Big Boobs, Blonde Hair and Blue Eyes and White Skin = Progressive Insanity

[canpakes]

hatred for Sydney Sweeney stems from the fact that she is a beautiful white woman with blonde hair, and... white people are the primary cause of all the issues that exist in the world.

I thought Mayan Elephant only believed in Corey Kilpak's book about how to be dickish.

Hound believes weird things.

I thought that the book you’re referring to was about how to supposedly be less dickish.

Perhaps Corey is not a competent resource on the matter.

[Hound of Heaven]

Similar to other aspects related to the Marxist progressive movement, progressives exhibit a level of hypocrisy that is truly remarkable.

It seems that Sidney Sweeney is being labeled a Nazi and accused of supporting eugenics due to the lack of an apology from her or American Eagle regarding the advertisement they launched a few weeks back. I have observed numerous progressive individuals endlessly discussing the eugenics movement of the 20th century and its supposed connection to the American Eagle, yet not a single one seems to recognize the hypocrisy in their arguments aimed at persuading the American public.

In 2025, Republicans advocate for reducing abortions, holding the belief that a fetus is a human being, while Democrats view it as a clump of cells lacking human rights until birth. As we journey back to the early 1900s, let us consider the principles that the eugenics movement championed. One of the laws enacted involved the forced sterilization of individuals deemed diseased or handicapped, which meant that people with Down syndrome could be compelled to undergo sterilization to prevent reproduction.

As of 2025, the Democratic party platform centers on the abortion movement, whereas the Republican party stands in opposition to it. This is where the contradiction of the insane progressives, who are reacting strongly to the American Eagle ad, becomes evident. Thousands of progressives are flooding social media, attempting to link the American Eagle ad featuring Sydney Sweeney to the eugenics movement of the early 1900s. However, a more accurate comparison to the eugenics movement can be drawn with the abortion movement, which is a central aspect of the Democrat party platform.

Currently, nearly 90% of all pregnancies where there is a possibility of the baby having Down syndrome are terminated. That's correct, Democrats no longer permit babies with Down syndrome to be born, opting instead to terminate the pregnancy. Approximately 6,000 to 7,000 babies in America are aborted each year due to a diagnosis of Down syndrome. To clarify, it is the Democrat party that is promoting the abortion of these babies, not Sidney Sweeney or American Eagle!

Let's clarify the situation for the members of the board who may hold progressive views, such as Canpakes, Dr. CamnPP, Bishop Schmo, and Analytics. In the early 1900s, individuals with Down syndrome were subjected to forced sterilization under eugenics laws. Fast forward to 2025, and it's the Democrats support the termination of 90% of pregnancies involving fetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome. By endorsing abortion in 2025, the Democrat party is, in effect, cleansing the American gene pool by terminating pregnancies deemed genetically undesirable, reminiscent of the eugenics movement supporters of the early 20th century.

Total hypocrites!!

[huckelberry]

Hound. Where do you find these weird Marxist progressives? I don't know any. There are none here though I guess some are to be found somewhere.

[Analytics]

The whining about cultural Marxism is dumb! Clever but only frightening to dumbies. Everyone in our culture, including people on the extreme right, are steeped in cultural Marxism because Marxism has had such a huge impact on intellectual history! But it is also kind dumb, and pardon me for saying so, to argue as though cultural Marxism does not exist. Of course it exists, and you can't escape it. It is woven into our discourse and can't be wrenched out!

What is “cultural Marxism”? You keep using the term, but if I doesn’t mean what I suggested (the battle between proletariat red-neck culture and bourgeoisie New York Times culture), then what does it mean?

[Analytics]

Currently, nearly 90% of all pregnancies where there is a possibility of the baby having Down syndrome are terminated. That's correct, Democrats no longer permit babies with Down syndrome to be born, opting instead to terminate the pregnancy.

Let’s check your math.

If we assume that 50% of pregnancies are Democrats and 50% are Republicans, and if we further assume that the 10% who don’t have abortions in this situation are all Republicans, that means that 80% of Republicans in this situation choose abortions.

What were you saying about hypocrisy?

[canpakes]

Let's clarify the situation for the members of the board who may hold progressive views, such as Canpakes, Dr. CamnPP, Bishop Schmo, and Analytics. In the early 1900s, individuals with Down syndrome were subjected to forced sterilization under eugenics laws. Fast forward to 2025, and it's the Democrats support the termination of 90% of pregnancies involving fetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome. By endorsing abortion in 2025, the Democrat party is, in effect, cleansing the American gene pool by terminating pregnancies deemed genetically undesirable, reminiscent of the eugenics movement supporters of the early 20th century.

