Live data from Hacker News

The main way I've seen people turn ideologically crazy (2025)

blog.andymasley.com

221–222 of 222 posts

Re: The main way I've seen people turn ideologically crazy (2025)

#221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not hard to confirm the stuff I quoted from Wikipedia. The guy has multiple episodes of his podcast dedicated to promoting the idea of "Cultural Marxism": a ludicrous conspiracy theory. So, in the context of finding someone both willing and knowledgeable enough to "debunk" Marxism, I think we can find better than a guy clueless enough to fall for such theories. Note that this says nothing of Lindsay's other view…

> the idea of "Cultural Marxism": a ludicrous conspiracy theory. It is nothing of the sort; no conspiracy is alleged. That notion is an invention of Wikipedia's. It would make at least as much sense to describe any arbitrary religious doctrine that way. Wikipedia's description of "groomer" as "an anti-LGBTQ slur" is also a political fabrication.

Cultural Marxism is absolutely a conspiracy theory, it requires some cabal of academics that are trying to destroy the West with progressive values. If you believe there's any truth to it, I would urge you to read on the subject from non-MAGA sources.

And no, none of this was "invented" by Wikipedia.

> Wikipedia's description of "groomer" as "an anti-LGBTQ slur" is also a political fabrication.

The word "groomer" was absolutely used to imply that all LGBT people actually are pedophiles. That doesn't mean it's its only meaning. I've seen many high-profile Republican politicians and commentators use it in that way, it's not hard to find their speeches and interviews online. And that's rich, coming from the party that harbors pedophiles so openly, that went into so much trouble to make sure no Epstein conspirator faced any justice, while offering no protection to the victims (see Pam Bondy's testimony on the subject).

Re: The main way I've seen people turn ideologically crazy (2025)

#222
post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well sure, and I'm not a lawyer or your lawyer, this isn't legal advice, etc. I'm pretty confident that I know who killed both of those people. I'm pretty confident that both did it for ideological reasons. I'm pretty confident that both of those ideological reasons would be seen as "left leaning" in the American political spectrum. As you say, neither has been convicted, but fortunately I'm not a court of law so I d…

> I'm pretty confident that I know who killed both of those people. I'm pretty confident that both did it for ideological reasons. I'm pretty confident that both of those ideological reasons would be seen as "left leaning" in the American political spectrum. One can easily say with as much certainty that it was from fascist infighting, something fascists are well known for. Fuentes was saying some rather incendiary t…

>One can easily say with as much certainty that it was from fascist infighting

I'd be willing to take this bet if you want. The prosecution just released some text messages purportedly including a confession from the mainstream suspect in the Charlie Kirk killing. Of course, all of this could be a snow job ... but I am relatively confident it was not.

>Is it extreme to approve of violence on those who further an agenda of committing violence on a societal level?

I suppose that depends on your definition of "violence on a societal level" and gets into some pretty heavy ethical questions. In general though, I'd say that approving of violence against people who act deplorably but do not intentionally and knowingly kill others is pretty extreme.

>You might want to get on the line with the government and let them know this. A lot of problems would be solved.

If they'd take my calls, I'd happily tell them this too. I have been disgusted at the violence done in the name of the people of my country by its current government, against people who were either totally innocent or at least not deserving of death for their crimes IMO. The cruelty of the state is unmatched in both its scale and temper.

And yet, one of the fundamental "rights" of a state, if you will accept that framing, is the monopoly on legitimate violence. I don't like that, and I hope we find a better point of stability for society some day, but this is what we've got to work with today.

Post reply on HN