Pronouns…

Not today, and probably not tomorrow.

But if we don't hold the line now, eventually either we wake up and hold the line down the road, the people doing this wake up and stop pushing, or yes... the end result will be Communism.

That's where trust comes in, and that's earned. And an excellent step to earning that trust is giving dissenters an end-game. Not simply saying "we'll know when to stop."

 

Deconstruction is a school of literary criticism associated with Derrida not a theory that you can use pronouns instead of class struggle to destroy capitalism, or is this one of those things where you are expanding a definition to mean anything want

 

He should get to know the Trots and various other leftists who think all this pronoun stuff is holding back the class struggle

 

Man the ramparts, make a difference or as Niemoller so sadly penned:

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me, they, them, he, him, her, or she

 

Deconstructive Theory on Gender - Prep With Harshita.

"Deconstructive theory on gender is a theoretical framework that aims to question and challenge the binary understanding of gender, which posits that there are only two distinct and fixed gender categories: male and female."

When I use the terms "deconstruction" or "deconstructionist," what I mean is challenging the premises, the institutions, the cultures, and the interpretations of language of the past as a way of breaking each of these things down. Obviously this would only be the endgame for people who want anarchy and I don't think you or most of the left-leaning people pushing this want anarchy. You want to remold the institutions to fit your vision and to do that, you need to deconstruct them first.

If you don't think that's an accurate characterization of you, I really don't know what is. Your whole schtick is challenging everything traditional and every accepted premise that furthers that tradition and highlighting its flaws.

Now there is a kernel of truth to the notion that "not all Communists in the world or the history of the world are deconstructionists at all times." It depends on the circumstances and the context. If the Communist Revolution has already been won, even though most Communist Revolutionaries typically act like the Revolution is never over, the game is maintaining the stranglehold on the new order. So the process essentially is "deconstruct, stow division by highlighting class division, revolt, win, and maintain." In the West, Communists are still in the "deconstruct and stoke division by highlighting class division" stage. And my comment was referring to the West, specifically the United States.

 

I don't think so. Most people are rational and understand that it isn't a big deal and to not take it personally. I do believe that most people that don't use the "right" pronoun aren't doing it to be mean. For most people, unless you have a trans person in your life on a daily basis, it's just not something that is going to be on your radar every second of the day.

 

But there are not two fixed genders. Biology/reality (anatomy genetics, hormones) raises its hand in objection to this false premise.

 

Oh, so you were aping someone else's novel definition of 'deconstruction.' You are just describing "free thought"

Freethought - Wikipedia

Has a long tradition in America, well before Marx wrote anything of note!

 

Couldn't we say this about elements on both the right and the left? Steve Bannon comes to mind, for example, as someone who seems to want everything to breakdown and start over.

 

It should be noted that the basic premise of communism isnt to "deconstruct" capitalism lol, its basically to supercede it using what has already been built to achieve abundance. Capitalism is a precondition for communism not its antithesis, its the reconciling of its contradictions.

 

There are two genders with certain people who fail to neatly fall into one of those two categories due to a genetic anomaly. Neither Caitlyn Jenner nor Dylan Mulvaney fall into that category.

 

Semantics.

 

It's hard to have a generalized conversation about "left" and "right" because there are always exceptions.

I don't know much about Steve Bannon apart from the fact that I don't like him.

I think the typical trend on the right on a cultural level is this desire to "go back to the way things were," whereas on the left it's this desire "make things better than they've ever been." The problem with the latter desire isn't the statement on its face, but the fact that it generally entails abandoning the very things that made us great in the first place. So in an attempt to "make things better," we've actually taken one step forward, two steps backwards.

 

You are not being intellectually honest.

It's not about people thinking logically and coming to their own conclusions. It's about using authorities and social contagion to challenge the norms for the end of reforming the institutions, the culture, and society.

It's about power, not facts or truth.

 

Not really, all the communist countries quite literally attempted to build industrial capitalism first because it didnt exist there previously! The whole idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" was to use existing bourgouis legal structures to build communism, whether it be the legal/political system, military or the police. Quite the opposite of "lets do anarchy and hope it works out."

 

Do you really think a student tour guide telling people their pronouns can reform society and its institutions? Or is it just something you think is stupid and annoying that you're overintellectualizing?

 

Capitalist systems are really just an evolution of job specialization and human development.

The primary thing that separates Capitalist systems from anarchy is the rule of law and individual rights.

Communists waiting for Capitalists to do all of the work in establishing institutions of power only for them to poke holes in it, and corrupt it to their own ends is incredibly on brand for Communists.

 

No, as I said before, "useful idiots."

But combine a bunch of "useful idiots," and they can do a heck of a lot of damage without realizing it.

 

I think that has been the conventional wisdom in modern American politics.

Seems like I recall Clinton once saying something to the effect of the left and the right disagreeing about whether the 1960's were a net positive or negative in terms of the changes to our country. I'm not sure Bannon and other Nationalists really fit the traditional mold, as they seem to want to essentially start from scratch or at the very least tear down many of the institutions and relationships which developed during and in the wake of WWII. I'm honestly not sure what time period they believe was most ideal in America. The left versus right distinction is also complicated by the fact that in recent years, I think the right has become a bit more populist while the left has arguably become more corporatist and less focused on blue collar and labor issues. Foreign policy doesn't seem to be as clear cut of a partisan issue these days either.

One thing I do think is true. If we were told we were going to be re-born somewhere in America and in the decade of our choosing - without knowing ahead of time what race, sex, or sexual orientation we might be born with, I am pretty sure almost all of us would choose to be born today.

 

Yes, this entire thread is about semantics.