. And if these guys don't learn how to play the media the way that Barack Obama played the media last election cycle and the way that Donald Trump is playing the election cycle, we're going to probably get a celebrity candidate." - 2011 interview with Bill O'Riley

One of the central themes that Andrew liked to talk about was particularly troublesome. Our educational system, he argues, has been hijacked by radicalism.

"You send your kids off to college. They love you. You walk away with a Cornell mom T-shirt. You are walking away going this is great, and come Thanksgiving, your kid tells you that you are an imperialist and a racist and a homophobe. That is not worth $120,000."

What he was referring to, in his usual manner, is inundation of social sciences from the Frankfurt School in the 1940's and beyond. He popularized the term "Cultural Maxism," which has since taken on conspiracy theory proportions, to describe the philosophies that came over with the academics fleeing the Nazis in the wake of WWII. From there, the politics of the day incrementally weaponized it (oppressor vs oppressed).

Here's a brief rundown of the net effect:

"He [Sal Alinsky] took all of this ethereal claptrap, this Noam Chomsky-like jargon that the average person couldn't understand,... it's all impossible to read, he was able to translate all this cultural marxist [sic] down to a series of rules and a warrior mindset, where the critical theory was like 'take on your enemy, take him directly on and destroy that person.' He [Sal Alinsky] applied critical theory down to the street war level..." - 2011 interview with Stanford's Hoover Institute, full interview here.

In his work, Andrew talks about how many in the media and political arena writ large, have been using these tactics, and in many cases, their origins unbeknownst to them. He argues that essentially all major social studies at the university level have incorporated the teachings of these progenitors (Horkheimer, Marcuse, Adorno, etc.).

And the culminating net result of teaching this sort of radicalism via Critical Theory, as we all get to experience it today, is our lovely new society of "oppression profiteering."

"Politics is downstream of culture." - Andrew Breitbart

I like to drop this in a thread every year or so just as a reminder to us all, myself included, about the current state of the situation we find ourselves in. While it's obviously multi-faceted and not as simple as a bunch of Marxist academic ideologues fleeing the war and taking up positions across US universities and teaching our kids how to be unhappy, their philosophies have played a major role in shaping the current landscape.

In short, it sucks.
 
Last edited:

timeontarget

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 27, 2018
6,777
10,048
0
The late Andrew Breitbart (d. 2012) was a stereotypical "troubled genius" visionary. He was one of the first in the business to market politics as entertainment, and he had no problem telling everyone who would listen what his intentions were.

He was a notorious provocateur, not only known for his heavy sardonic satire, but also building up the websites Huffington Post, Drudge Report and Breitbart, where they'd aggregate news and apply political spin for entertainment.

I've always had a peculiar fascination with Andrew. I admired his ability to be brazen and "walk towards the fire," as he like to say. He's see a protest and walk directly up to the people holding the signs and start asking them questions about their beliefs. Some really great video clips out there. I also was amazed at his insight into the American culture. He predicted "this."

"Celebrity is everything in this country. And if these guys don't learn how to play the media the way that Barack Obama played the media last election cycle and the way that Donald Trump is playing the election cycle, we're going to probably get a celebrity candidate." - 2011 interview with Bill O'Riley

One of the central themes that Andrew liked to talk about was particularly troublesome. Our educational system, he argues, has been hijacked by radicalism.

"You send your kids off to college. They love you. You walk away with a Cornell mom T-shirt. You are walking away going this is great, and come Thanksgiving, your kid tells you that you are an imperialist and a racist and a homophobe. That is not worth $120,000."

What he was referring to, in his usual manner, is inundation of social sciences from the Frankfurt School in the 1940's and beyond. He popularized the term "Cultural Maxism," which has since taken on conspiracy theory proportions, to describe the philosophies that came over with the academics fleeing the Nazis in the wake of WWII. From there, the politics of the day incrementally weaponized it (oppressor vs oppressed).

Here's a brief rundown of the net effect:

"He [Sal Alinsky] took all of this ethereal claptrap, this Noam Chomsky-like jargon that the average person couldn't understand,... it's all impossible to read, he was able to translate all this cultural marxist [sic] down to a series of rules and a warrior mindset, where the critical theory was like 'take on your enemy, take him directly on and destroy that person.' He [Sal Alinsky] applied critical theory down to the street war level..." - 2011 interview with Stanford's Hoover Institute, full interview here.

In his work, Andrew talks about how many in the media and political arena writ large, have been using these tactics, and in many cases, their origins unbeknownst to them. He argues that essentially all major social studies at the university level have incorporated the teachings of these progenitors (Horkheimer, Marcuse, Adorno, etc.).

And the culminating net result of teaching this sort of radicalism via Critical Theory, as we all get to experience it today, is our lovely new society of "oppression profiteering."

"Politics is downstream of culture." - Andrew Breitbart

I like to drop this in a thread every year or so just as a reminder to us all, myself included, about the current state of the situation we find ourselves in. While it's obviously multi-faceted and not as simple as a bunch of Marxist academic ideologues fleeing the war and taking up positions across US universities and teaching our kids how to be unhappy, their philosophies have played a major role in shaping the current landscape.

In short, it sucks.
Q
The late Andrew Breitbart (d. 2012) was a stereotypical "troubled genius" visionary. He was one of the first in the business to market politics as entertainment, and he had no problem telling everyone who would listen what his intentions were.

He was a notorious provocateur, not only known for his heavy sardonic satire, but also building up the websites Huffington Post, Drudge Report and Breitbart, where they'd aggregate news and apply political spin for entertainment.

I've always had a peculiar fascination with Andrew. I admired his ability to be brazen and "walk towards the fire," as he like to say. He's see a protest and walk directly up to the people holding the signs and start asking them questions about their beliefs. Some really great video clips out there. I also was amazed at his insight into the American culture. He predicted "this."

"Celebrity is everything in this country. And if these guys don't learn how to play the media the way that Barack Obama played the media last election cycle and the way that Donald Trump is playing the election cycle, we're going to probably get a celebrity candidate." - 2011 interview with Bill O'Riley

One of the central themes that Andrew liked to talk about was particularly troublesome. Our educational system, he argues, has been hijacked by radicalism.

"You send your kids off to college. They love you. You walk away with a Cornell mom T-shirt. You are walking away going this is great, and come Thanksgiving, your kid tells you that you are an imperialist and a racist and a homophobe. That is not worth $120,000."

What he was referring to, in his usual manner, is inundation of social sciences from the Frankfurt School in the 1940's and beyond. He popularized the term "Cultural Maxism," which has since taken on conspiracy theory proportions, to describe the philosophies that came over with the academics fleeing the Nazis in the wake of WWII. From there, the politics of the day incrementally weaponized it (oppressor vs oppressed).

