A man who threatened Merriam-Webster over gender-inclusive definitions was sentenced to prison - Jeremy David Hanson, 34, made the comments over the dictionary’s definition of “female,” and called them Marxists who should be killed.

submitted by neolib from nbcnews.com

all 8 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Please show me where Marx talked about gender ideology. Oh wait he didn't. Now, Communism was a flawed idea, but I suspect none of these idiots have actually read Marx, as Marx more or less reduces human beings to generic producing and consuming units, and isn't interested in any identities except economic ones. Marx was a plagiarizer of ideas, but the one original idea he had was that class is the ONLY meaningful identity group. I am no Marx fanboy, but he would not have supported dividing the working class with identity politics, if you think otherwise, you either have not read, or did not understand Das Kapital

Here's a quote that will probably surprise some of you

“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary” - Karl Marx

Marx had some stupid ideas, but people want to attribute every new modern bad idea from anyone left of center to this guy for some reason

[–]proc0 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

In this case it has to do with changing the definition of words. This is what Marx did and then his followers, and then the totalitarian regimes that happened in the 20th century in part because of what Marx wrote. After those "revolutions", more thought leaders of marxism and communism continued this thinking and kept writing about how to subvert democracy and capitalism by changing the definition of words. If you change definitions, then in theory, you can control the law and how it is interpreted, and use that as a way to gain power.

We can say all kinds of things about the trans movement, but it is certainly suspicious that 0.1% of the population is somehow dominating the cultural conversation. If it was 100% bottom-up movement, it would never be this big and cause so many institutional changes. Instead we see this being pushed in every single area of society from bathrooms to words in the dictionary. And so the new generation of kids is raised with these changed definitions, and a giant rift is happening between generations... which was explicitly laid out by communists when they were planning how to take over liberal capitalist societies.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It's the same line of thought. The only difference is Marx focused mainly on economic classes whereas modern progressives focus on social classes.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Social classes are everything, vs social classes are essentially meaningless is about the opposite line of thought. Marx was a strict materialist

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's the same concept

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, you are confusing 'same' and 'opposite'. Marx is a strict materialist, cultural/social identity is completely irrelevant in his paradigm.

Marx says we are defined by economics, rather than culture. This is analogous to 'Nature vs Nurture' and two people arguing for 100% causality of one. They are using opposite paradigms to explain causality, as Marx does with economics and identity.

[–]sproketboy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

He's not wrong.

[–]Musky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

People are taking internet shit far too seriously.