I’ve noticed a peculiar phenomenon prevalent with the liberals. They have an inclination to diminish the complexity of those they perceive as adversaries by reducing them to caricatures or dehumanizing representations.
For instance, they liken Xi to Winnie the Pooh, depicting him in a manner that belittles his position and influence. Similarly, Putin is portrayed as a mad king, exaggerating his power and malevolence for dramatic effect. They characterize Russians as orcs, implying that they are inherently evil and lacking in humanity’s essential qualities of compassion and reason.
This trend seems to suggest a reluctance among liberals to engage with opposing viewpoints on their own merits, instead choosing to dismiss them outright or diminish their significance through caricatured representations. This approach may serve as a form of psychological defense mechanism, allowing individuals to avoid the discomfort and cognitive dissonance that can arise from confronting unfamiliar or challenging ideas.
A group, claiming to champion values such as empathy, inclusivity, and respect for diversity, appears to be engaging in a peculiar behavior: dehumanizing their opponents by reducing them to caricatures or diminishing their complexity. This trend is as a form of naked hypocrisy.
While I can definitly see it being both, and I knpw fpr sure elements of the second are true, like forgetting it isnt hard to check hexbear history. I genuinely think its the first, because even saying "your political analysis is blunter than a club and saying that did not happen, you look to be the agressor, here is the link for others to see, is also bullying.
But I genuinely think it is mostly the first, I mean the only other reason I would thibk to randomly bring up your degrees in a discussion about southpark (and randomly throw in that they read more) would be to wave arround the “I have more papers saying I know stuff, so I must me correct” and they just did not know how to respond when no one gave extra devrence to the Doctorate (also still hung up on why they included the masters doctorate outways masters). I thibk the lack of deverence is why they said that “Leftests do not respect their opponents”
Marxists also know that any degree in a reactionary institution will tend towards creating uncritical reactionaries. Well, the criticism may be there, but it’s a fettered kind of criticism that is unable to see certain problems, never mind their implications or solutions. So the qualification itself doesn’t necessarily hold much weight.
I’ve had rigorous engagements with Marxists and non-Marxists without much of any education at all. And I’ve had asinine conversations with highly educated people who fail absolutely to question bourgeois assumptions. The latter don’t deserve respect lol.
To study for a degree and remain or eventually become a Marxist, though? That tends to produce a special kind of critical mind and indicates a level of independent thinking and courage. Staying the course in the face of the ridicule indicates a certain commitment to the truth. The educational process is designed to smash that line of thought out of students. Challenging orthodoxy is hard and warrants some respect even if the comrade gets some things wrong.
cries in the uncritical capitalist dogma in my masters program
You’re miles ahead of me. When I finished my education, I was one of those who’d give you an asinine conversation lol.
some days I wish I was that person, it would make grad school so much easier, instead of trying to hear the capitalist dogma go unchallenged, put that to one side, and take the useful information to the other,