Here's a brief rundown of the net effect:

"He [Sal Alinsky] took all of this ethereal claptrap, this Noam Chomsky-like jargon that the average person couldn't understand,... it's all impossible to read, he was able to translate all this cultural marxist [sic] down to a series of rules and a warrior mindset, where the critical theory was like 'take on your enemy, take him directly on and destroy that person.' He [Sal Alinsky] applied critical theory down to the street war level..." - 2011 interview with Stanford's Hoover Institute, full interview here.

In his work, Andrew talks about how many in the media and political arena writ large, have been using these tactics, and in many cases, their origins unbeknownst to them. He argues that essentially all major social studies at the university level have incorporated the teachings of these progenitors (Horkheimer, Marcuse, Adorno, etc.).

And the culminating net result of teaching this sort of radicalism via Critical Theory, as we all get to experience it today, is our lovely new society of "oppression profiteering."

"Politics is downstream of culture." - Andrew Breitbart

I like to drop this in a thread every year or so just as a reminder to us all, myself included, about the current state of the situation we find ourselves in. While it's obviously multi-faceted and not as simple as a bunch of Marxist academic ideologues fleeing the war and taking up positions across US universities and teaching our kids how to be unhappy, their philosophies have played a major role in shaping the current landscape.

In short, it sucks.
What we got here is failure . . . to have any perspective.

It is fairly understandable how people might study U.S. foreign policy in what is essentially a vacuum and come away with a paradigm formed around how horrible and overreaching the U.S. has been.

Guatemala (very wrong, but very nicely done), Chile, Vietnam, Iran, etc. Begin at a discrete point in time, immediately preceding U.S. intervention. Study that intervention, but ignore completely the conditions at the time or the reasons for U.S. policy makers' concerns.

Indeed, look at everything with a utopian view of how things should be, using as a base or that view how things should have been done in the U.S. with the benefit of hindsight.

I gotta get this T-shirt:

Screenshot_20190613-151631_Samsung Internet.jpg

Of course, it is a lot more than dark humor that people don't get. (Excluding the Ukrainians--they get it.)

If people don't know and understand the context of events, then any knowledge or lessons they glean are going to be limited. Should the U.S. have interfered in Iranian politics back in the 1950s and manipulated a change in prime ministers? In hindsight that particular action seems unnecessary and motivated by pecuniary interests rather than national and foreign policy interests. Additionally, it ultimately seems to have been counterproductive.

On the other hand, does that mean that it was wrong to support the Shah during the 40s, 50s, 60s, and at least initially in the 1970s? Well, for one thing, he was an ally in WW II. I also guess that answer depends on how you view the importance of not allowing the Soviet Union to control Iran and that region during that period (and you have to know a bit about the Soviet Union's behavior to its own citizens and subjugated peoples to answer that question intelligently) whether you think that it is acceptable for there to be slavery, whether you believe in equality for women, or even some semblance of it, whether you believe there is a right to religious freedom, etc. The Shah certainly had his share of issues, particularly in his later years, but if you consider the health, wealth, freedom, and prosperity of the Iranian people under his tenure versus what followed, well, there isn't any real comparison.

Women's rights are abysmal. Political dissent? Umm, pretty brave. Tough to know much, the elections being rigged and all. In comparison to what is there now, the Shah was a paradigm of virtue about allowing and considering opposition voices. Religious freedom basically isn't. They actively persecute the Bahai. Oh, you don't want to convert from Islam to Christianity, Zoroastrianism, or anything else. Afraid it is the death penalty for that one. Adultery sucks in Iran: 100 lashes if you are a muslim man doing it with a muslim woman, death if you are a nonmuslim man doing it with a muslim woman.

Wonder what all those who are quick to criticize U.S. foreign policy in Iran and the Middle East think-- is okay to execute homosexuals?

All this talk about human rights, yet I have a feeling that if we were to take action against Iran, there would be all sorts of bosom-beating and wailing about how evil we were to not leave that poor Iranian government alone. They just think differently. We need to accord them the same respect we would give our neighbors and assume that they are imbibed with the same moral virtues as we are.

Personally, I don't give a damn about what some moron calls a religion, when that purported religion objectively infringes on basic human rights. Politics, nationalism, religion, etc. -- the urge for money and power is strong and people so obsessed will use whatever works to get it. It also doesn't matter whether they really believe it or not or understand what they are doing.

Is that to say I know what the right way was to historically handle things with respect to Iran? No. I can certainly see some mistakes. I can say with a high degree of conviction that whatever actions or inactions were that allowed the current regime to come to power, abuse its citizens, and foster terrorism were wrong.

The older I get and the more I learn, the more difficult and nuanced most issues become. Easy and "right" answers are few and far between. Whether and when to intervene in a foreign country is a pretty difficult question. Let's begin with the presumption that it isn't always wrong to intervene and it isn't always right to wait until the last minute. Exhibit 1: Hitler.

But, the lessons learned by our prior mistakes -- well, they may not exist. Not removing Sadam during the Gulf War may not have created a weapon of mass destruction issue, but it did allow a genocide . . . .

Having studied modern European history, in particular the rise of fascism, I am particularly amused with the ANTIFA groups. It is almost like Monty Python is behind them--their methods, intolerance, and fanaticism so closely parallel what occurred during the rise of National Socialism in Germany. Not them though: They are really, really, really, really against that Fascism stuff and you better not say otherwise.

I guess that need to belong is still pretty powerful.

Any suggested readings about the Frankfurt School or this "cultural maxism?" I have observed this phenomenon in and following school, but I have never read about it. I won't have the patience to watch people talk about it.
 

bHero

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 19, 2012
38,580
51,117
0
Keller
barkingcarnival.fantake.com
Q

What we got here is failure . . . to have any perspective.

It is fairly understandable how people might study U.S. foreign policy in what is essentially a vacuum and come away with a paradigm formed around how horrible and overreaching the U.S. has been.

Guatemala (very wrong, but very nicely done), Chile, Vietnam, Iran, etc. Begin at a discrete point in time, immediately preceding U.S. intervention. Study that intervention, but ignore completely the conditions at the time or the reasons for U.S. policy makers' concerns.

Indeed, look at everything with a utopian view of how things should be, using as a base or that view how things should have been done in the U.S. with the benefit of hindsight.

I gotta get this T-shirt:

View attachment 42178

Of course, it is a lot more than dark humor that people don't get. (Excluding the Ukrainians--they get it.)

If people don't know and understand the context of events, then any knowledge or lessons they glean are going to be limited. Should the U.S. have interfered in Iranian politics back in the 1950s and manipulated a change in prime ministers? In hindsight that particular action seems unnecessary and motivated by pecuniary interests rather than national and foreign policy interests. Additionally, it ultimately seems to have been counterproductive.