Total hypocrites!!

Cool gish gallop, but your idol with the fake bronzer tan and his Republican friends have been quite busy passing laws banning DEI hiring programs that supported Downs Sydrome job seekers.

Hypocrites all around, I guess.

[Gadianton]

What is “cultural Marxism”? You keep using the term, but if I doesn’t mean what I suggested (the battle between proletariat red-neck culture and bourgeoisie New York Times culture), then what does it mean?

"Cultural Marxism" is a term made up by unhinged right-wingers who fit the profile of an underclass engaged in a Marxists struggle, as you aptly pointed out; not to describe themselves, as they are unaware of what Marxism is and that they are de facto Marxists, but to describe the elites who they blame for keeping them down. Genetically superior people tend to have this weird problem of getting beaten by genetically inferior people, that's why they need Trump to fight for them. Not sure how it happens. "Cultural Marxism" is a label for Marxism as cultural theory, as it exists in English departments, not economics departments, which I don't think would be a thing anymore.

A long time ago, Marxism split between Eastern Marxism, traditional communists, and Western Marxism, theorists who broke away from the authoritarian hardliners who served a merciless state and had forgotten about the people (anti-fascist European vs. Soviet interpretations of Marx). Recall that Marx built upon Friedrich Hegel's idea of a dialectic that Hegel used to explain history. Well, Western Marxists get back to this heady kind of theorizing as a way to explain human institutions, art, for instance. Somebody who can look at a painting and interpret it based on dialectical tensions rather than as a Shadesian pre-photographic representation of the physical world would be exactly the kind of a person to earn the label of a "cultural Marxists". Most importantly, such an interpretation would have nothing to do with the value of the painting in financial terms or the economics of the art market.

To give you an idea of how pointless this is to discuss, look up the debate between the Marxist Slvoj Zizek and the celebrated Capitalist, Jordan Peterson. When I stumbled upon the debate, I knew exactly what was going to happen. Zizek is an incomprehensible intellectual whose thinking inherits philosophers of the Continent, of the likes of Hegel. Jordan Peterson is a shallow mansphere bro who quickly read about Adam Smith as his preparation. Even as a psychologist, he apparently missed that one of his guys, Sigmund Freud, also lives a totally different life in the minds of continental philosophers than he does within the minds of true psychologists. just as Marx does. Zizek possibly doesn't know the first thing about Adam Smith. Peterson showed up expecting to debate Analytics. That would have been a good debate. Zizek probably knew exactly what was going to happen, but was too arrogant to break character and help somebody outside of his elitist clique understand anything. He lost a real opportunity. The people who attended the debate were all total idiots also, spending hundreds of dollars on tickets, when it should have been obvious to anyone who knows anything, that no discussion would be possible between the two. Maybe a few came for the dumpster fire.

The complete vapidity of the right-wing mind is once again on full display in Jordan Peterson. Peterson should have known better also what he was getting into. How did not know what Marxism is among academics? He never bothered to talk to anyone outside his department or ask a question? "Cultural Marxists" are often associated with postmodernists. Marxism -- Western Marxism and critical theory -- has become the tool of the Left to interpret cultural problems like gender and race. But here's the thing, Hound, that I find hilarious. Jordan Peterson, probably without realizing it, has begun to pick up on the same kind of intellectual jargon that theorists use to interpret gender in order to legitimize religion. Oh yeah. Listening to Peterson talk intellectually about religion is just like listening to the leftist academics you despise (but don't know anything about) talk about race. He's not doing this ironically, he's very serious about it.

[huckelberry]

The whining about cultural Marxism is dumb! Clever but only frightening to dumbies. Everyone in our culture, including people on the extreme right, are steeped in cultural Marxism because Marxism has had such a huge impact on intellectual history! But it is also kind dumb, and pardon me for saying so, to argue as though cultural Marxism does not exist. Of course it exists, and you can't escape it. It is woven into our discourse and can't be wrenched out!

What is “cultural Marxism”? You keep using the term, but if I doesn’t mean what I suggested (the battle between proletariat red-neck culture and bourgeoisie New York Times culture), then what does it mean?

