Talk:James A. Lindsay
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Contentious topic
[edit]I've added notices. If we need to add revert or consensus required restrictions to this page, we can, but honestly I still can't figure out why none of you has taken this to NPOVN or BLPN. Valereee (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Valereee, I agree that we need a formal method to resolve this dispute, and I am considering following Springee’s advice to utilize the RfC format. But first, we need to do something about Pokerplayer513 and their disregard for the basic BRD cycle. Their first attempt to insert SPLC cite has been reverted here. Right afterwards, they re-inserted it in a different place but under identical context.[1] When that was reverted, they reinserted it again with an incorrect summary claiming their original cite had in-line atrib.[2] I have discussed SPLC extensively in the Talk and suggested particular quotes to use, yet Pokerplayer has not posted a single comment in Talk. To make the matter worse, they have reinserted disputed edits from other editors, against a clear BLUNDEL warning to seek consensus first.[3] This is why before any formal dispute resolution process, we need this BLP placed under a "consensus required" page restriction. In addition, Pokerplayer513 should be asked to self-revert the two vio edits or face sanctions. XMcan (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- @XMcan apologies. I assumed the SPLC was more neutral/moderate than Jacobin or Current Affairs and since it was saying something similar to the current citations then it would be ok. That's why I made my first edit. When you removed it I was confused as to why, but I figured it was because it was in the lede so I moved it to the conspiracy theory section. I didn't include an attribution because Jacobin and Current Affairs didn't and again, I thought it was more moderate/centrist/neutral than the other two so I didn't think it was necessary.
- "When that was reverted, they reinserted it again with an incorrect summary claiming their original cite had in-line atrib.[4]" - XMcan
- It did have a in-line attribution, but you deleted it on the previous edit. I suppose I could have done a full revert, but I figured just adding back the citation would be a compromise since I wasn't sure why you deleted the text in the first place considering the other sources do not "attempt to reframe and redefine CMCT" and the Weigel source does "explicitly say Lindsay promotes CMCT" and I said in my original edit. Weigel explicitly says "Most of his rhetoric focuses on the specter of cultural Marxism...". Further the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory page says "Conspiracy theories claim that an elite of Marxist theorists and Frankfurt School intellectuals are subverting Western society" which is almost the exact same as the text you deleted from @Aquillion which said "...the far-right Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory which alleges a concerted effort by Marxist critical theorists to undermine Western civilization using Marxism." Those mean basically the same thing in this case.
- That being said, even though the CMCT article mentions antisemitism throughout, I can see why it isn't necessary to mention here. I'll make the appropriate changes.
- If there's something I misunderstood then please clarify for me. How is CMCT being redefined on Lindsay's page since it's the same as on the CMCT page and how does Weigel's article not say Lindsay promotes CMCT? Also, I haven't posted to the talk page because I put my justification in the edit summary. It seemed like you hadn't read the citation before deleting it so I thought a simple edit summary would suffice. I await your reply. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Your recent edit represents a relative improvement over the previous version, but I still believe we should refrain from appending to the original sentence while we continue to debate whether sources support the FSCT link.
- That being said, let me highlight areas where we seem to agree. If CMCT were defined as the notion of a "concerted effort by Marxist critical theorists to undermine Western civilization using Marxism," then I would concur with you, and I would have no issue with the statement that L promotes CMCT. However, that is not how Wikipedia defines it. According to Wikipedia, CMCT is synonymous with the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory, which is described as a "far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness." Do you see the distinction? Jweiss11 can correct me if I am misinterpreting his views, but both he and I are asserting that the latter characterization is a misrepresentation of L's views, and there is no support in reliable sources that L promotes FSCT or anything antisemitic. (Even Lindsay's SPLC profile does not mention anything about antisemitism or the Frankfurt School.) This is why I suggest that instead of linking him to FSCT/CMCT, we follow the approach of the LA Times and simply atrib and quote from SPLC that L promotes "conspiracy theories about the supposed communist takeover of the world." Can we agree on that?