On the other hand, does that mean that it was wrong to support the Shah during the 40s, 50s, 60s, and at least initially in the 1970s? Well, for one thing, he was an ally in WW II. I also guess that answer depends on how you view the importance of not allowing the Soviet Union to control Iran and that region during that period (and you have to know a bit about the Soviet Union's behavior to its own citizens and subjugated peoples to answer that question intelligently) whether you think that it is acceptable for there to be slavery, whether you believe in equality for women, or even some semblance of it, whether you believe there is a right to religious freedom, etc. The Shah certainly had his share of issues, particularly in his later years, but if you consider the health, wealth, freedom, and prosperity of the Iranian people under his tenure versus what followed, well, there isn't any real comparison.

Women's rights are abysmal. Political dissent? Umm, pretty brave. Tough to know much, the elections being rigged and all. In comparison to what is there now, the Shah was a paradigm of virtue about allowing and considering opposition voices. Religious freedom basically isn't. They actively persecute the Bahai. Oh, you don't want to convert from Islam to Christianity, Zoroastrianism, or anything else. Afraid it is the death penalty for that one. Adultery sucks in Iran: 100 lashes if you are a muslim man doing it with a muslim woman, death if you are a nonmuslim man doing it with a muslim woman.

Wonder what all those who are quick to criticize U.S. foreign policy in Iran and the Middle East think-- is okay to execute homosexuals?

All this talk about human rights, yet I have a feeling that if we were to take action against Iran, there would be all sorts of bosom-beating and wailing about how evil we were to not leave that poor Iranian government alone. They just think differently. We need to accord them the same respect we would give our neighbors and assume that they are imbibed with the same moral virtues as we are.

Personally, I don't give a damn about what some moron calls a religion, when that purported religion objectively infringes on basic human rights. Politics, nationalism, religion, etc. -- the urge for money and power is strong and people so obsessed will use whatever works to get it. It also doesn't matter whether they really believe it or not or understand what they are doing.

Is that to say I know what the right way was to historically handle things with respect to Iran? No. I can certainly see some mistakes. I can say with a high degree of conviction that whatever actions or inactions were that allowed the current regime to come to power, abuse its citizens, and foster terrorism were wrong.

The older I get and the more I learn, the more difficult and nuanced most issues become. Easy and "right" answers are few and far between. Whether and when to intervene in a foreign country is a pretty difficult question. Let's begin with the presumption that it isn't always wrong to intervene and it isn't always right to wait until the last minute. Exhibit 1: Hitler.

But, the lessons learned by our prior mistakes -- well, they may not exist. Not removing Sadam during the Gulf War may not have created a weapon of mass destruction issue, but it did allow a genocide . . . .

Having studied modern European history, in particular the rise of fascism, I am particularly amused with the ANTIFA groups. It is almost like Monty Python is behind them--their methods, intolerance, and fanaticism so closely parallel what occurred during the rise of National Socialism in Germany. Not them though: They are really, really, really, really against that Fascism stuff and you better not say otherwise.

I guess that need to belong is still pretty powerful.

Any suggested readings about the Frankfurt School or this "cultural maxism?" I have observed this phenomenon in and following school, but I have never read about it. I won't have the patience to watch people talk about it.
There are several, but, like Righteous Indignation, they all tend to be agenda driven. Not necessarily bad, but there's a lot of bones to spit out with the meat. Not sure I'd suggest any of them, as I haven't dove too far down the rabbit holes. I have an incessant distrust of political books and tend to find them all ideology driven vs any reasonably objective or historical analysis. If you find a good one, let me know!

If you want to read the original ideas they started that are screwing us up today...
On the East Coast genesis we have Columbia University. In the 1930's Critical Theory was published from there. In 1934 Horkenheimer agreed to move the Frankfurt School from Germany to Columbia University in Manhattan. 1937 Critical Theory gets published, attacking every pillar of democracy.

On the West Coast, Adorno co-published The Authoritarian Personality in 1949. He came over to Columbia w/Horkenheimer, and after planting seeds in NYC in the 30's they set up shop at UC Berkley. The joint publication ranked people's traits on an "F" scale (F for facism), and most notably attacked gender roles and began the march of sociology to today's mass gender confusion.

The Frankfurt School didn't stop in the US, clearly. There is also published work about their toxic effects on Britian and Europe. And wouldn't you know it, Adorno left the US right after he got The Authoritarian Personality published, finding himself in Europe before the end of 1950.

Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies
This books tries to catalog it somewhat objectively from the left's POV. Purchase link. I haven't read it, aside from the first few pages. Published in 1997.

His conclusion points in the same direction as the US experience, and the words of Andrew Breitbart. Nearly all cultural studies today originate with the ideology of the Frankfurt School. Gender Studies, Woman's Studies, African Studies, all products of Cultural Maxism (and fomenting dissent in the US).

One heady reader summarized it:

"Cultural theory is Leftist criticism of the culture we live in.Cultural theorists interpret the traditional and the normative as oppressive,as something that should be constantly analyzed opposed and challenged.Academics in this field counter the idea that a nation's culture is whole (homogenised) as they prefer it to be ever changing with lots of diversity.This is in line with the Marxist concept of 'repressive toleration',which is a tolerance for movements from the left, but intolerance for movements from the right...

The author of this textbook is a Left wing academic who has a very positive (naive) view of Cultural Marxism. It is obvious he feels the critical theory that came out of the Frankfurt school and it's subsequent application to our British culture (the Utopian spell it cast) was something valuable.He does not acknowledge it resulted in a deliberate subversion of the existing social order which people would probably have rejected if it had been made overt. The British people would have never knowingly adopted communism but under the banner of 'equality' they unwittingly did adopt it. They were able to twist reality, under the guise of broadening our horizons."
 
Last edited:

timeontarget

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 27, 2018
6,777
10,048
0
There are several, but, like Righteous Indignation, they all tend to be agenda driven. Not necessarily bad, but there's a lot of bones to spit out with the meat. Not sure I'd suggest any of them, as I haven't dove too far down the rabbit holes. I have an incessant distrust of political books and tend to find them all ideology driven vs any reasonably objective or historical analysis. If you find a good one, let me know!

If you want to read the original ideas they started that are screwing us up today...
On the East Coast genesis we have Columbia University. In the 1930's Critical Theory was published from there. In 1934 Horkenheimer agreed to move the Frankfurt School from Germany to Columbia University in Manhattan. 1937 Critical Theory gets published, attacking every pillar of democracy.

On the West Coast, Adorno co-published The Authoritarian Personality in 1949. He came over to Columbia w/Horkenheimer, and after planting seeds in NYC in the 30's they set up shop at UC Berkley. The joint publication ranked people's traits on an "F" scale (F for facism), and most notably attacked gender roles and began the march of sociology to today's mass gender confusion.

The Frankfurt School didn't stop in the US, clearly. There is also published work about their toxic effects on Britian and Europe. And wouldn't you know it, Adorno left the US right after he got The Authoritarian Personality published, finding himself in Europe before the end of 1950.

Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies
This books tries to catalog it somewhat objectively from the left's POV. Purchase link. I haven't read it, aside from the first few pages. Published in 1997.

His conclusion points in the same direction as the US experience, and the words of Andrew Breitbart. Nearly all cultural studies today originate with the ideology of the Frankfurt School. Gender Studies, Woman's Studies, African Studies, all products of Cultural Maxism (and fomenting dissent in the US).

One heady reader summarized it:

"Cultural theory is Leftist criticism of the culture we live in.Cultural theorists interpret the traditional and the normative as oppressive,as something that should be constantly analyzed opposed and challenged.Academics in this field counter the idea that a nation's culture is whole (homogenised) as they prefer it to be ever changing with lots of diversity.This is in line with the Marxist concept of 'repressive toleration',which is a tolerance for movements from the left, but intolerance for movements from the right...

The author of this textbook is a Left wing academic who has a very positive (naive) view of Cultural Marxism. It is obvious he feels the critical theory that came out of the Frankfurt school and it's subsequent application to our British culture (the Utopian spell it cast) was something valuable.He does not acknowledge it resulted in a deliberate subversion of the existing social order which people would probably have rejected if it had been made overt. The British people would have never knowingly adopted communism but under the banner of 'equality' they unwittingly did adopt it. They were able to twist reality, under the guise of broadening our horizons."
Thanks for those cites. I am definitely curious.

Let's see, we have had monarchies, dictatorships, religious, communist, socialist, capitalist, and democratic-republican governments. As best I can tell, pretty much all of them except for democratic-republican governments somewhere on the capitalist to moderate socialist scale have basically been autocratic, exploitive, and repressive with virtually no meaningful input from the populace. Not aware of any ostensible communist government having anything approaching guaranteed fundamental human rights or any meaningful representation. In fact, I find the most interesting thing from an academic perspective is how none of the purported communist countries have even made a meaningful attempt at meaningful representation and guaranteed fundamental rights, due process in particular.

The early communist example, Russia/USSR couldn't have been a better example of hypocritical behavior if they tried: A nearly complete dichotomy between the haves and the have nots, albeit different haves. Actually, three categories might be more accurate: the haves, the have nots, and the hosed.

I do wonder what is put into people's heads and how they manage to process things in a way that seems to routinely vilify this country. Shortly after Obama took office, and I forget the occasion, he engaged in this simpering apology and mea culpa to the world in general for the United State's bad behavior in the past. It was the epitome of mental masturbation blather with absolutely no perspective. And which country (ies) deserved such an apology from the United States?? Our history of behavior to our citizens and foreign countries is far from perfect, but not sure I can think of anyone with much in the way of moral high ground over the United States. It was a nearly perfect example of the kind of puerile pap I frequently heard from people in academia who had learned a limited amount and extrapolated that into a world view that didn't remotely account for hugely important matters, e.g., literally tens of millions of Soviet people killed by the government. I hope I get to slap Obama before I die for that ridiculous garbage.

It is, indeed, most unfortunate that the U.S. government responded to any type of leftist-leaning government, even those that were or may have been duly elected, in a knee jerk manner (or one driven by well-connected individuals with pecuniary interests in maintaining the status quo). It is also most unfortunate that they didn't adequately analyze the underlying situation to evaluate the potential for the development of governments that might have been allies in terms of agreement on issues like election and fundamental human rights. Nationalization if certain industries and resources and land reform were in some cases quite reasonable responses to a situation. The overriding interests for the U.S. should have been representation and human rights, something that didn't appear to be the case in a couple of our more intrusive foreign policy forays.

Although the U.S. deserves harsh criticism for some of those actions, vilifying U.S. behavior as a whole based on a limited number of those type events is akin to heaping the majority of the blame for the Nazi atrocities in WW II on Rudolph Hess: Consider the rest of the universe first.
 

timeontarget

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 27, 2018
6,777
10,048
0
There are several, but, like Righteous Indignation, they all tend to be agenda driven. Not necessarily bad, but there's a lot of bones to spit out with the meat. Not sure I'd suggest any of them, as I haven't dove too far down the rabbit holes. I have an incessant distrust of political books and tend to find them all ideology driven vs any reasonably objective or historical analysis. If you find a good one, let me know!

If you want to read the original ideas they started that are screwing us up today...
On the East Coast genesis we have Columbia University. In the 1930's Critical Theory was published from there. In 1934 Horkenheimer agreed to move the Frankfurt School from Germany to Columbia University in Manhattan. 1937 Critical Theory gets published, attacking every pillar of democracy.

On the West Coast, Adorno co-published The Authoritarian Personality in 1949. He came over to Columbia w/Horkenheimer, and after planting seeds in NYC in the 30's they set up shop at UC Berkley. The joint publication ranked people's traits on an "F" scale (F for facism), and most notably attacked gender roles and began the march of sociology to today's mass gender confusion.

The Frankfurt School didn't stop in the US, clearly. There is also published work about their toxic effects on Britian and Europe. And wouldn't you know it, Adorno left the US right after he got The Authoritarian Personality published, finding himself in Europe before the end of 1950.

Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies
This books tries to catalog it somewhat objectively from the left's POV. Purchase link. I haven't read it, aside from the first few pages. Published in 1997.

His conclusion points in the same direction as the US experience, and the words of Andrew Breitbart. Nearly all cultural studies today originate with the ideology of the Frankfurt School. Gender Studies, Woman's Studies, African Studies, all products of Cultural Maxism (and fomenting dissent in the US).

One heady reader summarized it:

"Cultural theory is Leftist criticism of the culture we live in.Cultural theorists interpret the traditional and the normative as oppressive,as something that should be constantly analyzed opposed and challenged.Academics in this field counter the idea that a nation's culture is whole (homogenised) as they prefer it to be ever changing with lots of diversity.This is in line with the Marxist concept of 'repressive toleration',which is a tolerance for movements from the left, but intolerance for movements from the right...

The author of this textbook is a Left wing academic who has a very positive (naive) view of Cultural Marxism. It is obvious he feels the critical theory that came out of the Frankfurt school and it's subsequent application to our British culture (the Utopian spell it cast) was something valuable.He does not acknowledge it resulted in a deliberate subversion of the existing social order which people would probably have rejected if it had been made overt. The British people would have never knowingly adopted communism but under the banner of 'equality' they unwittingly did adopt it. They were able to twist reality, under the guise of broadening our horizons."
Seeing the picture of Lenin you included at the top reminds me of a T-shirt I used to have-- bright red with just a likeness of his head. No words or anything, but it was still unmistakably Lenin.

I used to wear it to my club, which was in a tall building in downtown Austin. It was both a dining and workout club: Lots of the big businessmen, politicians, lawyers, etc. used the club. Anyway, I had much fun wearing the shirt to work out there. It drew plenty of looks, that is for sure.