Perhaps my thought over simplifies but I think there have been broad currents of cultural concern regards social and economic disparity that Marxism rides upon. Perhaps that current supports some pieces and phrases of Marx but hardly the actual theory and programs of Marx.

If a person is troubled by how people who own lots of business may use power over people they share a concern with Marx.

[Morley]

What is “cultural Marxism”? You keep using the term, but if I doesn’t mean what I suggested (the battle between proletariat red-neck culture and bourgeoisie New York Times culture), then what does it mean?

"Cultural Marxism" is a term made up by unhinged right-wingers who fit the profile of an underclass engaged in a Marxists struggle, as you aptly pointed out; not to describe themselves, as they are unaware of what Marxism is and that they are de facto Marxists, but to describe the elites who they blame for keeping them down. Genetically superior people tend to have this weird problem of getting beaten by genetically inferior people, that's why they need Trump to fight for them. Not sure how it happens. "Cultural Marxism" is a label for Marxism as cultural theory, as it exists in English departments, not economics departments, which I don't think would be a thing anymore.

A long time ago, Marxism split between Eastern Marxism, traditional communists, and Western Marxism, theorists who broke away from the authoritarian hardliners who served a merciless state and had forgotten about the people (anti-fascist European vs. Soviet interpretations of Marx). Recall that Marx built upon Friedrich Hegel's idea of a dialectic that Hegel used to explain history. Well, Western Marxists get back to this heady kind of theorizing as a way to explain human institutions, art, for instance. Somebody who can look at a painting and interpret it based on dialectical tensions rather than as a Shadesian pre-photographic representation of the physical world would be exactly the kind of a person to earn the label of a "cultural Marxists". Most importantly, such an interpretation would have nothing to do with the value of the painting in financial terms or the economics of the art market.

To give you an idea of how pointless this is to discuss, look up the debate between the Marxist Slvoj Zizek and the celebrated Capitalist, Jordan Peterson. When I stumbled upon the debate, I knew exactly what was going to happen. Zizek is an incomprehensible intellectual whose thinking inherits philosophers of the Continent, of the likes of Hegel. Jordan Peterson is a shallow mansphere bro who quickly read about Adam Smith as his preparation. Even as a psychologist, he apparently missed that one of his guys, Sigmund Freud, also lives a totally different life in the minds of continental philosophers than he does within the minds of true psychologists. just as Marx does. Zizek possibly doesn't know the first thing about Adam Smith. Peterson showed up expecting to debate Analytics. That would have been a good debate. Zizek probably knew exactly what was going to happen, but was too arrogant to break character and help somebody outside of his elitist clique understand anything. He lost a real opportunity. The people who attended the debate were all total idiots also, spending hundreds of dollars on tickets, when it should have been obvious to anyone who knows anything, that no discussion would be possible between the two. Maybe a few came for the dumpster fire.

The complete vapidity of the right-wing mind is once again on full display in Jordan Peterson. Peterson should have known better also what he was getting into. How did not know what Marxism is among academics? He never bothered to talk to anyone outside his department or ask a question? "Cultural Marxists" are often associated with postmodernists. Marxism -- Western Marxism and critical theory -- has become the tool of the Left to interpret cultural problems like gender and race. But here's the thing, Hound, that I find hilarious. Jordan Peterson, probably without realizing it, has begun to pick up on the same kind of intellectual jargon that theorists use to interpret gender in order to legitimize religion. Oh yeah. Listening to Peterson talk intellectually about religion is just like listening to the leftist academics you despise (but don't know anything about) talk about race. He's not doing this ironically, he's very serious about it.

Well done, Gad. Thank you for taking the time to put this together.

[huckelberry]

I thought Mayan Elephant only believed in Corey Kilpak's book about how to be dickish.

Hound believes weird things.

I thought that the book you’re referring to was about how to supposedly be less dickish.

Perhaps Corey is not a competent resource on the matter.

Connection between Hound and elephant? I did not recognize this Corey Kilpak so I looked him up. Book, how to be less a dick with subscript noting he used to be quite a dick. This connected to a string of opinions he has posted. They were a bit of a scattergun but dickish was well represented. Well perhaps he used to be more of a dick. I have seen the effect of people taking pride in being a dick. It seems to create a sense of strength and freedom from restraint, criticism and annoying facts. We have a president like that. He encourages his followers.

I really should add that I think calling Sidney a Nazi encouraging eugenics is very dickish in the above sense. The desire to be dickish may be contagious without respect for party lines.