Topic: In the UK there is currently a 48 hour Twitter boycott...
Anonymous A started this discussion 5 years ago #101,606
Because a black grime artist made some anti semitic comments. It's all over the UK news and has some big media names participating.
If someone had made some anti white comments it would have stayed, if someone had made some anti black comments it would have been deleted with no backlash, maybe someone getting cancelled.
A boycott for anti semitism comments. And you know what the comments were? Jews own the media... something to think about
If someone had made some anti white comments it would have stayed, if someone had made some anti black comments it would have been deleted with no backlash, maybe someone getting cancelled.
A boycott for anti semitism comments. And you know what the comments were? Jews own the media... something to think about
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 22 minutes later[^] [v] #1,147,346
Do you own a gun?
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 14 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,147,347
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 43 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,147,349
@OP
> Jews own the media
Nah. Neo Marxists own the media. The news will be forgotten soon because anti-Semetism is lower tier "problematic" than racism.
> Jews own the media
Nah. Neo Marxists own the media. The news will be forgotten soon because anti-Semetism is lower tier "problematic" than racism.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,147,350
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,147,351
@1,147,349 (D)
It's the (((Illuminati))), they're the same thing. Marxists LOVE Jews so much that they decided that the red-blooded, two-fisted all-American man, Jesus, was a Jew. Can you believe it? That's why I get all my information from the REAL intellectual dark web: Breitbart, whose executive chairman was cancelled and deplatformed all the way to being advisor to the Trump administration, and the great, beating heart of intellectualism: inflammatory JPEGS of shitty rhetoric that I saw on Facebook.
It's the (((Illuminati))), they're the same thing. Marxists LOVE Jews so much that they decided that the red-blooded, two-fisted all-American man, Jesus, was a Jew. Can you believe it? That's why I get all my information from the REAL intellectual dark web: Breitbart, whose executive chairman was cancelled and deplatformed all the way to being advisor to the Trump administration, and the great, beating heart of intellectualism: inflammatory JPEGS of shitty rhetoric that I saw on Facebook.
Meowth joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,147,353
I stopped using Twitter so long ago after I got suspended for telling someone "kill yourself". Once suspended, they offered my account back if I linked a phone number. Fuck no. Fuck Twitter. Full of faggots.
dw joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,147,361
if you dont want to watch content from companies owned by jews why the fuck are you watching fox
jodie !foster2PAQ joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 18 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,147,377
@1,147,353 (Meowth)
> I stopped using Twitter so long ago after I got suspended for telling someone "kill yourself". Once suspended, they offered my account back if I linked a phone number. Fuck no. Fuck Twitter. Full of faggots.
badass....
> I stopped using Twitter so long ago after I got suspended for telling someone "kill yourself". Once suspended, they offered my account back if I linked a phone number. Fuck no. Fuck Twitter. Full of faggots.
badass....
Meowth replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,147,381
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 12 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,147,383
I've never even had a Twitter account - is that boycotting? ?
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,147,386
The three Jewish bankers strike again!
Anonymous D replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,147,424
@1,147,350 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> What is a "neo marxist"
Well, "neo" means "new" and a Marxist is somebody who subscribes to the social, political and economic philosophy of (and inspired by) Karl Marx.
> which media owners specifically have that ideology?
The BBC for one.
> What is a "neo marxist"
Well, "neo" means "new" and a Marxist is somebody who subscribes to the social, political and economic philosophy of (and inspired by) Karl Marx.
> which media owners specifically have that ideology?
The BBC for one.
jodie !foster2PAQ replied with this 5 years ago, 40 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,147,425
@previous (D)
> > What is a "neo marxist"
> Well, "neo" means "new" and a Marxist is somebody who subscribes to the social, political and economic philosophy of (and inspired by) Karl Marx.
>
> > which media owners specifically have that ideology?
> The BBC for one.
loool
> > What is a "neo marxist"
> Well, "neo" means "new" and a Marxist is somebody who subscribes to the social, political and economic philosophy of (and inspired by) Karl Marx.
>
> > which media owners specifically have that ideology?
> The BBC for one.
loool
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,147,426
@1,147,424 (D)
> > What is a "neo marxist"
> Well, "neo" means "new" and a Marxist is somebody who subscribes to the social, political and economic philosophy of (and inspired by) Karl Marx.
What distinguishes a "neo marxist" from a regular old Marxist, Marxist-Leninist, etc.?
> > which media owners specifically have that ideology?
> The BBC for one.
How is the BBC "neo marxist"?
> > What is a "neo marxist"
> Well, "neo" means "new" and a Marxist is somebody who subscribes to the social, political and economic philosophy of (and inspired by) Karl Marx.
What distinguishes a "neo marxist" from a regular old Marxist, Marxist-Leninist, etc.?
> > which media owners specifically have that ideology?
> The BBC for one.
How is the BBC "neo marxist"?
tteh !MemesToDNA joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,147,461
tteh !MemesToDNA double-posted this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,147,462
@1,147,425 (jodie !foster2PAQ)
@1,147,426 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Everyone I don't like is a Postmodern neo-Marxist™. (But don't ask me to explain what that means.) (And please don't explain to me why the combination makes zero sense.)
@1,147,426 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Everyone I don't like is a Postmodern neo-Marxist™. (But don't ask me to explain what that means.) (And please don't explain to me why the combination makes zero sense.)
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 51 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,147,463
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,147,465
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,147,466
@1,147,462 (tteh !MemesToDNA)
I mean, he could just say something like "they lean left and I don't agree with that stance", but that is simply not damning enough. Why call a news organisation "moderately left-wing" when you can use the far more ominous "neo-Marxist"?
I mean, he could just say something like "they lean left and I don't agree with that stance", but that is simply not damning enough. Why call a news organisation "moderately left-wing" when you can use the far more ominous "neo-Marxist"?
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,147,467
@previous (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
You're an establishment stooge, tbh, and your affinity with Marx is well established. I've had peeps watching you for a while, bud.
You're an establishment stooge, tbh, and your affinity with Marx is well established. I've had peeps watching you for a while, bud.
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 5 years ago, 43 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,147,468
@1,147,465 (tteh !MemesToDNA)
I suppose that, according to a few of our own political thinkers, communists are now just people who don't agree with conservative policies.
I think the alarmism here is pretty lame, tbh. Like, I don't agree with Fox News or the Daily Mail, but I can just express that by saying that they're quite conservative and I don't agree with their stances. It would be fucking lame and hysterical for me to call them Nazis.
I suppose that, according to a few of our own political thinkers, communists are now just people who don't agree with conservative policies.
I think the alarmism here is pretty lame, tbh. Like, I don't agree with Fox News or the Daily Mail, but I can just express that by saying that they're quite conservative and I don't agree with their stances. It would be fucking lame and hysterical for me to call them Nazis.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 5 years ago, 9 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,147,469
Anonymous D replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,147,503
@1,147,426 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> What distinguishes a "neo marxist" from a regular old Marxist, Marxist-Leninist, etc.?
The fact they aren't old, they are "neo", I guess. A Marxist-Leninist is somebody who subscribes to Lenin's particular interpretation of Marx's philosophy (e.g. Stalin and Mao).
@1,147,466 (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
> I mean, he could just say something like "they lean left and I don't agree with that stance", but that is simply not damning enough. Why call a news organisation "moderately left-wing" when you can use the far more ominous "neo-Marxist"?
Good point, and I suppose is why I used it - for greater effect.
@1,147,461 (tteh !MemesToDNA)
> In what way are the BBC "neo-Marxist"?
Have you looked at the content on BBC iPlayer recently? Here, this guy explains it pretty well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9DnM_WywpM
> What distinguishes a "neo marxist" from a regular old Marxist, Marxist-Leninist, etc.?
The fact they aren't old, they are "neo", I guess. A Marxist-Leninist is somebody who subscribes to Lenin's particular interpretation of Marx's philosophy (e.g. Stalin and Mao).
@1,147,466 (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
> I mean, he could just say something like "they lean left and I don't agree with that stance", but that is simply not damning enough. Why call a news organisation "moderately left-wing" when you can use the far more ominous "neo-Marxist"?
Good point, and I suppose is why I used it - for greater effect.
@1,147,461 (tteh !MemesToDNA)
> In what way are the BBC "neo-Marxist"?
Have you looked at the content on BBC iPlayer recently? Here, this guy explains it pretty well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9DnM_WywpM
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 5 years ago, 13 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,147,513
@previous (D)
Stalinism and Maoism are a whole other kettle of fish. Is "neo marxist" a term that describes an individual (e.g. a 21 year old with marxist ideas is a neo marxist, while a 75 year old with the same exact ideas is just a marxist) or does it describe a particular ideology? If it's the former, a nearly 100 year old institution like the BBC would surely just be a Marxist. If it's the latter, I'm still no closer to understanding what a "neo marxist" is, and how it is different from a traditional marxist.
Stalinism and Maoism are a whole other kettle of fish. Is "neo marxist" a term that describes an individual (e.g. a 21 year old with marxist ideas is a neo marxist, while a 75 year old with the same exact ideas is just a marxist) or does it describe a particular ideology? If it's the former, a nearly 100 year old institution like the BBC would surely just be a Marxist. If it's the latter, I'm still no closer to understanding what a "neo marxist" is, and how it is different from a traditional marxist.
(Edited 46 seconds later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 5 years ago, 16 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,147,521
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I think it's as you said - "Stalinism and Maoism are a whole other kettle of fish" - yes, i.e. they are different flavors of the same general ideology. So "Neo" Marxism is a new, fresh interpretation of an old idea, but still with the same basic principles of "regular old Marxism".
It's the same sort of idea as a "Neo Nazi". The actual Nazi party ceased to exist in 1945. Neo Nazism is a (very weird) political movement which seeks to revive the old ideology of National Socialism.
> If it's the former, a nearly 100 year old institution like the BBC would surely just be a Marxist.
They certainly haven't always been... which is why it's appropriate to call them "Neo" = "New".
I think it's as you said - "Stalinism and Maoism are a whole other kettle of fish" - yes, i.e. they are different flavors of the same general ideology. So "Neo" Marxism is a new, fresh interpretation of an old idea, but still with the same basic principles of "regular old Marxism".
It's the same sort of idea as a "Neo Nazi". The actual Nazi party ceased to exist in 1945. Neo Nazism is a (very weird) political movement which seeks to revive the old ideology of National Socialism.
> If it's the former, a nearly 100 year old institution like the BBC would surely just be a Marxist.
They certainly haven't always been... which is why it's appropriate to call them "Neo" = "New".
(Edited 42 seconds later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 5 years ago, 13 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,147,525
@previous (D)
> So "Neo" Marxism is a new, fresh interpretation of an old idea, but still with the same basic principles of "regular old Marxism".
We are approaching a pretty circular definition here that I am trying to cut through. In what specific ways does "neo marxist" thought differ from traditional marxist thought, and how does BBC as an institution propagate those ideas? I listened to the link in @1,147,503 (D) until I got to the first point he used the term "neo marxist" (about 4.5 minutes in) and as far as I can tell, it refers to accounts of history that explicitly cover the lives of black/marginalized people. Which...seems to have almost nothing to do directly with dialectical materialism or class-based struggle or the exploitative nature of capitalism as far as I can tell. The first five minutes of the video are of him just being mad at the titles of videos on BBC iPlayer so I stopped watching. He also referenced Vox, which while definitely on the left, is not "neo marxist", though it has no qualms about hiring marxist writers. The organization itself is left-liberal exploratory journalism. I am no closer to understanding what "neo marxism" is, except insofar as I have a slightly more coherent idea of what it isn't.
> So "Neo" Marxism is a new, fresh interpretation of an old idea, but still with the same basic principles of "regular old Marxism".
We are approaching a pretty circular definition here that I am trying to cut through. In what specific ways does "neo marxist" thought differ from traditional marxist thought, and how does BBC as an institution propagate those ideas? I listened to the link in @1,147,503 (D) until I got to the first point he used the term "neo marxist" (about 4.5 minutes in) and as far as I can tell, it refers to accounts of history that explicitly cover the lives of black/marginalized people. Which...seems to have almost nothing to do directly with dialectical materialism or class-based struggle or the exploitative nature of capitalism as far as I can tell. The first five minutes of the video are of him just being mad at the titles of videos on BBC iPlayer so I stopped watching. He also referenced Vox, which while definitely on the left, is not "neo marxist", though it has no qualms about hiring marxist writers. The organization itself is left-liberal exploratory journalism. I am no closer to understanding what "neo marxism" is, except insofar as I have a slightly more coherent idea of what it isn't.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 5 years ago, 25 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,147,534
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> In what specific ways does "neo marxist" thought differ from traditional marxist thought
As far as I can see, little to none. The only main difference is in the name - neo as opposed to classical. Neo simply means new. There's really nothing more to it than that.
> and how does BBC as an institution propagate those ideas?
Same old methods: via propaganda pieces. If you continue watching that video, he does quite a thorough job of showing up the BBC on that program about the wars, and how idiotic it is to bang on about how ethnic minorities are brushed under the carpet and under-represented in British history. The whole thing (and other programs like it) is tinged with the Marxist theme of "the dictatorship of the proletariat" vs. "the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", where the evil British Empire play the latter role, while the poor oppressed ethnic minorities play the former. When was the last time you saw, for example, a documentary about William Wilberforce, as opposed to one about the role of evil Britain in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, pre-1833?
> In what specific ways does "neo marxist" thought differ from traditional marxist thought
As far as I can see, little to none. The only main difference is in the name - neo as opposed to classical. Neo simply means new. There's really nothing more to it than that.
> and how does BBC as an institution propagate those ideas?
Same old methods: via propaganda pieces. If you continue watching that video, he does quite a thorough job of showing up the BBC on that program about the wars, and how idiotic it is to bang on about how ethnic minorities are brushed under the carpet and under-represented in British history. The whole thing (and other programs like it) is tinged with the Marxist theme of "the dictatorship of the proletariat" vs. "the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", where the evil British Empire play the latter role, while the poor oppressed ethnic minorities play the former. When was the last time you saw, for example, a documentary about William Wilberforce, as opposed to one about the role of evil Britain in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, pre-1833?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 5 years ago, 56 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,147,549
@previous (D)
> As far as I can see, little to none. The only main difference is in the name - neo as opposed to classical. Neo simply means new. There's really nothing more to it than that.
In that case why invent this term? Capitalism has been around for hundreds of years but it doesn't make much sense to call Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk "neo capitalists". They're just...capitalists. It seems like a term that was invented to sound mysterious and spooky while adding no explanatory utility.
> Same old methods: via propaganda pieces. If you continue watching that video, he does quite a thorough job of showing up the BBC on that program about the wars, and how idiotic it is to bang on about how ethnic minorities are brushed under the carpet and under-represented in British history. The whole thing (and other programs like it) is tinged with the Marxist theme of "the dictatorship of the proletariat" vs. "the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", where the evil British Empire play the latter role, while the poor oppressed ethnic minorities play the former. When was the last time you saw, for example, a documentary about William Wilberforce, as opposed to one about the role of evil Britain in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, pre-1833?
I wasn't educated in British schools so I don't really have enough knowledge to comment on what they teach or how they teach it. Assuming that everything he says in the video is correct, and everything in the BBC video is incorrect, it still isn't marxism. If you want to read marxist critiques of the UK, or WWI, there are tons of those out there! Here's just part of one for example, from WSWS. Marxist critiques classically focus on means of production, class conflicts, the unsustatinable nature of global capitalism, etc. As far as I can tell, there was none of that in the BBC video; it was about alleged downplaying of nonwhite participants in WWI by the white political establishment. Wanting more representation for minorities in the history classroom is not marxism, even if that desire is totally unfounded. Marxism isn't just "ideas about race that I disagree with, and the more I disagree with them, the more Marxist it is."
> As far as I can see, little to none. The only main difference is in the name - neo as opposed to classical. Neo simply means new. There's really nothing more to it than that.
In that case why invent this term? Capitalism has been around for hundreds of years but it doesn't make much sense to call Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk "neo capitalists". They're just...capitalists. It seems like a term that was invented to sound mysterious and spooky while adding no explanatory utility.
> Same old methods: via propaganda pieces. If you continue watching that video, he does quite a thorough job of showing up the BBC on that program about the wars, and how idiotic it is to bang on about how ethnic minorities are brushed under the carpet and under-represented in British history. The whole thing (and other programs like it) is tinged with the Marxist theme of "the dictatorship of the proletariat" vs. "the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", where the evil British Empire play the latter role, while the poor oppressed ethnic minorities play the former. When was the last time you saw, for example, a documentary about William Wilberforce, as opposed to one about the role of evil Britain in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, pre-1833?
I wasn't educated in British schools so I don't really have enough knowledge to comment on what they teach or how they teach it. Assuming that everything he says in the video is correct, and everything in the BBC video is incorrect, it still isn't marxism. If you want to read marxist critiques of the UK, or WWI, there are tons of those out there! Here's just part of one for example, from WSWS. Marxist critiques classically focus on means of production, class conflicts, the unsustatinable nature of global capitalism, etc. As far as I can tell, there was none of that in the BBC video; it was about alleged downplaying of nonwhite participants in WWI by the white political establishment. Wanting more representation for minorities in the history classroom is not marxism, even if that desire is totally unfounded. Marxism isn't just "ideas about race that I disagree with, and the more I disagree with them, the more Marxist it is."
(Edited 1 minute later.)