They got hung up on the idea that societies and social mores change to fit the “material necessity” of their economic systems. According to this view then, values are completely malleable. I.E., if you don’t agree with Marxism (or Leninism, or Maoism, etc.) you simply haven’t gotten with the program.
Yeah, when someone insists that all possible evidence can be ideologically re-interpreted to fit the dogma, you’re pretty much talking religion rather than science.
I’ve felt for a long time that a major reason for that was to justify their dogmatism. If people are completely malleable, then they don’t need to change their perfect system in any way; they can just mold the people into fitting the system instead.
They got that wrong, too, but more fundamentally, Marxists forgot that human behavior is different in substantial ways from ants and bees.
It’s a functional system when the individuals are indistinguishable drones, and behavior adheres to strict stimulus>response loops, but that doesn’t describe our species at all.
Based on historical accounts of Karl’s hygiene, he might have found more fulfillment in a hunter/gatherer tribe, but then they don’t tolerate freeloading like our "advanced’ societies do. He invented a philosophy to rationalize why he still hasn’t cleaned his room yet.
I think you’re both right in a way; I think it’s relative.
Whether I feel the need to verify a claim is a function of how extraordinary the claim is, and the past reliability of the source.
If it’s something really surprising or consequential, I’ll look into it regardless of where I heard it. But below that, there are levels of claim that I would accept from a generally reliable / qualified source, but take with a pinch of salt or need further verification from a source that has lied or embellished in the past.
Anyway, it’s a bit of a tangent from the OP, I just wanted to say that it’s neither about taking things on faith, nor bullishly rejecting sources we don’t like.
Anything Stephen A. Smith says, to be honest, because I have always found him very annoying and pompous. His latest was a prediction before the NBA Finals started that, basically, Indiana didn’t belong on the same court as OKC. The series is presently tied 2-2.
Anyway, I am currently annoyed with what I consider to be his correct assessment of the firing of Knick’s coach Tom Thibodeau after five seasons. It wasn’t about wins and losses or ability, his firing was a result of a player driven league and the fact that Tom Thibodeau wouldn’t kow-tow to the players’ desire for more “load management” and less day to day intensity. Owners are terrified at upsetting the players because they will leave via free agency and others will not come to your team.
I don’t give him too much credit, though. I comfort myself with this thought:
Getting back to the OP topic, right now the noxious trolls known as Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor-Greene are making valid criticism of Trump’s military attack on Iran.
It was much more than that; Tucker generally questioned the motivations of getting involved in a war on the basis of dubious claims, pointing out the money that Cruz has received from the Israel lobby.
Really worth watching the whole interview if you haven’t. Tucker doesn’t hold back; it’s like he’s possessed by Mehdi Hasan.
I plan to. Normally wouldn’t give Tucker Carlson a shit sandwich if he were starving, but the snips I’ve seen are brutal to the pompous ass that passes for my Senator.
If it helps, there’s an uncomfortable bit near the end where Cruz points out how much tucker simps for Russia and questions his motivations and funding.
It’s really a lose-lose interview, which means it’s win win for the rational world; just make sure you have enough popcorn.
I find myself more than willing to take everyone’s commentary on the Tucker/Cruz fight without watching it myself. I don’t want to drive traffic Tucker’s way by clicking on links or anything else that might help him.
It is though nice to get confirmation that he’s a knowing tool of evil (way past mincing words) rather than incompetent.
And back to the thread’s point, that makes it that much more important when someone happens to be right while a complete and total jerk. Assuming they aren’t incompetent, you really need to know what agenda they’re pursuing, and how your support may well be solicited, knowingly or not.