- Another factor to consider is that the term "cultural Marxism" has different connotations depending on whom you ask. To some, it refers to FSCT, while according to the Oxford English Dictionary, which presumably reflects common usage, it denotes something different. I don’t want to debate who is right and who is wrong; I’m simply pointing out that different people attribute different meanings to the term. XMcan (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- "If CMCT were defined as... then I would concur with you, and I would have no issue with the statement that L promotes CMCT. However, that is not how Wikipedia defines it. According to Wikipedia, CMCT is..." - XMcan
- It seems like the main issue you have XMcan is over the definition of Cultural Marxism which isn't something that should be decided on Lindsay's page. I see the distinction you are making and I think the CMCT page goes into depth on those distinctions in a way that Lindsay's page can't and shouldn't. I think removing references to antisemitism from Lindsay's page makes sense if it's contentious and if it isn't a very notable part of Lindsay's public persona (but maybe it is, I don't know), I don't think the LA Times/SPLC quote would be an improvement either as it doesn't give it a broader context. Also, Cultural Marxism does vary in meaning and I think the CMCT page goes into those variations as well. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- If there's something I misunderstood then please clarify for me. How is CMCT being redefined on Lindsay's page since it's the same as on the CMCT page and how does Weigel's article not say Lindsay promotes CMCT? Also, I haven't posted to the talk page because I put my justification in the edit summary. It seemed like you hadn't read the citation before deleting it so I thought a simple edit summary would suffice. I await your reply. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Aquillion and MrOllie, what would you say are the two highest quality sources for “Lindsay has promoted the far-right Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory”? If Weigel is considered the top one, which would you regard as the second best in your estimations? XMcan (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Valereee: Both Aquillion and MrOllie seem to have chosen not to respond to the previous question, likely due to their ongoing contributions elsewhere. The ANI hasn't facilitated a resolution; instead, it has stirred up further controversy. It appears that you (and perhaps Novem Linguae) are the only sysops willing to mediate this content dispute. Therefore, I propose to you the following path forward:
-
- I will write an RfC for the Weigel source. After about two weeks or so, it would be preferable if Valereee could write the closing summary. You're already somewhat familiar with the issues, and you haven't taken a side, neither here nor in the CMCT Talk. (I don't consider my p-block from CMCT Talk as you taking a side; my final acts there were made in frustration, and that wasn't cool).
- Before initiating the Weigel RfC, it's crucial to establish a consensus-required restriction on this article, at least for sources. Since I raised concerns about the quality of BLPSOURCES weeks ago, questionable cites have been (re)added without a clear consensus, violating BLPUNDEL and arguably in an effort to substitute quality with the quantity of OVERCITE. [5][6][7][8]
- In accordance with BLUNDEL, the CMCT sentence needs to be reset to its state before the disputed citations and text were added. The Weigel RfC and potential follow-up RfCs will determine whether the disputed material is reinstated.
- Does this proposed plan sound reasonable to you, and are you willing to monitor its implementation? XMcan (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to think maybe a consensus-required restriction for sources would be helpful here, but I'd like to hear from @Aquillion and @MrOllie on that, too. Valereee (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- I would be very concerned about the potential for folks to claim 'no consensus' and force RFCs for every added source as a means to stonewall. In my view we are already seeing indications that that would happen on this talk page, between the repeated argument that sources labeled as 'marxist' in the opinion of a Wikipedia editor are inherently unreliable, or the WP:CRYBLP-style statements that obviously well-cited content must be removed because a minority disagrees. We should not create a situation where obviously on-topic, peer-reviewed sources are subjected to an arbitrary 30 day hold (the standard RFC running time) while RFCs are run because one or two people object to normal editing. I am also concerned by the suggestion that a closer for an RFC would be pre-selected by the person opening that RFC, a principle that would seem to be game-able for obvious reasons. MrOllie (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- If anybody is SQS stalling here, it is MrOllie. First with the ANI, then not responding to a simple question above, and now by attempting to derail the RfC plan that would lead to a clear outcome.
- If anybody has concerns about V’s impartiality, let them speak plainly. V has been moderating our dispute from the start, and there is no reason to change this – unless V doesn’t want to be involved with all our drama anymore, for which I wouldn’t blame them. XMcan (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- If we can settle this with an RFC, I will happily start one. I would phrase it something like "Should the article state that Lindsay is known for promoting the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory?"
- But I do not agree to any special conditions for such an RFC. No preconditions about special restrictions. No unusual runtimes. No selecting a closer in advance. No removing things while the RFC runs - we stick with the status quo as it is now.
- What say you? MrOllie (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- I thought my 3-step plan above was a reasonable compromise. Should I have insisted that both CMCT links be deleted from the BLP first, so that you and Aquillion can start a 30-day RfC about re-including them? Because that is my reading of BLPUNDEL and BLPRS regarding contentious material that is poorly sourced.
