Language lesson


jewseverywhere

I’ve mentioned before this curious trait in my hate mail: I’m ‘accused’ of being Jewish. It’s discombobulating because, to my knowledge, I have no Jewish ancestry at all, and because I don’t find the accusation to be at all insulting…although clearly my correspondents do.

Over the last year or two, though, it’s changed. Nowadays I commonly get accused of being a Cultural Marxist. Check out this roundup of cultural marxist memes to see what it means. Once again, it’s mostly meaningless, and the only thing it tells you is that whoever is flinging the term around is a racist and anti-Semite.

Comments

  1. Gnumann+, out&proud cultural marxist (just don't ask me about Gramsci) says

    I’m obviously not agreeing to the meaningless part.

    Though they are largely ignorant towards what the term means. And most of those thus labeled are sadly not.

  2. Gnumann+, out&proud cultural marxist (just don't ask me about Gramsci) says

    Ahem!

    Delurking to point out #notallculturalmarxists

    Though it’s a very good tell when somebody thinks it’s a good insult. And most of those called cultural marxists sadly aren’t…

  3. Athywren, Social Justice Weretribble says

    TIL discombobulation is an actual word. I honestly never knew that before today… thought it was a joke word. I decided enough was enough, and I was going to look it up. Nope! Not a joke! Real word!

    I generally don’t like to judge my correctitudinosity by the things that people call me, but I like to think that accusations of Jewishness, cultural marxism, and SJWishness are signs that you’re probably doing something right. Of course, I consider annoying the people who make those accusations as if they were something to be ashamed of to be something right, so that might be tautological, but I stand by it nonetheless.

  4. robro says

    Of course, yet another dog whistle. Some how I had been spared this one, but what’s one more. Of course, bigots must resort to this sort of verbal subterfuge because, you know, it’s not “”PC”” to say what you really mean. And it’s true that saying heinous and hateful things can get you into trouble, end political or entertainment careers, etc.

    I stumbled on this old (2005) NYT piece on the use of dog whistles by Republicans with a quote from Lee Atwater that makes the bigotry blatant. I may post it on my Facebook page just to needle my relatives in the South who are in a lather about flags and other cherished symbols of “cultural pride”…not slavery, not racism. No, no. They didn’t “grow up in a racist environment.” No sirree bob-tail.

  5. frugaltoque says

    @3 Athywren
    Yeah, someone called me a feminist once. I figured I was on the right track at that point.

  6. erichoug says

    It’s very interesting. I like to look at the We The People petition website at Whitehouse.gov. Almost every week there are 2-3 that are written in different manners but always come back to the same language about “Anti-Racist is Anti-White” and such what.

    It’s interesting to start seeing the larger picture as I have been wondering about the loons that post those petitions for a while now.

  7. NYC atheist says

    Heinous as that nonsense is, that Jewish elephant is adorable. I hope I get invited to his kid’s trunk-mitzvah.

  8. eeyore says

    As deeply offensive as the racism and anti-Semitism are, I think the broader problem is the sloppy use of language. Once upon a time, “cultural Marxist” had a well-defined meaning that had nothing to do with racism or anti-Semitism: It meant someone who applied Marxist economic theory to cultural issues. By that definition, PZ may well be a cultural Marxist. But in time, the term was misused and abused until now it’s mostly a meaningless insult hurled by bigots. Other words that are basically meaningless at this point include liberal, conservative, Nazi, propaganda, justice, fairness and freedom, all of which mean pretty much whatever the speaker wants them to mean. And people on all sides of the ideological divide are guilty of it.

  9. laurentweppe says

    It’s discombobulation because, to my knowledge, I have no Jewish ancestry at all

    Given that Jews made up to 10% of the Roman Empire’s population and the centuries of intermarriage and exogamic breeding that happened through Europe & the Mediterranean Basin, chances are that you, as well as everyone with european, north-african or middle-eastern ancestry do have jewish ancestors.
    Of course that means that so do the antisemitic nutjobs.

  10. victorbogado says

    You know what would be nice ? To count the slur over time on pz’s hate mail, maybe comparing with some other tipical target of such emails like women that dares to think, for instance. I bet there’s something to learn from this data.

  11. ck, the Irate Lump says

    eeyore wrote:

    And people on all sides of the ideological divide are guilty of it.

    What thread would be complete without a “both sides do it” fallacy? I’m sorry, but that’s very lazy reasoning. Are there people of all political stripes that misuse language? Of course. Do you really think it’s equally common for liberals/socialists/etc to abuse language like that in the same way conservatives do?

  12. Azkyroth, B*Cos[F(u)]==Y says

    And people on all sides of the ideological divide are guilty of it.

    Not this shit again.

