The Smiley Smile Message Board

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2229719/Apology-over-offensive-puppy-police-advert-after-Muslim-complaints.html

You folks in the UK have become too complacent for your own good.

Please explain what this has to do with cultural Marxism.

And you've become a parody of yourself!

I know you are, but what am I?

Are you going to respond to the points I made on the other thread regarding cultural Marxism?

Cultural Marxism is nothing other than the destruction of civilized culture by people in government, in public education, and in the corporate media - people who tell us that our way of life (individual liberty, free markets, rights to property and self-defense) is "bad" and the way of life (disrespect for individual liberty under the guise of "democracy", planned socialist markets in which a few elites allocate resources, no rights to property or self-defense because "everything belongs to everyone") that savages try to impose on us is "good".

It's a movement designed to replace civilized society with an uncultured society ruled by savages. Cultural Marxism is a racist, sexist, and intolerant (ironic, eh?) movement that pits people against each other. These are the same types of people who believe they have "more" rights than others.

Cultural Marxism is a bane of human existence.

No - as I noted in the previous post I discussed on matter, anyone who is familiar with the history of the term knows that cultural Marxism is a set of various reading practices established by particular theorists (Adorno, Horkheimer, Benjamin, etc.) in order to demystify cultural artefacts. The term was falsely characterized as having something to do with political correctness as a result of an article, whose author now repudiates its substance, noting that the fabrications within it were a consequence of pressure from the right wing think tank that was publishing his material at the time. Now, those are the facts. Until you actually engage with these facts, then no one can accept your claims as being anything other than a bunch of smoke being blown which serves nothing other than to further a fraud.

This is quite serious - we do need to actually be able to defend the words we use and, in this case, you can't. I'm sure many people would love nothing other than to take all the things in the world they don't like an attribute it to some common belief system but many people probably prefer to be honest.

That's ironic coming from you, the one who blames free enterprise for everything wrong with the world.

You should know that I've done no such thing. I've never blamed "free enterprise" for everything wrong with the world because free enterprise barely exists anywhere in the world and it never has and that's something that I've said on this board repeatedly and in many conversations with you so you should be ashamed for concocting my own position here when I pretty much say the opposite. Furthermore, if I do blame markets for anything, I can at least defend my claims with evidence. Cultural Marxism is nothing but a straw man used by people who have probably never read any Marxist cultural theory. Ultimately this post I'm responding to is simply working to obfuscate the fact that you simply do not know what you mean when you use the term cultural Marxism.

I'm using it based on my previous knowledge of having read about Marxism and the social implications of such. But I guess I'm in such an indefensible position right now that I think I'll just bow out. You win. I haven't the energy nor the time to debate this over and over again.

You're right. I'm wrong.

Well, cultural Marxism and Marxism are two very different things, often to the point where the similarities between the two are almost imperceptible. I'm no Marxist, but I've often argued elsewhere that the use of "Marxism" in cultural Marxism is almost entirely an arbitrary choice and does nothing to tell us anything about Marxist economic principles. The kind of theory we see coming out of cultural Marxism would be better off just being called cultural studies, as it so often is now anyway, since the heyday of cultural Marxism as a form of study actually ended by the end of the 1970s, with the rise of Foucauldian post-structuralism. Again, anyone who throws around a term like "cultural Marxism" should know this, but those who use it now know absolutely nothing about this, which indicates just how deep the indoctrination runs. A nicely indoctrinated figure should never really know the truth behind the phrases they use - they should just use them the way the Masters intend for them to be used. But ultimately there are two major flaws to work through here - first, the fabricated connection between cultural Marxism and political correctness; and second, the extremely questionable association between cultural Marxism and Marxism.

I should say, though, from what I've read of you elsewhere, you don't know what Marxism is either and I'd be happy to go over that one too.


Nor the ability since from the first you have not understood the term you are using and are quite incapable of engaging with the realities of the term.

I'm not sure if that story is even true, a cursory search shows that only The Telegraph and The Daily Mail have this as a story and neither of those rags are known for their honesty.

However, if the story is true then it is utterly ridiculous and there is no way that the Tayside police should have apologised.

Also, not totally sure what us in the UK can do about one police force in a certain area being absolute pussies.

As for complacency, what do you honestly expect us to do? We, the people of Britain, have no power whatsoever. We are not listened to, remember the 2nd Iraq War? 1 million people took to the streets of London to protest the very idea of going to war and were ignored.

It's easier for ignorant people to think that those one million people just hated the UK as opposed to the fact that they knew the war was a lie to begin with. Same thing here in the U.S. of A. No one wants to be outed as being "anti-patriotic", and during a time of war it's especially so.

But I think we can both admit that our respective governments ceased being accountable to people decades ago.

What a lovely word, savages. Shows us your true colours, especially in the context of the article. Don't people who practice Islam deserve their right to live wherever they please, and have their religious rights respected?

(I share similar concerns to Paulos in doubting the veracity of the article, mind, it just seems like the nonsense rightwing eejits like to go #BROKENBRITAIN at. Which, seeing as it's The Telegraph, the old Tory rag of yore, doesn't surprise)

And what true colors are those?

Edited the above to explain a bit.

What you must think is intolerance on my part is not intolerance - at least not intolerance of religion. It's intolerance of people who hide behind their religion to police the thoughts and actions of others.

Presumably you folks in Britain love dogs. Now you can't even place advertisements with dogs in them for fear of offending a certain group of people? That's nothing to do with being anti-Islam. I'm also not anti-Islam; I'm pro-personal liberty - an advertisement with a dog is NOT a fucking infringement upon personal liberty, yet nowadays all of these religious cunts think that everything is "an infringement upon muh liberties and muh religulous freedumbz!" It's the same issue with the Christians in America - everything "offends" them and is "an infringement upon muh liberties and muh religulous freedumbz!" There is NO right to not be offended or to be free from being offended.

For the record:

http://adland.tv/content/daily-mail-fakes-muslim-uproar-over-puppy-police-hotline-advert (http://adland.tv/content/daily-mail-fakes-muslim-uproar-over-puppy-police-hotline-advert)

No, but you can print random nonsense designed to incite religious hatred in two national newspapers and people like you will comment favourably on it.

I already said it has nothing to do with religious hatred on my part, but you keep thinking what you want to think.

I can't believe we're arguing about this article because it isn't even true, but you said that savages dictate our laws in response to a falsified article about a religious people asking respectfully for a small scale advert in their local community to be changed.

What would have been the big deal? The Muslims asked for respect of their religion and the police apologized for their misstep. I fail to see the harm in this.

So it's a falsified article. I can admit to being wrong twice in one thread.