- Given that Weigle alone is 21 pages long, your plan to have editors consider five, or however many, OVERCITE sources at once would certainly waste their time and might discourage many from participating. I have offered to write an RfC focused on what you have repeatedly identified as the best source. If Weigle passes muster, I don’t intend to waste my time or yours by RfCing lesser sources. XMcan (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Wasting the community's time would be holding redundant RFCs. If you think the statement needs to be removed, we can hold a single RFC on the statement. But a plan that would involve us holding RFC after RFC for months is not going to work. MrOllie (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- I would be very concerned about the potential for folks to claim 'no consensus' and force RFCs for every added source as a means to stonewall. In my view we are already seeing indications that that would happen on this talk page, between the repeated argument that sources labeled as 'marxist' in the opinion of a Wikipedia editor are inherently unreliable, or the WP:CRYBLP-style statements that obviously well-cited content must be removed because a minority disagrees. We should not create a situation where obviously on-topic, peer-reviewed sources are subjected to an arbitrary 30 day hold (the standard RFC running time) while RFCs are run because one or two people object to normal editing. I am also concerned by the suggestion that a closer for an RFC would be pre-selected by the person opening that RFC, a principle that would seem to be game-able for obvious reasons. MrOllie (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I don't think that there's any reasonable way to interpret an attempt to remove the Weigel source entirely as being reasonable; it's the best source available and is obviously superior to the ones already in the article. As I said above, I feel that if you disagree with the way it's being summarized, the best alternative would be to propose an alternative summary yourself. If you think that it is somehow entirely unreliable, you could take it to WP:RSN, but I don't think you've really made that argument. From my perspective, though, this discussion is essentially over at this point - you wanted better sources; I found one and added it; and there was a general consensus backing both that use of the source and the general version, even if you refuse to accept it. At that point WP:SATISFY applies, especially given that you've repeatedly failed to articulate any alternative summaries of the source in question or provide any other sources that might point to other formulations. To exclude a source entirely, you need a rationale that it's unusable, not just your personal disagreement with how it is summarized. And, in case it needs to be said, I obviously wouldn't support removing it for the full course of an RFC; it has clear consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to think maybe a consensus-required restriction for sources would be helpful here, but I'd like to hear from @Aquillion and @MrOllie on that, too. Valereee (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Maintenance tags
[edit]Maintenance tags themselves need consensus, and it is apparent that the 'Better source needed' does not have it. If anything, it seems that the opinion of most who have commented on these sources is that RSOPINION does not apply - and the fact that a couple of editors disagree is no reason to keep a tag up indefinately. MrOllie (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Possibly true, but I have an altogether different take and interpretation based on my own personal experience. Maintenance tags need discussion. If the use of a maintenance tag has already been discussed and consensus has been found to remove it, then it should not be added back. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
JRE #4
[edit]Are we really going to keep arguing about this after this latest conspiracy theory JRE upload? Lindsay just went full conspiracy theorist (never go full conspiracy theorist), waxing poetic with Joe about Chinese trans plots to subvert America. Can we please stop pretending Lindsay isn't the number one conspiracy theorist on the right? I don't want to link to it here, but the relevant clip was just posted to r/DecodingTheGurus. Quote from the podcast: "The Chinese are like funding the trans stuff. They're like...pushing it. I just wrote a book...called The Queering of the American Child that talks about how schools have been turned into indoctrination centers. It all goes back, to the not just Marxist, but Maoist strategy to make the world conform, that politics of compliance, to make the world conform to this new ideological vision that they have." Viriditas (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- We can't do Original Research even when it seems frustratingly obvious what is going on. It is frustrating that News outlets generally don't bother to cover these things events (Just try being British and watching our media completely ignore dangerous extremism when it comes from "respectable" upper middle class authors while performatively wringing their hands over the alleged "extremism" of peaceful protesters!) but we still need Reliable Sources before we can cover anything. We certainly can't use a phrase like "the number one conspiracy theorist", besides that might be seen as a badge of honour and a challenge to other conspiracy theorists to up their game. The only thing I can suggest is to keep an eye out for coverage in Reliable Sources that can be used and then follow those. At least the article is protected now so valid coverage can't be so easily removed. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, this is my first day. Lindsay's quote points to his book, so the sources should mention it. Viriditas (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Conspiracy theory projection and distorted language.