  13. consciousness razor says

    eeyore:

    Once upon a time, “cultural Marxist” had a well-defined meaning that had nothing to do with racism or anti-Semitism: It meant someone who applied Marxist economic theory to cultural issues. By that definition, PZ may well be a cultural Marxist.

    “If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist.” –Karl Marx, allegedly. (Also, coincidentally, Groucho wouldn’t be in any club that accepts him as a member.)

    If it’s well-defined, I have no idea what it means to say that an economic theory isn’t applied to cultural issues. You can’t do economics of any sort without doing something with culture. Marxist are maybe more upfront or explicit about that fact, but I have trouble understanding what exactly is meant when people (definitionally?) seem to be denying that fact. Maybe it’s supposed to be redundant or is meant to put extra emphasis on that somehow. Or maybe it’s used ironically or something…. Anyway, I still don’t get it. How exactly is it different from simply “Marxist”?

  14. Al Dente says

    By that definition, PZ may well be a cultural Marxist.

    Je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho. ” I am a Marxist of the Groucho variety.”

  15. eeyore says

    CK, No. 15, and Azkyroth, No 17, do I think it’s as common for leftists to misuse language as rightists? Absolutely. I think there’s a confirmation bias that makes it easier to notice when someone you disagree with does it than when someone you agree with does it, but enough examples can be found on both sides that I don’t see how it can plausibly be claimed that this is primarily a problem for conservatives. Just the other day I saw an article in which someone was claiming it’s sexist for men to eat meat because the meat may have come from a female animal, which is about as egregious an abuse of the term “sexist” as I can imagine.

    Two wrongs don’t make a right, and the fact that one side does it isn’t a justification for the other side to do it. So please don’t think I’m excusing or justifying the right; I’m not.

  16. eeyore says

    Consciousness Razor, No. 18, Marxists are not a monolithic unity in which they all agree with each other about everything. Some Marxists are sexists. Some Marxists are racists. A lot of Marxists are homophobic (or at least they were when Stalin was running the Soviet Union and Fidel was running Cuba). Other Marxists see racial, sexual and sexual-orientation egalitarianism as a logical extension of Marxist economic theory. So I think a clarification may be necessary, which is why cultural Marxism gets its own label.

  17. consciousness razor says

    CK, No. 15, and Azkyroth, No 17, do I think it’s as common for leftists to misuse language as rightists? Absolutely.

    You think that. I doubt anyone was disagreeing with you about whether you absolutely (or not absolutely) think that. Do you have evidence of it? Or would you simply give one solid example that somebody could try to think about?

    I think there’s a confirmation bias that makes it easier to notice when someone you disagree with does it than when someone you agree with does it, but enough examples can be found on both sides that I don’t see how it can plausibly be claimed that this is primarily a problem for conservatives.

    If examples can be found, let’s find some. Sounds like a useful thing to do.

    Just the other day I saw an article in which someone was claiming it’s sexist for men to eat meat because the meat may have come from a female animal, which is about as egregious an abuse of the term “sexist” as I can imagine.

    That’s not a claim you’d hear many liberals making. That individual may very well be liberal, but the idea here is not about this or that isolated conservative saying something bullshitty or nonsensical. The idea is more like this is a feature of conservatism generally, in the sense that there are misuses of language which many conservatives share in common, which are integral/functioning/critical parts of their conservative identities/views/arguments. Liberals as a group are against sexism and abuses of non-human animals, but it’s not at all a typical formulation from your garden-variety liberal that they are connected like that. Not so with conservatives.

    Meanwhile, the most egregious abuses of the term “sexist” that I can imagine have in fact come from conservatives, who try to distort words like that into something entirely different from what they actually mean (not make random or illogical or unevidenced speculations or additions to it, like you’re suggesting). That’s unambiguously a case of misusing language for their nefarious purposes, not a case of making logical errors or of lacking evidence to support factual claims.

  18. Azkyroth, B*Cos[F(u)]==Y says

    CK, No. 15, and Azkyroth, No 17, do I think it’s as common for leftists to misuse language as rightists? Absolutely.

    “Leftists” is a polyphyletic category.

  19. consciousness razor says

    eeyore:

    Other Marxists see racial, sexual and sexual-orientation egalitarianism as a logical extension of Marxist economic theory. So I think a clarification may be necessary, which is why cultural Marxism gets its own label.

    I know they’ve never been on the same page when it comes to all sorts of issues, but what work is the label “cultural” actually doing? How is all that properly understood as “cultural” or “more cultural” (whatever that would mean), in contrast to the stuff economists or economic policies/theories are addressing? Economists don’t just do math or bookkeeping or whatever — obviously, the point is to study human societies and some aspects of how they are/should be managed. What sense does it make to imply there’s anything “not cultural” about that?

