I thought this might happen…I listened to this several hours ago, part of it bothered me IMMENSELY but I needed to go to sleep. Then a few hours later, my brain adrenaline-dumps me wide awake thinking about the EXACT same thing… Ok, say, in the same general scenario except that it is ALL of us and we are there in person at some convention or something where Lindsay and his listeners are. And, rather than getting virtually feisty, a bunch of us actually got into fist fights. After that cooled down and there were black-eyes, bloody noses, and maybe a few broken fingers, Lindsay would still have ZERO of a good enough reason to cancel-culture the “soldiers” in the same obscure army as him … LINDSAY YOU FUCKING CHILD!!
What the hell was his motivation for even writing any of what he has the past 6 years? I KNOW I saw a fierce sense of duty and honor in him as he started working on CRT. In fact, when his principle forbade him for flunking a student that really needed flunking, he didn’t try to hold onto his job. It was as if he told him, “If you are THIS wrong and you are running the school I am getting the hell out of here.” What else do you need to know, right?
So, I am SERIOUSLY baffled. Actually, what WOULD make sense is if he contacted YOU, Karlyn, and said, "Can we just take a 'do-over' on this one! We're on the SAME side of ..."
Max Horkheimer, Eric Fromm, creator of the concept of gender being a social construct, and Wilhelm Reich, in the 1930s, all knew that, in helping society embrace progressive concepts such as equal rights for woman would cause society’s repressed sexuality to start to “decompress.”
"...Throwing off of all traditional values and sexual restraints
in favour of ‘polymorphous perversity.’ The very idea of marital love and
fidelity was considered by Marcuse to be counter-revolutionary.
ALTHOUGH CULTURAL CHANGE WAS THE ULTIMATE GOAL
“Marcuse understood the TACTICAL APPEAL of the pleasure principle. For we are often reminded, ‘sex sells,’ and it sells politics too, what better way to recruit revolutionaries than to convince them that sexual promiscuity is a sure way to bring about the revolution?”
Also, Jacques Derrida and Foccault and a few others French philosophers , in 1968, campaigned enthusiastically to give minors the right to have sex with whom ever they wanted. Foccault was the first famous person to contract AIDS and spoke freely about his lack of concern of spreading the disease. He and Jacques Derrida, the writer of Deconstructionism and Postmodernism are both quite creepy. (In fact, I have a hunch Foccault was the motivation for the look of "Uncle Fester" from the Addams Family.)
What this tells us very clearly is that, yes, there were and are plenty of pedophilic cults among Marxists. Marxism isn't a "philosophy", it has no list of 'virtues,' it does not honor truth or integrity, but advises "telling your students, rather than the truth as you see it, whatever will further your political career as you move thru academia..." That is, in Marxism, if pedophilia is a means to an end it would be greatly encouraged.
More specifically, it tells us that the top philosophers of the movement recognize sexual promiscutity and perversion as a USEFUL TACTIC.
I'm assuming you didn't mention much about this as a thing in itself because it would be too heavy coming from a peer, but, to CANCEL or BLOCK ANYONE who is on the same path as you, is such a stupid, shallow, dishonest thing to do, ESPECIALLY for someone in his position. I can't wrap my head around it.
I'm not "angry" about it nor am I being judgmental. I simply recognize that his actions express, as a matter of character, that he is missing a chunk of something extremely important.
As a prof, he had to flunk three students but the dean told him he had to pass them. He knew RIGHT THEN, that the situation was polluted and he just walked away from his career. That showed massive integrity and courage...then, the hoax publishings... THAT was a good man to follow.
I was an adult before the internet quietly emerged into existence. Sometime in the mid 90's was the beginning of wholesale extermination on integrity. Real news, which had a code of ethics, was suddenly competing with internet fake news and the over-sensational new stories that real news stayed away from.... Columbine was a very routine school shooting which happened 3x per year in the US going back at least till 1900. Showing police chases from start to finish and switched out their prom-queen level weather girls for porn-queen level, were the death throes of real news.
Since then, ONLY ppl IMPECCABLE INTEGRITY rise in media and stay there;
-Rogan, Peterson, Dana White, John McWhorter, Douglas Murray, Shapiro didn't but now he does.
I was going to say, "Ppl with no integrity will flame out...just be nice and let them pass." but you already did that, come to think of it. It is very strong in you, Karlyn. I wouldn't doubt that you'll have a big rise, in some way, soon.
You were giving Lindsay too much credit. He wasn't choosing his conclusions, he is just getting them wrong. He's done this the whole time.
-LANGUAGE and MATH are both based on the same principles of logic which is why you can have 'mathematical certainty' in both. HOWEVER, Lindsay's method of analyzing language is flawed in a way that is common when a MATH person gets deep into analyzing LANGUAGE. That is, Lindsay is simply doing it wrong over and over.
You are assessing meaning of socialist concepts validly. However, you are assuming he knows how to do this too but is instead choosing to rigidly stick to his pet conclusions motivated by academic ego or something along those lines. no.. (the important part is a few paragraphs down at *******)
Lindsay’s most impressive ability is the amount of material he can digest, then explain with reasonably clarity, then, do it again with other material, and again. I think you over estimate his analytic skill though (or maybe you don’t). Although the principles of math rest on the same principles of logic as language, math ppl tend to analyze language the way they might analyze physics, science, matter… that is, they try to find a fundamental atomic-like concept, but language works NOTHING like that. I’m assuming that with him because he was looking into the “etymology” of all these terms which is the history of the word and from where it was derived, but gives you no insight into its meaning.
Early on, he created a 30 minute lecture/explanation of diversity, inclusion and equity. It was hard to follow but the concepts seemed complex, so, if you saw it maybe three times, you would understand it.
Later, when I looked at the language side of all this, I realized, in each word, it was the “sense” that was changed. It’s a tricky obscure thing but, each could be explained very clearly in three minutes.
In the Henny Youngman joke, “Take my wife, please!”, “take” is put at the beginning so the person will make the reasonable but wrong assumption of the intended sense of it, so, it seems as though he is going to say, “Take my wife, for example…” But, when you hear, “please!” it tells you your assumption was wrong and that he actually meant “take” as in the sense of, “Take my wife! Please! Just get her out of here, she’s driving me nuts!” Anyway, that is ALL those three words are each doing.
Meanings exist only in our minds and they can’t be expressed to each other. So, we create words as arbitrary representatives because they can be passed around and communicated by sense data. But meanings don’t ‘travel’ with words. The way to determine the meaning of a word is to see how it is being used by in that society or more specifically, by a given person in a given instance.
*******
-So, Karlyn, when you say you know that socialist hold gender to be a performative (I’m assuming the intention here is to view it as a transitory concept rather than substantive…I’ll get it exact ) since they want to do away with the binary. You say, “It’s important to know what the socialists say about this concept in order to know what they mean by it.”
YES! That is EXACTLY where meaning comes from!
MEANING is determined by the INTENTION of the SPEAKER.
But, you think Lindsay’s conclusion of a Gnostic Sex whatnot is based on some type of maybe ‘academic ego,’ but I am nearly positive it is not and that you are giving him too much credit here. He is coming to that conclusion as if it follows logically from some valid premise. For example, he had mentioned that Postmodernism has a “genus/species” relationship with Marxism. It does, sort of. Also, he MIGHT have said it is a species of Marxism. Logically, that is fine. Yes. But, is that what it means?
That is not how it is used by CRT, therefore, no.
I’ve heard him explain the Gnostic idea. He did not learn the meaning from a socialist, he came to it as a logical conclusion.
FURTHER, this would totally make sense why his angry little minions were telling you that YOU didn’t know how to speak English and likely believed it, basically.
HOWEVER, the truth was THEY do not know where MEANING comes from and do not KNOW that they do not KNOW.
Karlyn,
I thought this might happen…I listened to this several hours ago, part of it bothered me IMMENSELY but I needed to go to sleep. Then a few hours later, my brain adrenaline-dumps me wide awake thinking about the EXACT same thing… Ok, say, in the same general scenario except that it is ALL of us and we are there in person at some convention or something where Lindsay and his listeners are. And, rather than getting virtually feisty, a bunch of us actually got into fist fights. After that cooled down and there were black-eyes, bloody noses, and maybe a few broken fingers, Lindsay would still have ZERO of a good enough reason to cancel-culture the “soldiers” in the same obscure army as him … LINDSAY YOU FUCKING CHILD!!
What the hell was his motivation for even writing any of what he has the past 6 years? I KNOW I saw a fierce sense of duty and honor in him as he started working on CRT. In fact, when his principle forbade him for flunking a student that really needed flunking, he didn’t try to hold onto his job. It was as if he told him, “If you are THIS wrong and you are running the school I am getting the hell out of here.” What else do you need to know, right?
So, I am SERIOUSLY baffled. Actually, what WOULD make sense is if he contacted YOU, Karlyn, and said, "Can we just take a 'do-over' on this one! We're on the SAME side of ..."
Max Horkheimer, Eric Fromm, creator of the concept of gender being a social construct, and Wilhelm Reich, in the 1930s, all knew that, in helping society embrace progressive concepts such as equal rights for woman would cause society’s repressed sexuality to start to “decompress.”
"...Throwing off of all traditional values and sexual restraints
in favour of ‘polymorphous perversity.’ The very idea of marital love and
fidelity was considered by Marcuse to be counter-revolutionary.
ALTHOUGH CULTURAL CHANGE WAS THE ULTIMATE GOAL
“Marcuse understood the TACTICAL APPEAL of the pleasure principle. For we are often reminded, ‘sex sells,’ and it sells politics too, what better way to recruit revolutionaries than to convince them that sexual promiscuity is a sure way to bring about the revolution?”
Also, Jacques Derrida and Foccault and a few others French philosophers , in 1968, campaigned enthusiastically to give minors the right to have sex with whom ever they wanted. Foccault was the first famous person to contract AIDS and spoke freely about his lack of concern of spreading the disease. He and Jacques Derrida, the writer of Deconstructionism and Postmodernism are both quite creepy. (In fact, I have a hunch Foccault was the motivation for the look of "Uncle Fester" from the Addams Family.)
What this tells us very clearly is that, yes, there were and are plenty of pedophilic cults among Marxists. Marxism isn't a "philosophy", it has no list of 'virtues,' it does not honor truth or integrity, but advises "telling your students, rather than the truth as you see it, whatever will further your political career as you move thru academia..." That is, in Marxism, if pedophilia is a means to an end it would be greatly encouraged.
More specifically, it tells us that the top philosophers of the movement recognize sexual promiscutity and perversion as a USEFUL TACTIC.
****
Karlyn,
I'm assuming you didn't mention much about this as a thing in itself because it would be too heavy coming from a peer, but, to CANCEL or BLOCK ANYONE who is on the same path as you, is such a stupid, shallow, dishonest thing to do, ESPECIALLY for someone in his position. I can't wrap my head around it.
I'm not "angry" about it nor am I being judgmental. I simply recognize that his actions express, as a matter of character, that he is missing a chunk of something extremely important.
As a prof, he had to flunk three students but the dean told him he had to pass them. He knew RIGHT THEN, that the situation was polluted and he just walked away from his career. That showed massive integrity and courage...then, the hoax publishings... THAT was a good man to follow.
I was an adult before the internet quietly emerged into existence. Sometime in the mid 90's was the beginning of wholesale extermination on integrity. Real news, which had a code of ethics, was suddenly competing with internet fake news and the over-sensational new stories that real news stayed away from.... Columbine was a very routine school shooting which happened 3x per year in the US going back at least till 1900. Showing police chases from start to finish and switched out their prom-queen level weather girls for porn-queen level, were the death throes of real news.