I don't know if anyone ever figured out I was just having fun. I did see an occasional grin, but mostly perplexed and uneasy looks. Funny thing: on days when I wore the shirt, almost no one talked to me . . . .

I eventually gave it to a guy who really greatly admired it and wanted to wear it to work. He was in a very small firm at that time, but before that he was one of the guys that pioneered computer trading when he was with Morgan Stanley back in the mid-1980s. Pretty much a capitalist . . . .
 
  • Like
Reactions: bHero

Duke Silver

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
49,831
44,122
0
Don't have time to read this all butI have a fun anecdote about critical theory. My buddy took a class with Derek Bell at NYU law. He would just make up scenarios on papers, mid-terms, and finals to get As. There was no legal analysis, just stories.
 

Eric Nahlin

Recruiting Editor
Staff member
Dec 19, 2011
57,578
281,870
0
Thoreau'd on Walden
Like Duke I have an aside.

One sister to my other politically, historically astute sister:

Sis1: If it’s a girl we might name her Lennon (my dad’s name is close to that).

Sis2: Lenin?

Sis1: Yeah, what do you think?

Sis2: Do you know who Lenin was?

Sis1: Of course.

Sis2: In history?

Sis1: John.

Sis2: Ooooooh.

(Thankfully it was a boy)
 

timeontarget

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 27, 2018
6,777
10,048
0
Like Duke I have an aside.

One sister to my other politically, historically astute sister:

Sis1: If it’s a girl we might name her Lennon (my dad’s name is close to that).

Sis2: Lenin?

Sis1: Yeah, what do you think?

Sis2: Do you know who Lenin was?

Sis1: Of course.

Sis2: In history?

Sis1: John.

Sis2: Ooooooh.

(Thankfully it was a boy)
And thankfully she wasn't a Ringo fan . . . . Heard somewhere that after the Beatles there were suddenly 500,000 young kids named Ringo floating around.

My wife wanted to name our daughter Jordan, which I was fine with. I had a lot of fun telling people that my wife and I were big NBA fans and that we were torn between Jordan, which she wanted, and Manute, which I wanted, so we flipped a coin and it wound up Jordan.
 

calvin farquhar

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 19, 2017
7,086
12,808
0
And thankfully she wasn't a Ringo fan . . . . Heard somewhere that after the Beatles there were suddenly 500,000 young kids named Ringo floating around.

My wife wanted to name our daughter Jordan, which I was fine with. I had a lot of fun telling people that my wife and I were big NBA fans and that we were torn between Jordan, which she wanted, and Manute, which I wanted, so we flipped a coin and it wound up Jordan.
I thought you were talking, "Johnny". :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: bHero and PFD

theelusiveshadow

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Nov 2, 2016
2,130
3,367
0
I've looked into the influence of critical theory on certain academic disciplines and now the wider culture. It is both amusing and sad how many SJW's adopt its tactics and beliefs without having any clue where they come from. It's also entertaining how it has turned some academic subjects into jokes or has created really stupid ones. Two professors, a philosopher and a scientist (I believe), decided to prank the critical theory/SJW section of academia and write fake papers... papers that either got published or were on their way to getting published. They wrote nonsense and it passed as real academic work in these fields.

When you understand critical theory and deconstructionalism, you start to see how people justify in their minds gross double standards, the jettisoning of logic (heck, that "logic" stuff might just be another oppressive "system" devised by the white people in power!), and rage-fests. I had someone I know tell me, after the Covington High School students were later shown to not have done anything wrong, that it was no big deal that people sent death threats to them, tried to get them expelled from school, harassed them, and tried to get colleges to not accept them: They're rich white boys. We should turn our attention to kids who are less privileged. I was aghast and told him that death threats and false accusations of racism should be condemned and considered wrong against anyone, regardless of race and economic status. That's justice. It was like this novel concept to him.
 

bHero

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 19, 2012
38,580
51,117
0
Keller
barkingcarnival.fantake.com
I've looked into the influence of critical theory on certain academic disciplines and now the wider culture. It is both amusing and sad how many SJW's adopt its tactics and beliefs without having any clue where they come from. It's also entertaining how it has turned some academic subjects into jokes or has created really stupid ones. Two professors, a philosopher and a scientist (I believe), decided to prank the critical theory/SJW section of academia and write fake papers... papers that either got published or were on their way to getting published. They wrote nonsense and it passed as real academic work in these fields.

When you understand critical theory and deconstructionalism, you start to see how people justify in their minds gross double standards, the jettisoning of logic (heck, that "logic" stuff might just be another oppressive "system" devised by the white people in power!), and rage-fests. I had someone I know tell me, after the Covington High School students were later shown to not have done anything wrong, that it was no big deal that people sent death threats to them, tried to get them expelled from school, harassed them, and tried to get colleges to not accept them: They're rich white boys. We should turn our attention to kids who are less privileged. I was aghast and told him that death threats and false accusations of racism should be condemned and considered wrong against anyone, regardless of race and economic status. That's justice. It was like this novel concept to him.
It's become the purest form of moral relativism, with the scales literally changing by the news cycle.
 

calvin farquhar

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 19, 2017
7,086
12,808
0
It's become the purest form of moral relativism, with the scales literally changing by the news cycle.
Kyle Kashuv just got punted from Harvard because they didn't like something he wrote in a tweet years ago. Harvard is stupid. But so is Yale.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bHero

calvin farquhar

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 19, 2017
7,086
12,808
0
He was a tool. Used the SJW mob to bully his way in. Live by the mob, die by the mob.

EDIT: I was thinking of the wrong kid. But the point remains.

Yeah, you're thinking of David Hogg. Kashuv was the one who would respond to Hogg's rants.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bHero

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
61,370
12,025
0
Kyle Kashuv just got punted from Harvard because they didn't like something he wrote in a tweet years ago. Harvard is stupid. But so is Yale.
He wrote "Kill all the Jews. Kill the ****ing Jews"

"Pasty jew<nigger"

Or another post where he wrote "nigger" like 50 times


There is more. And "years ago" actually means about two years ago. You want this guy on YOUR campus?
 

calvin farquhar

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 19, 2017
7,086
12,808
0
He wrote "Kill all the Jews. Kill the ****ing Jews"

"Pasty jew<nigger"

Or another post where he wrote "nigger" like 50 times


There is more. And "years ago" actually means about two years ago. You want this guy on YOUR campus?
I didn't defend him, but, I can assure you there are plenty of kill whitey types on those campuses. If they're welcomed with open arms, shouldn't everyone. No.

Please spare me your response, I have a buddy whose son is currently attending one of the two schools I mentioned. He has another that attends a different Ivy. Both are conservatives from Texas. The stories they can tell you about what goes on there make a 16 year olds tweets look tame.
 

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
61,370
12,025
0
I didn't defend him, but, I can assure you there are plenty of kill whitey types on those campuses. If they're welcomed with open arms, shouldn't everyone. No.

Please spare me your response, I have a buddy whose son is currently attending one of the two schools I mentioned. He has another that attends a different Ivy. Both are conservatives from Texas. The stories they can tell you about what goes on there make a 16 year olds tweets look tame.
Bull****. I don't buy that. For sure not in today's environment, with people paranoid about mass shootings.

If there are guys out there with a bunch of tweets that say "kill all the ****ing white people" on some Ivy League campus, and they let them on there anyway, prove it.
 

Eric Nahlin

Recruiting Editor
Staff member
Dec 19, 2011
57,578
281,870
0
Thoreau'd on Walden
I've looked into the influence of critical theory on certain academic disciplines and now the wider culture. It is both amusing and sad how many SJW's adopt its tactics and beliefs without having any clue where they come from. It's also entertaining how it has turned some academic subjects into jokes or has created really stupid ones. Two professors, a philosopher and a scientist (I believe), decided to prank the critical theory/SJW section of academia and write fake papers... papers that either got published or were on their way to getting published. They wrote nonsense and it passed as real academic work in these fields.

When you understand critical theory and deconstructionalism, you start to see how people justify in their minds gross double standards, the jettisoning of logic (heck, that "logic" stuff might just be another oppressive "system" devised by the white people in power!), and rage-fests. I had someone I know tell me, after the Covington High School students were later shown to not have done anything wrong, that it was no big deal that people sent death threats to them, tried to get them expelled from school, harassed them, and tried to get colleges to not accept them: They're rich white boys. We should turn our attention to kids who are less privileged. I was aghast and told him that death threats and false accusations of racism should be condemned and considered wrong against anyone, regardless of race and economic status. That's justice. It was like this novel concept to him.
I posted this a while back.

It’s hilarious: https://quillette.com/2018/10/01/the-grievance-studies-scandal-five-academics-respond/

Keep in mind we’re supposed to take the climate science version of these people serious, along with the fake journalists and activist judges.
 

mcb0703!

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 6, 2015
13,621
22,790
0
Bull****. I don't buy that. For sure not in today's environment, with people paranoid about mass shootings.

If there are guys out there with a bunch of tweets that say "kill all the ****ing white people" on some Ivy League campus, and they let them on there anyway, prove it.
Nobody has to prove **** to you, dickbrain. Stop acting so ****ing superior to everyone on this board you ****ing mental midget

& go look at your own racism you’ve repeatedly posted on this board. I swear to God, you’re gonna be the first human to die from stupidity as a disease
 

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
61,370
12,025
0
Nobody has to prove **** to you, dickbrain. Stop acting so ****ing superior to everyone on this board you ****ing mental midget

& go look at your own racism you’ve repeatedly posted on this board. I swear to God, you’re gonna be the first human to die from stupidity as a disease
Thank you for your service. Have a great day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: calvin farquhar

jamesrh

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
3,546
2,646
0
He wrote "Kill all the Jews. Kill the ****ing Jews"

"Pasty jew<nigger"

Or another post where he wrote "nigger" like 50 times


There is more. And "years ago" actually means about two years ago. You want this guy on YOUR campus?
The real issue is that the Dean provide him an opportunity to respond with the implication that there would be an opportunity to avoid a rescinding of the offer. Kyle did everything right with respect to his response and they still rescinded, as is their right, however, it was disingenuous to offer the opportunity to respond when it is clear that they always intended to yank his offer.
 

calvin farquhar

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 19, 2017
7,086
12,808
0
The real issue is that the Dean provide him an opportunity to respond with the implication that there would be an opportunity to avoid a rescinding of the offer. Kyle did everything right with respect to his response and they still rescinded, as is their right, however, it was disingenuous to offer the opportunity to respond when it is clear that they always intended to yank his offer.

It's not like Harvard isn't racist or discriminate against, I don't know, let's say, Asians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TexasPalladin

jamesrh

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
3,546
2,646
0
It's not like Harvard isn't racist or discriminate against, I don't know, let's say, Asians.
You are right. Kyle and the people writing in public support of him are also right at a societal level that we are throwing people under the bus for past sins unearthed rather than current behavior. However, Harvard has the right to set admission standards and they dump 95% of their applicants for all sorts of reasons.
 

RIVALWEAR

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 12, 2012
4,064
3,203
0
can't say any of this shocks me. Far left (and far religious right people) seem to have such a strong sense of moral righteousness that they can't even see how illogical their stances have become.

This past weekend, one of my friends from high school posted a story about how the USNWT gets paid $0.38 on the dollar compared to the men, and that since they are more decorated, the ONLY conceivable reason for this discrepancy in pay is that USSF is a bunch of sexist dudes.

When I mentioned that revenue for each sport might be a reason for disparate pay, I was shouted down and called all kinds of names. when I asked for data, they still shouted at me, all while just making conclusory statements that the women have better ratings -- yet they never could cite anything. When I mentioned that each group had separate CBAs which cover pay and other health benefits, I was more or less told to go **** myself...and that I was a morally corrupt and evil person. Apparently making legal arguments regarding a pending legal case was considered offensive.

When someone finally did produce some revenue data -- I pointed out that for 7 of the last 10 years, the men brought in more money than the women, and for the last three years, it was roughly even. Apparently that was considered mansplaining.

The logic used by SJW really does worry me. Their entire arguments are almost always emotional based. In this case, they simplified the situation to men make more playing the same sport as the women -- ergo, sexism. No matter what I pointed out, they refused to budge -- citing "do you want to be on the wrong side of history?"

What was most funny, is that when one of them specifically asked me to comment on something regarding a story that they thought showed the women had higher revenues than the men, when I pointed out that (1) it only showed ticket revenue and not TV/endorsement revenue and (2) even the ticket revenue showed the men completely out earned the women for 7 out of 10 years (the women were even for last three years), they then told me that I should just stay out of the discussion b/c I wasn't for women and progressing human rights. Oh -- and there was no sense in arguing with me b/c I clearly wouldn't change my mind (this despite the fact that I continually said if someone can show me the money is roughly equal I'll be on board).
 
Last edited:

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
61,370
12,025
0
can't say any of this shocks me. Far left (and far religious right people) seem to have such a strong sense of moral righteousness that they can't even see how illogical their stances have become.

This past weekend, one of my friends from high school posted a story about how the USNWT gets paid $0.38 on the dollar compared to the men, and that since they are more decorated, the ONLY conceivable reason for this discrepancy in pay is that USSF is a bunch of sexist dudes.

When I mentioned that revenue for each sport might be a reason for disparate pay, I was shouted down and called all kinds of names. when I asked for data, they still shouted at me, all while just making conclusory statements that the women have better ratings -- yet they never could cite anything. When I mentioned that each group had separate CBAs which cover pay and other health benefits, I was more or less told to go **** myself...and that I was a morally corrupt and evil person. Apparently making legal arguments regarding a pending legal case was considered offensive.

When someone finally did produce some revenue data -- I pointed out that for 7 of the last 10 years, the men made more money than the women, and for the last three years, it was roughly even. Apparently that was considered mansplaining.

The logic used by SJW really does worry me. Their entire arguments are almost always emotional based. In this case, they simplified the situation to men make more playing the same sport as the women -- ergo, sexism. No matter what I pointed out, they refused to budge -- citing "do you want to be on the wrong side of history?"

What was most funny, is that when one of them specifically asked me to comment on something regarding a story that they thought showed the women had higher revenues than the men, when I pointed out that (1) it only showed ticket revenue and not TV/endorsement revenue and (2) even the ticket revenue showed the men completely out earned the women for 7 out of 10 years (the women were even for last three years), they then told me that I should just stay out of the discussion b/c I wasn't for women and progressing human rights. Oh -- and there was no sense in arguing with me b/c I clearly wouldn't change my mind (this despite the fact that I continually said if someone can show me the money is roughly equal I'll be on board).
I agree with your take on the USWNT...but that has nothing to do with this.

Dude posted a bunch of crazy-ass stuff, including a whole lot of things about killing, and including killing Jews. Lots of racial garbage too. It wasn't something someone dug up from the 1980s. It was two years ago. "I was young and stupid"...at 16, but not at 18.

It's foolish to tie a decision to bag it with a guy with this kind of history to some sort of SJW activity.
 

calvin farquhar

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 19, 2017
7,086
12,808
0
can't say any of this shocks me. Far left (and far religious right people) seem to have such a strong sense of moral righteousness that they can't even see how illogical their stances have become.

This past weekend, one of my friends from high school posted a story about how the USNWT gets paid $0.38 on the dollar compared to the men, and that since they are more decorated, the ONLY conceivable reason for this discrepancy in pay is that USSF is a bunch of sexist dudes.

When I mentioned that revenue for each sport might be a reason for disparate pay, I was shouted down and called all kinds of names. when I asked for data, they still shouted at me, all while just making conclusory statements that the women have better ratings -- yet they never could cite anything. When I mentioned that each group had separate CBAs which cover pay and other health benefits, I was more or less told to go **** myself...and that I was a morally corrupt and evil person. Apparently making legal arguments regarding a pending legal case was considered offensive.

When someone finally did produce some revenue data -- I pointed out that for 7 of the last 10 years, the men made more money than the women, and for the last three years, it was roughly even. Apparently that was considered mansplaining.

The logic used by SJW really does worry me. Their entire arguments are almost always emotional based. In this case, they simplified the situation to men make more playing the same sport as the women -- ergo, sexism. No matter what I pointed out, they refused to budge -- citing "do you want to be on the wrong side of history?"

What was most funny, is that when one of them specifically asked me to comment on something regarding a story that they thought showed the women had higher revenues than the men, when I pointed out that (1) it only showed ticket revenue and not TV/endorsement revenue and (2) even the ticket revenue showed the men completely out earned the women for 7 out of 10 years (the women were even for last three years), they then told me that I should just stay out of the discussion b/c I wasn't for women and progressing human rights. Oh -- and there was no sense in arguing with me b/c I clearly wouldn't change my mind (this despite the fact that I continually said if someone can show me the money is roughly equal I'll be on board).

Their whining about it after the last WWC is one of the reasons I stopped watching them play. If you're selling Beta and the other guy is selling VHS stop bitching that the other guy earns more than you or you should be paid the same. It's like the Gender Studies graduate pissing about being unable to find a job that pays and bitching that the Cybersecurity grad just got a six figure payday. Not fair. Not fair. This is also why the AOCs of the world are popular.

There have been some complaints recently comparing WNBA to NBA pay. That's even more stupid.

It's a numbers game and the men have it on their side, and frankly, probably always will. The market on the women's side isn't there.

Here's an article from 2015 about it.


In summary:

I first wrote about the issue in 2015 — the last time the Women’s World Cup took place. The main reason women soccer players aren’t paid as much as men is due to the fact that there is simply less interest from viewers. The lower interest results in less money brought in from advertisers and revenue to the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA).

When women’s soccer came to Fox Sports, it averaged about 63,000 viewers, while the men’s team regularly brings in 240,000 viewers per game at ESPN. This changes when the women’s team is in the World Cup. Views at that time rival that of the men’s team — but just for that short period. Chris Chase wrote at USA Today in 2015 that this is more akin to national pride than any love of women’s soccer. For comparison, he provided the viewership of the Olympics, which also occur every four years.

“Does that mean swimming, track, figure skating, hockey and bobsled were growing in the United States? Of course not. It means that we, as a country, like to wrap ourselves in the flag while watching sporting events. It has been this way and it will continue to be this way,” Chase wrote.

The lower viewership leads to lower revenue. The Washington Post reported in 2015 (while trying to blame sexism) that women’s soccer only brought in $17 million in ad sponsorship for Fox Sports, while the men’s final in 2014 brought ESPN $529 million in ad revenue. Further, the men’s World Cup generated $4.5 billion in direct revenue to FIFA.

And if we really want to talk about equality, the women’s team gets a higher percentage of revenue than the men’s team, yet they neglect to include this fact when complaining about how little they got in bonuses. CBS reported four years ago that the men’s team received 9% of the revenue generated by the 2010 World Cup — which amounted to $348 million. The women’s team received 13% of the 2015 World Cup revenue, but because the women’s team brought in less revenue, they only received $10 million.

Women’s soccer earns less money, therefore they receive less money. This isn’t a difficult concept to grasp.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RIVALWEAR and bHero

bHero

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 19, 2012
38,580
51,117
0
Keller
barkingcarnival.fantake.com
I agree with your take on the USWNT...but that has nothing to do with this.

Dude posted a bunch of crazy-ass stuff, including a whole lot of things about killing, and including killing Jews. Lots of racial garbage too. It wasn't something someone dug up from the 1980s. It was two years ago. "I was young and stupid"...at 16, but not at 18.

It's foolish to tie a decision to bag it with a guy with this kind of history to some sort of SJW activity.
He's responding to the OP, not the derail.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RIVALWEAR and JG

bHero

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 19, 2012
38,580
51,117
0
Keller
barkingcarnival.fantake.com
Their whining about it after the last WWC is one of the reasons I stopped watching them play. If you're selling Beta and the other guy is selling VHS stop bitching that the other guy earns more than you or you should be paid the same. It's like the Gender Studies graduate pissing about being unable to find a job that pays and bitching that the Cybersecurity grad just got a six figure payday. Not fair. Not fair. This is also why the AOCs of the world are popular.

There have been some complaints recently comparing WNBA to NBA pay. That's even more stupid.

It's a numbers game and the men have it on their side, and frankly, probably always will. The market on the women's side isn't there.

Here's an article from 2015 about it.


In summary:

I first wrote about the issue in 2015 — the last time the Women’s World Cup took place. The main reason women soccer players aren’t paid as much as men is due to the fact that there is simply less interest from viewers. The lower interest results in less money brought in from advertisers and revenue to the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA).

When women’s soccer came to Fox Sports, it averaged about 63,000 viewers, while the men’s team regularly brings in 240,000 viewers per game at ESPN. This changes when the women’s team is in the World Cup. Views at that time rival that of the men’s team — but just for that short period. Chris Chase wrote at USA Today in 2015 that this is more akin to national pride than any love of women’s soccer. For comparison, he provided the viewership of the Olympics, which also occur every four years.

“Does that mean swimming, track, figure skating, hockey and bobsled were growing in the United States? Of course not. It means that we, as a country, like to wrap ourselves in the flag while watching sporting events. It has been this way and it will continue to be this way,” Chase wrote.

The lower viewership leads to lower revenue. The Washington Post reported in 2015 (while trying to blame sexism) that women’s soccer only brought in $17 million in ad sponsorship for Fox Sports, while the men’s final in 2014 brought ESPN $529 million in ad revenue. Further, the men’s World Cup generated $4.5 billion in direct revenue to FIFA.

And if we really want to talk about equality, the women’s team gets a higher percentage of revenue than the men’s team, yet they neglect to include this fact when complaining about how little they got in bonuses. CBS reported four years ago that the men’s team received 9% of the revenue generated by the 2010 World Cup — which amounted to $348 million. The women’s team received 13% of the 2015 World Cup revenue, but because the women’s team brought in less revenue, they only received $10 million.

Women’s soccer earns less money, therefore they receive less money. This isn’t a difficult concept to grasp.
The fact that this has to be explained is troublesome. And the fact that the explanation was rejected show you just how deep this ideology has been driven into people's minds.
 

RIVALWEAR

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 12, 2012
4,064
3,203
0
I agree with your take on the USWNT...but that has nothing to do with this.

Dude posted a bunch of crazy-ass stuff, including a whole lot of things about killing, and including killing Jews. Lots of racial garbage too. It wasn't something someone dug up from the 1980s. It was two years ago. "I was young and stupid"...at 16, but not at 18.

It's foolish to tie a decision to bag it with a guy with this kind of history to some sort of SJW activity.
I'm not talking about the douchebag that got rejected by Harvard.
 

RIVALWEAR

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 12, 2012
4,064
3,203
0
The fact that this has to be explained is troublesome. And the fact that the explanation was rejected show you just how deep this ideology has been driven into people's minds.
what's really scary is that Facebook and Twitter has become nothing more than a leftist echo chamber. For example, my legal and economic rebuttals got ZERO "likes" -- while anyone who responded with "emotional feelings" and/or called me a sexist man-pig garnered lots. The figurative circle-jerk that went on in that thread was crazy.

Their responses are so damn predictable. You disagree with them? You get called names. If you respond back...you're mansplaining. If you continue, they get angry that you're ruining their "open-minded" discussion. After that -- they decided I should be banned from their discussion since I wasn't going to change my mind and I wasn't woke enough to be enlightened by their moral superiority.

I don't think I have to say what happened when I debated the Brett Kavanaugh issue with these same people. God forbid I'm skeptical of someone coming forward 40 years after an event with zero corroborating evidence right before someone is about to get a SCOTUS position.

Bottom line -- people on the right are afraid to speak up.

I actually would've thought the left would've learned from their mistakes of blowing of the right back in 2016 -- but apparently that hasn't happened.
 
Last edited:

Eric Nahlin

Recruiting Editor
Staff member
Dec 19, 2011
57,578
281,870
0
Thoreau'd on Walden
I try to provide as much context as possible with the silly topic I cover and it’s dismaying to see context being intentionally withheld on important topics.

Most of our issues are driven by shoddy journalism born of shoddy higher education.
 

bHero

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 19, 2012
38,580
51,117
0
Keller
barkingcarnival.fantake.com
what's really scary is that Facebook and Twitter has become nothing more than a leftist echo chamber. For example, my legal and economic rebuttals got ZERO "likes" -- while anyone who responded with "emotional feelings" and/or called me a sexist man-pig garnered lots. The figurative circle-jerk that went on in that thread was crazy.

Their responses are so damn predictable. You disagree with them? You get called names. If you respond back...you're mansplaining. If you continue, they get angry that you're ruining their "open-minded" discussion. After that -- they decided I should be banned from their discussion since I wasn't going to change my mind and I wasn't woke enough to be enlightened by their moral superiority.

I don't think I have to say what happened when I debated the Brett Kavanaugh issue with these same people. God forbid I'm skeptical of someone coming forward 40 years after an event with zero corroborating evidence right before someone is about to get a SCOTUS position.

Bottom line -- people on the right are afraid to speak up.

I actually would've thought the left would've learned from their mistakes of blowing of the right back in 2016 -- but apparently that hasn't happened.
My problem is that I have a hard time caring or taking them seriously. It’s like that guy on the S&P thread on the premium board. Nice guy I’m sure, but he’s misunderstanding the issue so much I just don’t care to expend the energy.

Same with the many of the radicals. I don’t care to engage them one on one because it seems like a slog to get through to any of them.
 

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
61,370
12,025
0
what's really scary is that Facebook and Twitter has become nothing more than a leftist echo chamber. For example, my legal and economic rebuttals got ZERO "likes" -- while anyone who responded with "emotional feelings" and/or called me a sexist man-pig garnered lots. The figurative circle-jerk that went on in that thread was crazy.

Their responses are so damn predictable. You disagree with them? You get called names. If you respond back...you're mansplaining. If you continue, they get angry that you're ruining their "open-minded" discussion. After that -- they decided I should be banned from their discussion since I wasn't going to change my mind and I wasn't woke enough to be enlightened by their moral superiority.

I don't think I have to say what happened when I debated the Brett Kavanaugh issue with these same people. God forbid I'm skeptical of someone coming forward 40 years after an event with zero corroborating evidence right before someone is about to get a SCOTUS position.

Bottom line -- people on the right are afraid to speak up.

I actually would've thought the left would've learned from their mistakes of blowing of the right back in 2016 -- but apparently that hasn't happened.
You just described exactly what happens when a bunch of folks on the right attack a lib. And happens all the damn time.

The idea that only libs attack those who disagree with them on social media is LAUGHABLE.

We are all entrenched on our teams, and the other side is the enemy. It’s a trap we have got to break out of.
 

bHero

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 19, 2012
38,580
51,117
0
Keller
barkingcarnival.fantake.com
You just described exactly what happens when a bunch of folks on the right attack a lib. And happens all the damn time.

The idea that only libs attack those who disagree with them on social media is LAUGHABLE.

We are all entrenched on our teams, and the other side is the enemy. It’s a trap we have got to break out of.
So you agree with the SJW mantra?