Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

blog.andymasley.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–229 of 229 posts

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

#221

Post by thrance »

zahlman wrote: post #211
thrance wrote: post #187

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 by aftbit »

jst1fthsdys wrote: post #219
aftbit wrote: 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.

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

#223

Post by zahlman »

thrance wrote: post #221
zahlman wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

For someone who wasn't interested in the discussion, you sure do seem insistent on these points that I still completely disagree with, based on my own direct observations.

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

#226

Post by zahlman »

jongjong wrote: post #40

Rational people will pick the ideology which has the fewest contradictions. Irrational people will choose that which serves them best. People who benefit from a system are unlikely to look for problems with it and unlikely to notice any contradictions. Anything which appears as a contradiction gets shrugged off as "Well, there must be a good reason, I'm not an expert. I will trust the experts." These people corrupt O…

> The truth is there is no conspiracy (at least no grand, all-encompassing one), it's worse than that; systemic incentives create alignment and remove the need for intentional coordination.

Exactly.

Which is why it's so infuriating to see people dismiss ideas they don't like as "conspiracy theories" even when they clearly don't involve conspiracy.

That said,

> Rational people will pick the ideology which has the fewest contradictions. Irrational people will choose that which serves them best.

This is only first-order rationality. "Choosing what serves you best" is rational insofar as it is rational to seek the best outcome for yourself. The key definition of "rational" here is (per M-W) "Consistent with or based on reason or good judgment; logical or sensible"; but what is sensible or well-judged depends entirely on your goals.

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

#227

Post by zahlman »

NonHyloMorph wrote: post #75

I'm curious what the author means by: "Marxism and the labor theory of value is incorrect". First of all isn't that the wrong way around and should be the value theory of labor? But that aside: what is wrong about the concept of surplus value and labour power? (Which I assume would form the core of a marxism and be the value theory of labour; or vice versa) Aren't those generally accepted concepts? The entirety of ma…

> First of all isn't that the wrong way around and should be the value theory of labor?

No; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value is an established term and has been for centuries.

> what is wrong about the concept of surplus value and labour power? ...what social/economic theory falsifies or even contradicts the concept of labour power and surplus value and in what way?

The theory has also been superseded for centuries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginalism

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

#228

Post by zahlman »

antisthenes wrote: post #91
regularization wrote: post #62

> Suppose you become politically radicalized and become a Marxist. You get convinced that the labor theory of value is correct. > The number of people in the general population who will know enough about the history and philosophy of economics to give you a clear account of why Marxism and the labor theory of value is incorrect, He's correct most people don't know about labor theory of value. Which is why it's easy f…

I am with the author on how people get radicalized, but he could not have picked a worse example that Marxism as an example of extremist idea. Equating Marxism to labor theory of value is akin to maybe equating economics to a supply/demand curve. There are unequivocally true parts of Marxism, such as surplus value of labor, and the fundamental incentive conflict between a capital owner and laborer (which Marx deems e…

> It's a mechanism to show that there is a certain floor on value of an economic good, which is raised every time constructive labor is applied to a product.

The problem is that this argument is circular: whether the labor is "constructive" gets judged by whether it succeeded in adding value.

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

#229

Post by zahlman »

regularization wrote: post #62

> Suppose you become politically radicalized and become a Marxist. You get convinced that the labor theory of value is correct. > The number of people in the general population who will know enough about the history and philosophy of economics to give you a clear account of why Marxism and the labor theory of value is incorrect, He's correct most people don't know about labor theory of value. Which is why it's easy f…

Sorry, but this completely misrepresents what LVT actually is, as well as suggesting considerably more agreement between Marx and e.g. Smith than they actually had; it's also wrong about the chronology of alternative theories, or at least the main one that came to dominate (and which is still considered mainstream).

Smith can be forgiven for giving an unsatisfactory answer to his own water-diamond paradox, as he preceded Marx by almost a century. But the originators of the formal theory of marginalism (Jevons, Menger and Walras — you likely know the first for his paradox) were roughly contemporary with Marx; they published their work only a few years after the first volume of Das Kapital, and well before Engels could publish the rest. The roots of the theory can be traced to Italian mercantilists contemporary with Smith, and even a bit further to Bernoulli (yes, the mathematician, the actually-turns-out-to-be-wrong explanation of wing lift guy).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginalism

More importantly, "believing that a carpenter banging wood and nails into a table creates value" is a strawman version of LVT that none of the people you mentioned would actually espouse, including Marx; and it is extremist, as it pays no heed to issues of either quality or utility, never mind market demand.

Post reply on HN