Since then, ONLY ppl IMPECCABLE INTEGRITY rise in media and stay there;
-Rogan, Peterson, Dana White, John McWhorter, Douglas Murray, Shapiro didn't but now he does.
I was going to say, "Ppl with no integrity will flame out...just be nice and let them pass." but you already did that, come to think of it. It is very strong in you, Karlyn. I wouldn't doubt that you'll have a big rise, in some way, soon.
Nicely done.
Karlyn,
You were giving Lindsay too much credit. He wasn't choosing his conclusions, he is just getting them wrong. He's done this the whole time.
-LANGUAGE and MATH are both based on the same principles of logic which is why you can have 'mathematical certainty' in both. HOWEVER, Lindsay's method of analyzing language is flawed in a way that is common when a MATH person gets deep into analyzing LANGUAGE. That is, Lindsay is simply doing it wrong over and over.
You are assessing meaning of socialist concepts validly. However, you are assuming he knows how to do this too but is instead choosing to rigidly stick to his pet conclusions motivated by academic ego or something along those lines. no.. (the important part is a few paragraphs down at *******)
Lindsay’s most impressive ability is the amount of material he can digest, then explain with reasonably clarity, then, do it again with other material, and again. I think you over estimate his analytic skill though (or maybe you don’t). Although the principles of math rest on the same principles of logic as language, math ppl tend to analyze language the way they might analyze physics, science, matter… that is, they try to find a fundamental atomic-like concept, but language works NOTHING like that. I’m assuming that with him because he was looking into the “etymology” of all these terms which is the history of the word and from where it was derived, but gives you no insight into its meaning.
Early on, he created a 30 minute lecture/explanation of diversity, inclusion and equity. It was hard to follow but the concepts seemed complex, so, if you saw it maybe three times, you would understand it.
Later, when I looked at the language side of all this, I realized, in each word, it was the “sense” that was changed. It’s a tricky obscure thing but, each could be explained very clearly in three minutes.
In the Henny Youngman joke, “Take my wife, please!”, “take” is put at the beginning so the person will make the reasonable but wrong assumption of the intended sense of it, so, it seems as though he is going to say, “Take my wife, for example…” But, when you hear, “please!” it tells you your assumption was wrong and that he actually meant “take” as in the sense of, “Take my wife! Please! Just get her out of here, she’s driving me nuts!” Anyway, that is ALL those three words are each doing.
Meanings exist only in our minds and they can’t be expressed to each other. So, we create words as arbitrary representatives because they can be passed around and communicated by sense data. But meanings don’t ‘travel’ with words. The way to determine the meaning of a word is to see how it is being used by in that society or more specifically, by a given person in a given instance.
*******
-So, Karlyn, when you say you know that socialist hold gender to be a performative (I’m assuming the intention here is to view it as a transitory concept rather than substantive…I’ll get it exact ) since they want to do away with the binary. You say, “It’s important to know what the socialists say about this concept in order to know what they mean by it.”
YES! That is EXACTLY where meaning comes from!
MEANING is determined by the INTENTION of the SPEAKER.
But, you think Lindsay’s conclusion of a Gnostic Sex whatnot is based on some type of maybe ‘academic ego,’ but I am nearly positive it is not and that you are giving him too much credit here. He is coming to that conclusion as if it follows logically from some valid premise. For example, he had mentioned that Postmodernism has a “genus/species” relationship with Marxism. It does, sort of. Also, he MIGHT have said it is a species of Marxism. Logically, that is fine. Yes. But, is that what it means?
That is not how it is used by CRT, therefore, no.
I’ve heard him explain the Gnostic idea. He did not learn the meaning from a socialist, he came to it as a logical conclusion.
FURTHER, this would totally make sense why his angry little minions were telling you that YOU didn’t know how to speak English and likely believed it, basically.
HOWEVER, the truth was THEY do not know where MEANING comes from and do not KNOW that they do not KNOW.