    And if the distinction you wanted to make, which requires some clarification, is something like “Egalitarian Marxism” vs “Anti-egalitarian Marxism,” because they don’t all agree about that particular thing (namely, egalitarianism), why not use terms like that which are more clear and less confusing?

  20. says

    I’m reminded of J.R.R. Tolkien’s response to a query from his German publisher regarding his “Aryan” ancestry (or lack thereof):

    I regret that I am not clear as to what you intend by arisch. I am not of Aryan extraction: that is Indo-iranian; as far as I am aware none of my ancestors spoke Flindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people…

  21. eeyore says

    Consciousness Razor, No. 22, I was not as clear as I should have been. I think that problem is found equally at the extreme fringes, both left and right. No, the writer who claimed eating meat is sexist probably doesn’t speak for most liberals, but to be fair the people who shout “cultural Marxist” probably aren’t representative of most conservatives either. The closer to the fringe one gets, either left or right, the more likely one is to hear nutty things. It’s called the fringe for a reason.

    And as one moves more toward the middle, I’m not sure this kind of abuse of language is a feature of either liberalism or conservatism generally. I also think that there’s a confirmation bias at work, and also that people tend not to give the benefit of the doubt to their ideological opponents, and that both sides have better arguments than their opponents make out.

    Now, that said, I’m not aware of any actual studies or other data that would show either that I’m right or that I’m wrong. I’m candidly speaking based on my own observations and little else. I’ve got both fringe leftists and fringe conservatives among my friends and family, and in terms of rhetorical overreach I don’t see much to distinguish one group from another. Both groups think the world is divided into two groups: People who agree with me, and dishonest morons.

  22. eeyore says

    Consciousness Razor, No. 24, I take your point. I think it depends on how broadly you’re defining “culture”. I’ve heard some Marxists claim that the traditional nuclear family is patriarchal and should be abolished in favor of more open arrangements. That’s probably both economic and cultural. But a Christian conservative wouldn’t see the economic aspect of it and would focus entirely on the cultural issue of how families should be organized.

    I think you’re right that ultimately, everything is about economics, including people’s attitudes toward race and gender. So maybe I’m going to backpedal a bit after I think about it some more.

  23. ck, the Irate Lump says

    eeyore wrote:

    No, the writer who claimed eating meat is sexist probably doesn’t speak for most liberals,

    I’ve tried really hard to find a source for a liberal saying “it’s sexist to eat meat because it might’ve come from a female animal”. I’ve found plenty of sources saying that meat-eating is linked to masculinity (which is true), and that meat is often advertised in sexist ways (also true), and that there are parallels to the way meat is marketed to the way women are objectified (again true). Frankly, your example sounds like what certain people do to try to get a “gotcha” by attempting to show hypocrisy in a political opponent despite not really understand the topic at hand, rather than someone legitimately arguing the point. Like, perhaps someone trying to defend someone making a sexist joke by pointing to a sexual joke made by someone else.

  24. consciousness razor says

    eeyore:

    And as one moves more toward the middle, I’m not sure this kind of abuse of language is a feature of either liberalism or conservatism generally.

    I disagree. I think it is a “normal” feature of conservatism, and that’s part of why it’s the wrong sort of view to have.

    But I do understand now that originally you were only talking about “extremes” or “fringes.” To the extent that just means people with whacky views that aren’t true (however else you might characterize those views), then I admit that they all do express their whacky views which aren’t true. And that can of course involve misusing language (or other shenanigans), no matter which “side” is closest to their position.

    I also think that there’s a confirmation bias at work, and also that people tend not to give the benefit of the doubt to their ideological opponents, and that both sides have better arguments than their opponents make out.

    There are sometimes (not always) better arguments that my ideological opponents could use, but those are still bad arguments. Being charitable or giving a person the benefit of the doubt doesn’t mean they have to look good or reasonable at the end of the day. Even after lots of small improvements like that, much of the time they’re still very clearly saying shitheaded things. That’s just what (non-extreme, non-fringey) conservatives do: shitheaded things. I’m not sure if you expected me to say anything else, because some are your friends and family (and mine), but there it is.

    If they’re not like that, then calling them “ideological opponents” is a stretch. They’re people with different ideas or perspectives, which are fairly good and reasonable as I think mine are. We can have a fruitful conversation about that, find ways to compromise or cooperate with one another, and so on. The point is that I’m not very motivated to be uncharitable to people like that — it’s when people say utterly craptastic things that I’m especially uninterested in trying to improve their crap for them, only to be left with slightly better crap. So, sure, that sort of phenomenon is there and I admit to it, but how is it relevant? Why are we talking as if it’s a big bias of mine, that my number one goal is not to try my level best at that in all circumstances? I mean, remember, this started with crypto-Nazis calling PZ a “cultural Marxist” …. do you think there’s anything in that of any value for an extremely charitable person to fix? What are we supposed to do?

  25. irene says

    I’m reminded that two of Stanley Ann Dunham’s high school teachers get reviled as “Frankfurt School style Marxists” (note: all available evidence suggests they were no such thing).

  26. mnb0 says

    I’d say the label Cultural Marxism is of Dutch origin. If I recall correctly it was introduced by some cronie of Geert Wilders. Breivik wrote about it in his “manifest”. It means something like the politico-cultural elite in Europe, that took over power with the explicit goal to destruct christian values and freedom in Europe. Letting muslims immigrate was part of the plan, according to this line of thinking. These folks hence also like to talk about Eurabia, which seems to be an invention of an English woman.
    So people who use this word don’t have to be antisemites – their main point is islamophobia. They may even pose as philo-semites, something that the Dutch jews don’t seem to appreciate.

    Yup, it seems that Dutch islamophobe and Geert Wilders ally Martin Bosma coined the term. This article on an extremely right wing site uses it:

    http://www.dagelijksestandaard.nl/2011/07/cultuur-marxisten-wie-moet-zich-verantwoorden/

    The book is from September 2010. I’m pretty sure Bosma used the term before.

    Of course, when it suits, it’s easy to replace “islam” by “judaism”. Dutch jews generally realize this as well and hence generally don’t support Wilders and Bosma (who has been in Dutch parliament for years now), now matter how often they praise Israel. They recognize that that praise is not sincere; in their twisted worldview Israel is a spear head in the battle against their favourite enemy.

  27. eeyore says

    Consciousness Razor, I’m not sure you and I are that far apart. If someone says something overtly racist or sexist, I’m not even going to try to re-draft their argument to make it more presentable. There are some views that are simply beyond the pale.

    I do think, though, that there are specific issues which have far better arguments on both sides than partisans will admit. For example, with regard to the Middle East, there are roughly two camps: Those who think Israel can do no wrong, and those who think the Palestinians can do no wrong. The idea that there may be some fault on both sides, and that neither side smells like roses, doesn’t get seriously entertained by either advocacy camp. And in that case, I think it’s important to make sure that one has actually listened and considered the arguments of the other group. Maybe one won’t change one’s mind, but hopefully one will realize that such issues are more complex than partisans will admit.

  28. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    And in that case, I think it’s important to make sure that one has actually listened and considered the arguments of the other group.

    Attitude is not an argument. Which is all that often the MRA, liberturds, bigots, often present.
    Your problem is that you are pretending everybody is listening and being rational. Those who are preaching with attitude aren’t listening. Just bullying those who disagree with them. There is nothing to learn from presuppositionalists.

  29. prae says

    And here I thought the jew bogeyman is a thing of the past, that nowadays all the cool nazi kids use the muslim one. But maybe it’s just my german education, history in german schools is about 80% about how evil the nazis were. (Not that I disagree, It was just a little too much IMHO)

  30. Dunc says

    eeyore, @ 27

    I think that problem is found equally at the extreme fringes, both left and right. […] And as one moves more toward the middle, I’m not sure this kind of abuse of language is a feature of either liberalism or conservatism generally.

    I think the issue is more related to the mainstream of each side of the political divide… Sure, you can make this argument if you define all of the Republican presidential candidates and the vast majority of their supporters as “extreme fringes” – and from a wider, global ideological perspective, there’s a pretty good argument that they are. But within a US context, I’m not sure it really makes sense to define basically the whole of one of the two mainstream parties as “extremists”.

  31. Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened says

    @ eeyore

    Those who think Israel can do no wrong, and those who think the Palestinians can do no wrong. The idea that there may be some fault on both sides, and that neither side smells like roses, doesn’t get seriously entertained by either advocacy camp.

    I agree this is a polarized issue, but you’ve made the same mistake here that the partisans do; you’re talking as if it’s two groups involved, Israelis and Palastinians, and one side has to be right and the other wrong.

    This is completely false. There are four groups. The IDF and Hamas are the active combatants. The Israeli and Palestinian civilians are caught in the middle. Hamas will fire a few rockets into Israel and kill dozens of innocent civilians. The IDF will then respond by bombing the shit out of Palestinian settlements, killing hundreds of innocent civilians. Not all Israelis support the IDF, and not all Palestinians support Hamas, and it’s perfectly possible that more than one group can be in the wrong. The oversimplification of a complex situation is the root of the problem here.

  32. eeyore says

    Thumper, I was talking about the Israeli and Palestinian leadership, not the average Jew or Arab on the street. Sorry if that threw you off.