@
BRUUH That doesn't invalidate it either tho. logically sound argument can still fail to appeal to people (because human bias, etc) and can be repackaged by people who wanna sell it still.
But it's not like they changed the way the argument was explained. They changed the conspiracy itself in ways that made it seem more current. Keep in mind, this conspiracy is older than Marxism itself. They added Marxists to the theory, probably just because the early Marxists were Jews.
They also changed the location. In Cultural Marxism, it's America. In Cultural Bolshevism, it was Germany. In Jewish Bolshevism, it was Russia. And before that, it was anywhere in Europe where the kings wanted to direct attention away from their own corrupting. You're not poor because of the king, you're poor because... uhh... the Jews! Or the Atheists! Or homosexuality! Or Marxism! Or wokeness! Whatever deflects away from the ruling-class.
I'v heard it a few times bro. The first time was some bi-racial dude on Jesse Lee Peterson show, who was a professor and had a degree in like "whiteness studies" or something. So, literally a professor. He said african society was naturally matriarchal, and that is total, and utter bullshit.
Well, he's wrong. And like I said, that has nothing to do with Marxism. Marx didn't really talk about gender much.
Also, Jesse Lee Peterson is gay. I know that has nothing to do with this, I just find it funny because he's yet another homophobe who turned out to
LOVE THE COCK.I also think the reason why people push gender equality as a natural thing is because they want it as a political goal, and you could literally just invoke the naturalistic fallacy instead and say that gender equality may not be normal, but we aren't beasts of the field and should still embrace it.
When people talk about "gender equality," it usually refers to how people are shut out of certain fields based on gender, and this refers to both laws and social norms.
For example, there will always be more men in construction because men are generally stronger. But how come for decades, women were discouraged from playing chess? Why was chess seen as a man thing?
"Gender equality" doesn't mean we need an equal amount of men and women in every field. It means they should both be welcomed in every field. We shouldn't be discouraging little girls from becoming scientists or playing chess.
It seeks to explain how different parts of your identity effects your experience, namely how being white makes you benefit from white supermacy, being rich makes you benefit from capitalism, and how these things all come together to give you oppression points. It's basically all bullshit anyway. Latinos in 2024 are not more oppressed than white people.There are far, FAR more double standards white people are held to than latinos and blacks.
It's not about oppression points, it's about recognizing how people are affected by various forms of prejudice or bigotry. And it seems like you agree with this. I've said here that Israel is built on Jewish Supremacy. If you're Jewish in Israel, you can benefit from that, but you might still be screwed if you're born into poverty. You agree with that, right?
Gender as a word and concept never meant anything to do with humans.
Sure, that's how language works. We use words to describe concepts. Sex and gender always existed as two separate things, even if the wording wasn't there.
· Reply · Translate · 2 days ago2 d 
· Reply · Translate · 2 days ago2 d · Edited: 2 days ago 
· Reply · Translate · 2 days ago2 d 