[edit]In the initial paragraph there is the objectively incorrect statement "He has promoted right-wing conspiracy theories such as Cultural Marxism and LGBT grooming conspiracy theories." THIS is not only incorrect, but a distortion and weaponized use of the term "conspiracy theory". Lindsay has been ACCUSED of perpetuating "conspiracy theories". Whether or not he actually perpetuates "conspiracy theory" is a matter of opinion and based on actual evidence, an inversion of truth. There is no actual evidence these are simply "theories" rather than objective observations of REALITY. This is NOT the equivalent of "flat earth". Labeling "cultural marxism" as a "conspiracy theory" is an obfuscation and subversion of reality and fact. Cultural marxism exists, it is a real phenomenon and it is perpetuated by the "progressive" left. That is a fact. The details of which can be debated. The same goes for "LGBT grooming". This again is an observed phenomenon in the real world. Labeling it a "conspiracy theory" is an attempt to delegitimize a very RATIONAL perspective and position. The goal of this distortion of language is to delegitimize Lindsay and his work. This should at MINIMUM be changed to "He has BEEN ACCUSED OF PROMOTING right-wing conspiracy theories such as Cultural Marxism and LGBT grooming conspiracy theories." BrakeYawSelf (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- BrakeYawSelf, I largely concur with your thoughts here. This article is among the most blatantly biased and defamatory on Wikipedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Which person, who is neither a fringe figure nor a conspiracy theorist, discusses cultural Marxism in a serious or academic manner? I’ll wait for an answer. I follow Lindsay’s Twitter feed. He’s one of the leading right wing conspiracy theorists. In fact, if someone can show me a popular tweet he’s made that isn’t a conspiracy theory, I would be very surprised. Also, I will repeat yet again that the idea he’s an atheist is one of the most unusual claims I’ve ever seen. He has literally spent the last few years on Twitter promoting Christianity, and the vast majority of his Twitter followers are fundamentalists. Something is very weird here. I believe this might have something to do with the argument advanced by conservatives like Leo Strauss, Roger Scruton, and others, perhaps even going back to Plato, who believe that society must force religion on the common people and oppose the tendency of liberalism to secularize in order to maintain social harmony. Even that crazy idea is a conspiracy theory. I’m having trouble finding anything Lindsay says or does that isn’t based in a kind of conspiracy. Viriditas (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Viriditas, ironically you are offering up an conspiracy theory about Lindsay right here, that his atheism is some sort of nefarious ploy or trojan horse that he's been plotting for years (including many years before he was well-known or associated with any conservatives) only to smuggle in Christianity at a later date. He's an atheist because he don't believe in any gods. He's written entire books about this. See the "Works" section of this article. It's pretty simple. Just like he's an American because he is a citizen of the U.S. This isn't complicated. Also, citation needed on the claim that "vast majority of his Twitter followers are fundamentalists". How could you know that? As for which person, who is neither a fringe figure nor a conspiracy theorist, discusses cultural Marxism in a serious or academic manner, here are couple examples: Dennis Dworkin (https://www.unr.edu/global-studies/people/dennis-dworkin) and Fredric Jameson here? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- The atheism thing is something we have discussed before, so I just brought it up again to note that I’m not done with it. As I said, a so called "atheist" keeps promoting Christianity on Twitter. That doesn’t make any sense. As for how I know his followers are fundies, Twitter allows you to look at the profiles of his followers. I will take another look in about four hours from now. As for Dworkin and Jameson, I don’t believe their use of "cultural Marxism" has anything to do with what we are talking about. Just to make sure, I am downloading their books right now to check. Viriditas (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I know Twitter allows you to look at the profiles of followers of an account. But merely "following" an account isn't necessarily an endorsement of an account or that account's views. Lindsay also has nearly 500,000 followers. Did you do some sort of analysis on an unbiased sample of that rather large population? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t, but that’s a great idea and I would love to know how to run a query on their database. I thought Musk ended all of that by locking it down when he took over. Viriditas (talk) 04:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have no idea about how run queries like that on Twitter, but even if you could, how would you accurately categorize accounts based on what you can scrape from bios and posts while culling out all the bot accounts. Sounds like a very tough project. At any rate, I think it's safe to say you haven't done any sort of meaningful analysis to support the conclusion you offered above. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have and I did, just by eyeing the profiles. Viriditas (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Lindsay is apparently funded by Christian Nationalists.[9]. Again, weird for an "atheist". It doesn’t add up. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- When I eye his followers at https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/followers I see lots of accounts that are aren't even moderately religious much less fundamentalist including David Silverman (activist), Yasmine Mohammed, Konstantin Kisin, and Jay Bhattacharya. I mean that's anecdotal. But so is your eyeing. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Per funded by Christian Nationalists...remember when the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were allies? Do you remember why? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Or alternatively, remember when the U.S. gave support to Saddam Hussein? And the Mujahideen of Afghanistan (essentially proto-Taliban/al Qaeda)? Remember why? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- This article explains who the group is that Lindsay is working with. More needs to be said about this. Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Or alternatively, remember when the U.S. gave support to Saddam Hussein? And the Mujahideen of Afghanistan (essentially proto-Taliban/al Qaeda)? Remember why? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Per funded by Christian Nationalists...remember when the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were allies? Do you remember why? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- When I eye his followers at https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/followers I see lots of accounts that are aren't even moderately religious much less fundamentalist including David Silverman (activist), Yasmine Mohammed, Konstantin Kisin, and Jay Bhattacharya. I mean that's anecdotal. But so is your eyeing. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Lindsay is apparently funded by Christian Nationalists.[9]. Again, weird for an "atheist". It doesn’t add up. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have and I did, just by eyeing the profiles. Viriditas (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you do that, please go publish it in a reliable source before talking about it here. WP:OR and WP:NOTFORUM, you know? This applies to all the rest of the thread too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hob Gadling, yes Viriditas's personal impressions about who follows Lindsay on Twitter and what that means are in WP:NOTFORUM territory. But BrakeYawSelf raised concerns with the content of this article, which is appropriate for discussion here. Jweiss11 (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- 'I think the conspiracy theories are true' is not really a concern with the content of this article. MrOllie (talk) 11:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- MrOllie, well, that's a distortion of the concerns raised here, which are that we've elevated the opinions of Lindsay's biased political opponents to the level of facts stated in wiki-voice. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- To quote:
The same goes for "LGBT grooming". This again is an observed phenomenon in the real world. Labeling it a "conspiracy theory" is an attempt to delegitimize a very RATIONAL perspective and position.
. Please don't encourage this sort of thing. MrOllie (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- To quote:
- MrOllie, well, that's a distortion of the concerns raised here, which are that we've elevated the opinions of Lindsay's biased political opponents to the level of facts stated in wiki-voice. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- 'I think the conspiracy theories are true' is not really a concern with the content of this article. MrOllie (talk) 11:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hob Gadling, yes Viriditas's personal impressions about who follows Lindsay on Twitter and what that means are in WP:NOTFORUM territory. But BrakeYawSelf raised concerns with the content of this article, which is appropriate for discussion here. Jweiss11 (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have no idea about how run queries like that on Twitter, but even if you could, how would you accurately categorize accounts based on what you can scrape from bios and posts while culling out all the bot accounts. Sounds like a very tough project. At any rate, I think it's safe to say you haven't done any sort of meaningful analysis to support the conclusion you offered above. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t, but that’s a great idea and I would love to know how to run a query on their database. I thought Musk ended all of that by locking it down when he took over. Viriditas (talk) 04:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I know Twitter allows you to look at the profiles of followers of an account. But merely "following" an account isn't necessarily an endorsement of an account or that account's views. Lindsay also has nearly 500,000 followers. Did you do some sort of analysis on an unbiased sample of that rather large population? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- The atheism thing is something we have discussed before, so I just brought it up again to note that I’m not done with it. As I said, a so called "atheist" keeps promoting Christianity on Twitter. That doesn’t make any sense. As for how I know his followers are fundies, Twitter allows you to look at the profiles of his followers. I will take another look in about four hours from now. As for Dworkin and Jameson, I don’t believe their use of "cultural Marxism" has anything to do with what we are talking about. Just to make sure, I am downloading their books right now to check. Viriditas (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Viriditas, ironically you are offering up an conspiracy theory about Lindsay right here, that his atheism is some sort of nefarious ploy or trojan horse that he's been plotting for years (including many years before he was well-known or associated with any conservatives) only to smuggle in Christianity at a later date. He's an atheist because he don't believe in any gods. He's written entire books about this. See the "Works" section of this article. It's pretty simple. Just like he's an American because he is a citizen of the U.S. This isn't complicated. Also, citation needed on the claim that "vast majority of his Twitter followers are fundamentalists". How could you know that? As for which person, who is neither a fringe figure nor a conspiracy theorist, discusses cultural Marxism in a serious or academic manner, here are couple examples: Dennis Dworkin (https://www.unr.edu/global-studies/people/dennis-dworkin) and Fredric Jameson here? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Which person, who is neither a fringe figure nor a conspiracy theorist, discusses cultural Marxism in a serious or academic manner? I’ll wait for an answer. I follow Lindsay’s Twitter feed. He’s one of the leading right wing conspiracy theorists. In fact, if someone can show me a popular tweet he’s made that isn’t a conspiracy theory, I would be very surprised. Also, I will repeat yet again that the idea he’s an atheist is one of the most unusual claims I’ve ever seen. He has literally spent the last few years on Twitter promoting Christianity, and the vast majority of his Twitter followers are fundamentalists. Something is very weird here. I believe this might have something to do with the argument advanced by conservatives like Leo Strauss, Roger Scruton, and others, perhaps even going back to Plato, who believe that society must force religion on the common people and oppose the tendency of liberalism to secularize in order to maintain social harmony. Even that crazy idea is a conspiracy theory. I’m having trouble finding anything Lindsay says or does that isn’t based in a kind of conspiracy. Viriditas (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM. This thread appears to be arguing about a label that no one is proposing be added to the article itself
|
---|
|
- Not just rational but "very RATIONAL"? Sounds like something a very stable genius would say. If it were a rational argument and not an emotional one it would be based on logic, not feelings. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
"Wokeness" in quotes and "Cultural Marxism"
[edit]I have twice reverted this edit which takes "wokeness" out of quotations and refers to "Cultural Marxism" as if it is real. I think that both of these changes are misguided. "Wokeness" needs to be in quotes because the "wokeness" being invoked here is not actual wokeness (an AAVE term) but the far-right's straw man version of it. If we really don't like using quote marks (and I'm not sure why) then there might be some other way to do it but surely that would be more complicated for no additional benefit. Replacing "conspiracy theories" with "concepts" seems to soft pedal what is being said. In particular it has the effect of hiding the nature of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory behind the redirect, although the redirect itself is not new. Now, I'm not saying that that was the intention. Probably this is all just misguided rather than intentionally misleading. I do see the argument about repetition but we need to find a wording that is explicit that both the things listed are conspiracy theories. We either need to keep it as it is or we need to use the the full name of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article to make it explicit what it is. In both cases these are fairly longstanding elements of the article text and hence form a status quo position that should not be changed without good reason. So, are there any good reasons to change it and, if so, how can we change it in a way that avoids these problems? DanielRigal (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support edits by User:DanielRigal based on the above explanation. Editors are re-litigating the same argument, over and over again on this page (look above). We need to take a roll call, demonstrate a consensus and implement a stable version to prevent this from being a daily occurrence. Otherwise, we need page protection. Viriditas (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- I honestly don’t know why this is a topic for the talk page at all.
- Wokeness is an established term and long-standing concept, hence it has an Wikipedia article. There is simply no need to put it in quotation marks as if it were a made-up term.
- My intention with removing conspiracy theory was simply that it appears twice in one sentence. There might be other ways to phrase this better though.
- Both changes change absolutely nothing as far as content is concerned. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- The quotes around "wokeness" are understandable because the source cited consistently puts quotes around "woke". It's common practice to put quotes around a neologism when introducing it. However, I take exception with DanielRigal's reasoning above about the word. The AAVE usage is no more legitimate than the pejorative usage applied to criticize the political left. It's not a straw-man, nor is it used only by the far-right. While it surely gets used sloppily by many on the right, the term is used by mainstream conservatives, centrists/moderates, liberals, and even some leftists to target aspects of leftist political ideology that are truly regressive and illiberal, like the idea that all white people are intrinsically and uniquely racist, or the notion that it's impossible to be racist against a white person. The article would be better served by not relying on loaded neologisms like "woke", but rather substantively detailing Lindsay's criticism of the political left, mostly prominently in books like Cynical Theories and Race Marxism.
- DasallmächtigeJ brings up a good point about the repetition of the word "conspiracy" in the final sentence of the lead. However, this point of style is subordinate to a greater problem here, one that I've raised more than once before, that the article is relying on opinion pieces from leftist (in same cases overtly Marxist) sources and the SPLC (which has a recent history of defaming figures similar to Lindsay, like Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali) to label Lindsay a conspiracy theorist in Wikivoice. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think SPLC has any such history, but I am curious about who at the organization made the decision to accuse Nawaz of being an "anti-Muslim extremist". That was a very costly decision for them. As for Ali, they retracted that accusation as well. Organizations are not perfect and make mistakes. I've noticed in conservative cultural circles, admitting a mistake is looked down upon as a sign of weakness, but in liberal circles it's considered a sign of strength. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well, the Nawaz and Ali defamations did happen; that's the history that been settled legally. I don't think this is the only instance such misconduct by the SPLC. I think they're doing the same sort of thing with Lindsay. And there other examples. I personally consider admitting mistakes to be a virtue, but it's usually more virtuous when you so before the weight of a multi-million dollar lawsuit is thrust upon you. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ali didn't sue and they removed the page. The SPLC has been accused of "defaming figures" for a long time. 99% of the allegations are baseless. Nawaz and Ali were only the two most recent incidents, and it didn't help that Nawaz and Ali were both taking right-wing positions in various areas (Nawaz was even leaning towards defending Trump in several areas). This possibly contributed to the confusion, I don't know, but the confusion is even greater lately, with Ali coming out as a new Christian and turning her back on atheism. This sounds remarkably familiar. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- When merely taking a right-wing position or being a Christian gets you confused with Neo-Nazis and similar extremists, we have a problem. The SPLC seems have that sort of problem at its core. I find Ali's adoption of Christianity lame and pathetic from an intellectual leadership standpoint (I saw her discuss this in person with Richard Dawkins in May), but it doesn't make her an extremist. It just makes her about a weak as the average person. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with Ali becoming a Christian or being religious. I have a problem with her stated reason for doing so because the reason makes zero sense and indicates that she philosophically backslides into her previous beliefs, using them to make the same justifications she originally protested against. In other words, Islamism and Christian Nationalism are essentially identical. I see this kind of thing a lot with people who swing from one extreme to another, so it always makes me sad. Pretty much the same thing could be said for Nawaz, who went from one extreme to the next. I don't know how or why SPLC thought any of this was "anti-muslim", so that's just a mistake on their part. I do agree that over many centuries, Christianity has undergone reform and secularization, which, depending on how you look at it, has either integrated into democratic society or helped encourage some aspects of pluralism. Most atheists disagree with this position, but I think there are some minor aspects to it that are true. But it also needs to be said that there has been a lot of push-back and opposition to modernity by Christianity, so this argument tends to fall apart when you look at how much effort has been undertaken by Christians to backslide into pre-enlightenment territory. That's not to say there aren't various aspects of liberal and progressive Christianity that take democratic and secular forms, but this has been overtaken by conservative Christianity in recent years. Lindsay, in fact, argues that liberal values are destroying conservative Christianity. Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- The SPLC's defamation of Ali and Nawaz happed long before the ideological shifts you reference occurred with either of them. It happened because they both were critical of Islam and violent acts motivated by Islamic belief. The SPLC has made similar, although less prominently-placed, libel against Sam Harris for the same reason: https://www.splcenter.org/20180419/mcinnes-molyneux-and-4chan-investigating-pathways-alt-right#race-realism. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Harris has gotten himself into some hot water with the things he has said. He's also, like Nawaz and Ali, swung from one extreme to the other, becoming more of what people are calling a "religious personality" these days. While this shift started with Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality without Religion, he and his wife have clearly gone much deeper, and his mentors, like Joseph Goldstein, who I respect and admire, has been very squirrely on the topic of religious beliefs like "rebirth" and other religious ideas. Same thing happened to Michael Shermer, who went from atheist to skeptic, to climate denier, and now is flirting with the alt right, and whose interviews with fringe figures and conspiracy theorists has gone into Joe Rogan territory. This also saddens me, as I like many of Shermer's ideas. So there's clearly a pattern here, of swings from one extreme to the next, instead of a pattern of moderation and staying in the center. I don't think you're going to like this answer, but it's what is happening, IMO. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- That summation of Sam Harris is detached from reality. It’s also totally orthogonal to the reliability of the SPLC, which is the topic germane to this article’s integrity. But I suppose I should not be surprised to hear this sort of alternate reality opinion. At any rate, we (really you) are straying out bounds here (again). Jweiss11 (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- I was quoting conservative rabbi David Wolpe who told Lex Fridman that Harris was "in some deep way, a religious personality." Is he wrong? Where is the "detached from reality" bit? Hint: there is none. It sounds like you aren't familiar with this argument. It's extremely old, and it was first popularized to a larger audience by Stanford professor Frederic Spiegelberg (1897–1994) in 1948, but if I understand the history, he had been talking about it for some time in the 1930s, particularly with his young friend Alan Watts, who would much later spread Spiegelberg's idea in the late 1960s. Jeffrey Kripal summarizes the idea in Spiegelberg's bio. If you read it closely, it sounds like he's describing Sam Harris. This is not an alternative reality, this is an established idea. If you think "religion" or being "religious" comes down to which church, synagogue, or mosque one belongs to, then you're not paying attention. Given your deep and abiding interest in football, this might interest you: it is said that the holiest religious holiday in the United States is Super Bowl Sunday. This idea was popularized by religious professor Joseph L. Price. Viriditas (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: Can you provide any evidence that Shermer denies global warming? Here is an article that states the precise opposite of your claim. Partofthemachine (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- This is off-topic, so I responded in the page history. If you wish to continue this subject, you may want to consider Reddit, where it is actively discussed on r/skeptic. Thanks for your understanding. Viriditas (talk) 07:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- That summation of Sam Harris is detached from reality. It’s also totally orthogonal to the reliability of the SPLC, which is the topic germane to this article’s integrity. But I suppose I should not be surprised to hear this sort of alternate reality opinion. At any rate, we (really you) are straying out bounds here (again). Jweiss11 (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Harris has gotten himself into some hot water with the things he has said. He's also, like Nawaz and Ali, swung from one extreme to the other, becoming more of what people are calling a "religious personality" these days. While this shift started with Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality without Religion, he and his wife have clearly gone much deeper, and his mentors, like Joseph Goldstein, who I respect and admire, has been very squirrely on the topic of religious beliefs like "rebirth" and other religious ideas. Same thing happened to Michael Shermer, who went from atheist to skeptic, to climate denier, and now is flirting with the alt right, and whose interviews with fringe figures and conspiracy theorists has gone into Joe Rogan territory. This also saddens me, as I like many of Shermer's ideas. So there's clearly a pattern here, of swings from one extreme to the next, instead of a pattern of moderation and staying in the center. I don't think you're going to like this answer, but it's what is happening, IMO. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- The SPLC's defamation of Ali and Nawaz happed long before the ideological shifts you reference occurred with either of them. It happened because they both were critical of Islam and violent acts motivated by Islamic belief. The SPLC has made similar, although less prominently-placed, libel against Sam Harris for the same reason: https://www.splcenter.org/20180419/mcinnes-molyneux-and-4chan-investigating-pathways-alt-right#race-realism. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with Ali becoming a Christian or being religious. I have a problem with her stated reason for doing so because the reason makes zero sense and indicates that she philosophically backslides into her previous beliefs, using them to make the same justifications she originally protested against. In other words, Islamism and Christian Nationalism are essentially identical. I see this kind of thing a lot with people who swing from one extreme to another, so it always makes me sad. Pretty much the same thing could be said for Nawaz, who went from one extreme to the next. I don't know how or why SPLC thought any of this was "anti-muslim", so that's just a mistake on their part. I do agree that over many centuries, Christianity has undergone reform and secularization, which, depending on how you look at it, has either integrated into democratic society or helped encourage some aspects of pluralism. Most atheists disagree with this position, but I think there are some minor aspects to it that are true. But it also needs to be said that there has been a lot of push-back and opposition to modernity by Christianity, so this argument tends to fall apart when you look at how much effort has been undertaken by Christians to backslide into pre-enlightenment territory. That's not to say there aren't various aspects of liberal and progressive Christianity that take democratic and secular forms, but this has been overtaken by conservative Christianity in recent years. Lindsay, in fact, argues that liberal values are destroying conservative Christianity. Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- When merely taking a right-wing position or being a Christian gets you confused with Neo-Nazis and similar extremists, we have a problem. The SPLC seems have that sort of problem at its core. I find Ali's adoption of Christianity lame and pathetic from an intellectual leadership standpoint (I saw her discuss this in person with Richard Dawkins in May), but it doesn't make her an extremist. It just makes her about a weak as the average person. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ali didn't sue and they removed the page. The SPLC has been accused of "defaming figures" for a long time. 99% of the allegations are baseless. Nawaz and Ali were only the two most recent incidents, and it didn't help that Nawaz and Ali were both taking right-wing positions in various areas (Nawaz was even leaning towards defending Trump in several areas). This possibly contributed to the confusion, I don't know, but the confusion is even greater lately, with Ali coming out as a new Christian and turning her back on atheism. This sounds remarkably familiar. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well, the Nawaz and Ali defamations did happen; that's the history that been settled legally. I don't think this is the only instance such misconduct by the SPLC. I think they're doing the same sort of thing with Lindsay. And there other examples. I personally consider admitting mistakes to be a virtue, but it's usually more virtuous when you so before the weight of a multi-million dollar lawsuit is thrust upon you. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think SPLC has any such history, but I am curious about who at the organization made the decision to accuse Nawaz of being an "anti-Muslim extremist". That was a very costly decision for them. As for Ali, they retracted that accusation as well. Organizations are not perfect and make mistakes. I've noticed in conservative cultural circles, admitting a mistake is looked down upon as a sign of weakness, but in liberal circles it's considered a sign of strength. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- DasallmächtigeJ brings up a good point about the repetition of the word "conspiracy" in the final sentence of the lead. However, this point of style is subordinate to a greater problem here, one that I've raised more than once before, that the article is relying on opinion pieces from leftist (in same cases overtly Marxist) sources and the SPLC (which has a recent history of defaming figures similar to Lindsay, like Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali) to label Lindsay a conspiracy theorist in Wikivoice. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- B-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class Skepticism articles
- Low-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- B-Class New York (state) articles
- Low-importance New York (state) articles
- B-Class Tennessee articles
- Low-importance Tennessee articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Unknown-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles