Page 3 of 5 [ 78 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

01 Dec 2007, 6:10 pm

codarac wrote:
I’ll admit right away that reading some of your posts and learning that you are a college professor lends support to a lot of things I’ve read about modern social science, and those things I’ve read make me grateful I didn’t studied social science at college myself. Sorry to sound harsh. But I doubt I am going to influence your thinking with what I’m about to say anyway, whereas you are in a position to influence the thinking of a large number of people.


Your views are familiar. They sound like those of many of my Midwestern neighbors. I am used to people disagreeing with me. I do not agree with most of what you wrote, but I do not find it to be "harsh."

Quote:
The philosophy of Foucault, the man in your avatar (one of the godfathers of political correctness aka cultural Marxism) is just a dishonest “intellectual justification” for expropriation and social revolution.


I support an intellectual and social (not a political or violent) revolution. I used to be a Marxist. Now, my views would fall under the general heading of critical poststructuralism. The critical part refers to my Marxist influences (which are actually less than they used to be). The poststructural part refers to Foucaultianism.

Quote:
It is just like classical Marxism in this respect, with its own designated “opressed class” and “oppressor class”. No wonder it is so popular among ethnic minorities, feminists and homosexuals, who are its main beneficiaries along with self-interested academics and politicians jostling for status.


You are judging intention. I am content and have no interest in status. I am a tenured full professor. Most other radical sociologists I know are also interested in improving the plights of oppressed peoples.

Quote:
I wonder how many of these people are aware that cultural Marxism serves their own interests, and how many of them have deceived themselves into actually believing in it. For example, do most non-whites who support affirmative action actually think it is fair and just, or do they do so because they know it is good for them?


I am concerned over those I consider to be oppressed, not my own interest. However, since being diagnosed with AS, I have recently attempted to place myself and my experiences in the context of an oppressed category (neurelitism).

Quote:
As for yourself, nominalist, I guess much of what you teach your students you learnt from your college tutors before you.


In my case, mostly from my reading and research, not from what I learned in graduate school.

Quote:
It is not “oppression” but human nature that explains why non-whites feel like outsiders in majority white nations. It is not “oppression” but human nature that explains why heterosexuality is considered normal and homosexuality is not.


As a nominalist, I do not think that there is such an entity as "human nature."


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

01 Dec 2007, 6:48 pm

I'd have to agree with Codarak here, much of this "oppressed" and "oppressor" classification ends up in unfair double standards to benefit the "oppressed" while demonizing the "opressors", even in situations where the "oppressors" are only labled as such because of something their --ancestors-- did wrong hundreds of years beforehand.This is essentially what political correctness is, hanging onto the past and breeding victimology to flip the script in an act of hypocracy. State-sponsored reverse bigotry. Reverse bigotry is still bigotry.
Even among heterosexual white males who follow the marxist PC trends mainly do so out of 1. wanting to fit in somewhere in this stupid culture war between the right and left, and 2. Because theyr so scared of being called a racist, sexist, or homophoebe that they refuse to analyze a given situation without being biased against themselves. Take illegal immigration for example, the marxists here have clearly intimidated many people into blindly supporting it merely by telling them that if they stand against it, their "racist", despite the fact that it creates a burden on our resources, leaves us open to unknown criminal entities, lowers our wages, and comes out of our taxes to pay for them. So basically theyr making a race issue of a non-race issue and using "racism" to exploit fear for their own greedy and selfish elite agenda. I mean look at lets say, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, HUGE reverse-racists who are held by many as some new age MLK Jrs (and to treat sharpton and Jackson as such is an insult to MLK Jr and the black race, MLK wanted equality, not superiority).



Last edited by snake321 on 01 Dec 2007, 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

sinsboldly
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon

01 Dec 2007, 6:49 pm

snake321 wrote:
I'd have to agree with Codarak here, much of this "oppressed" and "oppressor" classification ends up in unfair double standards to benefit the "oppressed", even in situations where the "oppressors" are only labled as such because of something their --ancestors-- did wrong hundreds of years beforehand.This is essentially what political correctness is, hanging onto the past and breeding victimology to flip the script in an act of hypocracy. State-sponsored reverse bigotry. Reverse bigotry is still bigotry.
Even among heterosexual white males who follow the marxist PC trends mainly do so out of 1. wanting to fit in somewhere in this stupid culture war between the right and left, and 2. Because theyr so scared of being called a racist, sexist, or homophoebe that they refuse to analyze a given situation without being biased against themselves. Take illegal immigration for example, the marxists here have clearly intimidated many people into blindly supporting it merely by telling them that if they stand against it, their "racist", despite the fact that it creates a burden on our resources, leaves us open to unknown criminal entities, lowers our wages, and comes out of our taxes to pay for them. So basically theyr making a race issue of a non-race issue and using "racism" to exploit fear for their own greedy and selfish elite agenda. I mean look at lets say, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, HUGE reverse-racists who are held by many as some new age MLK Jrs (and to treat sharpton and Jackson as such is an insult to MLK Jr and the black race, MLK wanted equality, not superiority).




oh, you boys! always comparing dicks!

Merle



codarac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 780
Location: UK

01 Dec 2007, 6:54 pm

sinsboldly wrote:

now you're talkin'! whoopee! death to the fascist insect that preys upon the lives of the people, smash the state, kick out the jams, motherf**kers!!

you give me reason to live,



Merle


You whu...?

Something tells me you're extracting the urine.



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

01 Dec 2007, 6:58 pm

If a group of people are being oppressed, the oppression needs to end. But once the oppression has ended, the victimology should stop within a generation or two. When theyr taught to hold on to the past, it makes it harder to move into the future. We can't live in the past forever.



nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

01 Dec 2007, 7:42 pm

snake321 wrote:
I'd have to agree with Codarak here, much of this "oppressed" and "oppressor" classification ends up in unfair double standards to benefit the "oppressed" while demonizing the "opressors", even in situations where the "oppressors" are only labled as such because of something their --ancestors-- did wrong hundreds of years beforehand.


In sociology, when we refer to oppressors and oppressed, we are speaking of statuses, not individuals. For instance, a person who might hold an oppressor status relative to the ideology of racism might hold an oppressed status regarding the ideology of sexism.

I do not demonize oppressors. Those are value judgments. I examine oppression as a way of making sense of the distribution and utilization of power in human societies.

Quote:
This is essentially what political correctness is, hanging onto the past and breeding victimology to flip the script in an act of hypocracy. State-sponsored reverse bigotry. Reverse bigotry is still bigotry.


I refer to racism, in the U.S., as an ideology which benefits those who have the socially constructed status of "white" and to sexism, in the U.S., as an ideology which benefits those who have the socially constructed status of men. I recognize that oppressed peoples, like racial minorities and women, can sometimes internalize the oppression and use it against others. However, I would call that internalized racism or sexism, not "reverse bigotry."

Quote:
Take illegal immigration for example, the marxists here have clearly intimidated many people into blindly supporting it merely by telling them that if they stand against it, their "racist", despite the fact that it creates a burden on our resources, leaves us open to unknown criminal entities, lowers our wages, and comes out of our taxes to pay for them.


My position is that I reject the right of the U.S. government to keep poor people from crossing its southern border.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

01 Dec 2007, 7:51 pm

So we're "racist" for supporting something that is obviously a neccessity for our own economic and legal well being? We're "racist" for not agreeing to be robbed?
You do understand that without those borders, we'd fall into an economic collapse and into the hands of globalist bankers and corporatists who would turn us over to a tyrannical UN?
Nominalist, you are supporting disorganized anarchy, lets say an illegal murders someone, how can we prosecute or even figure out who committed the act if we have no file on the perp? We don't even know that person exists.



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

01 Dec 2007, 7:54 pm

I understand theyr poor, however we've got to look out for our own survival interests, only a fool would put someone else's survival before their own, especially people we don't usually even know and have no direct connection to. It doesn't take a gung-ho nationalist to see why we have borders.
Supporting illegal immigration is by default supporting the NWO. Do you understand that?
I support helping Mexico out, in a way that will not hurt us in the process.



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

01 Dec 2007, 7:58 pm

See..... Globalist want a North American union, undocumented people in large numbers creates a burden on our economy, reguardless of what color they are. This leads to them building this NAFTA super highway, which will erode our borders.
You may have some hippy pipe dream "oh great, we can all live together as one giant nation", that is what the globalist WANT you to think and feel. Remember, the NWO is a GLOBALIST agenda, there are the super rich and then there are the slaves.



nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

01 Dec 2007, 7:58 pm

snake321 wrote:
So we're "racist" for supporting something that is obviously a neccessity for our own economic and legal well being? We're "racist" for not agreeing to be robbed?


As I said, I apply those labels to statuses, not to individuals. In sociology we use the original definition of racism, as a social ideology, which is different from the concepts of "racial prejudice" and "bigotry."

Quote:
You do understand that without those borders, we'd fall into an economic collapse and into the hands of globalist bankers and corporatists who would turn us over to a tyrannical UN?


I support the socialistic version of globalization, not one ruled by an international corporatocracy.

Quote:
Nominalist, you are supporting disorganized anarchy, lets say an illegal murders someone, how can we prosecute or even figure out who committed the act if we have no file on the perp? We don't even know that person exists.


To me, social justice for the poor trumps national borders. The issue you raised is a technicality and could be addressed by further empowering an agency like Interpol.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

01 Dec 2007, 8:01 pm

You might call me a "crazy conspiracy theorists", but the fact of the matter is that the individuals and organizations involved make no secret of it anymore. Theyr talking about it openly, it's just that common tools like yourself seem to be brainwashed into thinking "this will never happen", and no amount of proof will ever convince you otherwise. The globalist realise this, and they know as long as they keep it off TV they can openly brag about it as much as they'd like to..
Of coarse you've also stated that you'd support a despot, and that you have marxist influences, so this comes as no surprise.



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

01 Dec 2007, 8:02 pm

nominalist wrote:
snake321 wrote:
Quote:
You do understand that without those borders, we'd fall into an economic collapse and into the hands of globalist bankers and corporatists who would turn us over to a tyrannical UN?


I support the socialistic version of globalization, not one ruled by an international corporatocracy.

[.


Do you realise it's not in YOUR hands who takes over?



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

01 Dec 2007, 8:04 pm

Also, you stated their poverty comes before our borders, well without protecting our borders we will fall into poverty, only business will flourish, not the people. Where will they go once we've allowed them to plunge us into poverty?



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

01 Dec 2007, 8:06 pm

I'm not insensitive to their poisition, I just think there is a better way of helping them than to shoot ourselves in the foot.



nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

01 Dec 2007, 8:07 pm

snake321 wrote:
Of coarse you've also stated that you'd support a despot, and that you have marxist influences, so this comes as no surprise.


I would support a benevolent despot, one who would collectivize the U.S. economy, as a last resort, yes. However, only as a last resort.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

01 Dec 2007, 8:10 pm

snake321 wrote:
Also, you stated their poverty comes before our borders, well without protecting our borders we will fall into poverty, only business will flourish, not the people. Where will they go once we've allowed them to plunge us into poverty?


First, I never said anything about not protecting international borders. I said that I believe that the poor should be allowed to enter. Second, I have never seen any convincing evidence that allowing Latinos to come into the U.S. and work would "plunge us all into poverty."


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute