Candace Owens interviews Douglas Murray

by LoveUniHateExams 39 Replies latest social current

• 

  Simon

  peacefulpete: you obviously learnt some great obfuscation techniques as a witness and are applying them very well. Unfortunately, we can see through this kind of thing and we know the truth, we know what happened in the cases you cite and we know what is going on in the world.

  We know what identity politics is, everyone does, trying to claim it's really "any political or social or even economic association" is just word salad drivel.

  The bottom line is, you're not fooling anyone and you're only convincing yourself.
• 

  slimboyfat

  I have read the book. Murray is right there is a problem, but I have no idea what the solution is. I don’t think he does either. In fact I doubt there is a solution. Society organises itself in different ways at different times, each with its own set of positives and miseries.

  I do think that postmodern instability in gender relations and other kinds of deconstruction are a result of the material conditions of late capitalism. This is the root cause that Murray does not discuss, either because he doesn’t make the connection, or because he doesn’t want to face the possibility that to reverse any of the phenomena he complains about would necessarily involved undoing the legal and economic structure as it is currently organised.
• 

  cofty

  I do think that postmodern instability in gender relations and other kinds of deconstruction are a result of the material conditions of late capitalism. - SBF

  How so?

  The most active proponents of identity politics are not victims of capitalism, they are over-privileged beneficiaries of it.
  
• 

  Simon

  The most active proponents of identity politics are not victims of capitalism, they are over-privileged beneficiaries of it.

  They have no purpose, they have comfortable lives because we're living in abundance with little war or immediate risk, low crime, low disease rates (more down to lifestyle). People need a cause though, so they invent them.

  Cimate change. Racism. Equal wages. So many things to fight, regardless of whether there is actually a genuine issue anymore or not.

  Heck, we're actually at the point of a Python sketch where we fight for the right for a man to have a baby even though he can't have 'em.

  We're part way through a major war on drinking straws for christ sake, people have nothing better to do that squabble about inconsequential nonsense and the fact that it's not the cause of the "thing" doesn't matter, it's all about feelings, never about facts.

  Of course there are real issues still to fight ... but heck if those don't take effort and the lazy cunts don't want that, it's easier to block old women crossing the road and scream "nazi" at them than to fight the real nazis in the world and you can still be home for the dinner your mum has made you.

  Postmodernism needs to invent and create instability to provide cover for the corrupt to do their business and the moronic masses go along with it because they are scared of missing out on some event that they want to post on social media, so we have pussy marches and no one has a clue what they are there for but it may be the next Woodstock so heck, put on a pink hat and find your sneakers ...
• 

  OneGenTwoGroups

  Candace Owens .... yeah, we're at Candace Owens now.
• 

  Simon

  What an amazing argument!

  Sorry, is she not falling into line on the democrat agenda? An intelligent articulate outspoken black woman, thinking for herself and deciding on conservatism - shame on her eh!?

  Let me guess, you're reaching for the guidebook and it will tell you to screech "Nazi!"
• 

  slimboyfat

  Until the twentieth century, capitalism promoted what we consider the “traditional” family and gender roles, which involved men working in the factory, or office, women looking after the family, and didn’t have any useful role for homosexuals who are out of the closet. In this system it made economic sense for women to be denied the vote and homosexuality to be criminalised.

  Over the course of the century the capitalist imperative for economic growth necessitated that women enter the workplace, effectively nearly doubling the potential for economic output. The extension of voting and other civil rights to women is an epiphenomenon of this material change in work and economic arrangements.

  The disruption to the family, and the emphasis on individuality over the family unit, also meant that openly gay people could form an economically viable part of society. So capitalism extended equal rights to gay people as well.

  The disruption of gender roles and uncertainly of the definitions sexuality are a result of the development in late capitalism away from the family unity and toward equal rights, individuality, and non-traditional economic and household arrangements.

  So can we return to traditional definitions of gender and sexuality without undoing the entire economic system which has produced the instability in the first place?
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  Until the twentieth century, capitalism promoted what we consider the “traditional” family and gender roles - yes, this is true. Although other systems also promoted the same thing. Promoting traditional families and gender roles wasn't unique to capitalism.

  So can we return to traditional definitions of gender and sexuality - I don't think this is what people like Owens and Murray want.

  We have a great many freedoms - freedom to be gay, unmarried, trans, whatevs - and we want to keep that.

  What we desperately need is common sense. Sexual and other minorities are fine but they are minorities, numerically speaking. Each member matters as an individual but the % of people who are trans, for example, is statistically insignificant.

  The solution to this is to put individual identity over group identity.

  That's the problem with identity politics - and it's what Murray and Owens were discussing - identity politics puts group identity above anything else. So you end up with an ideology that seeks to strait-jacket people, metaphorically speaking.

  Not all black men love hip-hop or rap. Some may like chess or ballet.

  Not all gay men like 'gay' things, etc.
  

  Edit: yes, I think Murray and Owens want to return to traditional definitions of gender but not sexuality.
  
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  Candace Owens .... yeah, we're at Candace Owens now - by all means criticise Candace Owens or critique her comments. She's not perfect.

  ^^^ But this comment just isn't good enough. XD
  
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  Ask people how to define Marxism and you get everything from far left to far right notions. It's a catch all label for ideologies as widely separated as Leninism and Nazism - no, not true. Nobody mixes up Nazism and Marxism.

  There is some confusion between socialism and communism, mainly because the Oxford dictionary definition for both is virtually identical. Also, both socialists and communists take their ideas from Karl Marx.

  But whether it's called socialism, communism or Marxism, it's fairly common for political gays to carry signs and banners that say 'smash capitalism', etc.

  
  

  ^^^ see?