So what is wrong with this article?

So what is wrong with this article?

rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_consciousness

Other urls found in this thread:

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Louis_Althusser
conservapedia.com/Communism
archive.is/woRIt
imgur.com/a/zlzgn
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Guy_DeBord
archive.is/lBZAZ
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Yet I bet these people consider themselves above Conservapedia and shit

liberals pls

The worst article on the website is the one about Louis Althusser
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Louis_Althusser
kill me

The level of false-conciousness in this article is deeply ironic.

This is exactly what zizek means with the 'post-ideological world': because they percieve themselves as rational/scientific they fail to see their own underlying assumptions and bias.
What you end up with is this drivel.

liberal hugbawx, little else to note.

I really don't know if I'm just consistently moving leftwards since the days I used to read Rational Wiki (which is same period when I liked the Daily Show, so it was a while ago) so they seem more conservative to me now, or if they're really just moving to the right and getting worse and worse every year, because now whenever I stumble upon one of their articles nowadays I'm mindblown by how terrible it is.

Anyway, OP, I really like the idea of "debunking" this article piece by piece to you, but the problem is that there is nothing to debunk. This is like one of those Right-wing takes on the Frankfurt School, where the subject at hand is clearly beyond the grasp of the person writing about it, so what they do is that they try to fit everything into a stereotype or a set of behaviors they feel comfortable attacking.

For example:


Not only is this wrong on all levels (e.g. there were already elections in western Europe when Marxist theory was developed; "workers being excluded from political process" doesn't mean that the workers are not getting a vote; parties informed by Marxism like the SPD were at the height of their influence when WW1 happened; Gramsci was literally in jail in a Fascist state when he wrote most of his theory, so saying that he was trying to come up with a rationalisation for "losing elections" doesn't exactly correspond with the facts) but there's also the fact that it's not addressing the Gramscian theory per se, it's just giving you a reason not to engage with it. It's basically feeding the reader a narrative of "these guys were BTFO at polls so they came up with excuses!" so they won't have to engage with any of the excuses we came up with. It's preaching deliberate ignorance, the trademark of someone who is lacking confidence on their own position.

This wasn't written by someone who knows the basics of Marxism. And I know this makes you go "you people always say this!" but we say this all the time because it's always the fucking case.

Just look towards the ending, where he makes the absolutely idiotic point that "social mobility disproves Marxism" which is in itself one of the dumbest things a person can say about Marxism (Marx himself experienced social mobility) and also drops the classic:


I mean, was this written by that guy who likes to raid us with that Monkey pic? Fucking hell

I need a smug Kant, stat.

Where the fuck do these liberal blowhards get the idea that communism or even socialism is "getting everything equally?". No Marxist has ever said anything close to that.

it's rationalwiki, that's what

...

...

Thank you.

If you think that's bad, wait until you read the article on Communism by Conservapedia

conservapedia.com/Communism

The worst thing about their "rational" bullshit is, as mentioned in that other thread on liberal smugness, they refuse to properly engage the things they are obviously against because it's "pseudo/unscientific" (of course, muh peer review and science = always right).

In the past, religious reasoning was, and still is, to some extent: "God says it so it's true". Modern scientistic (not scientific) reasoning is: "Scientists/Science say it so it's true". Science is now God, defying it is a sin. No concern for what is at hand, just blind faith in what one is told. I'd wager, although I haven't read him, this is what Zizek would call unexamined ideology.

That is without mentioning the ridiculous strawman of anything they don't like.

Who?

Cold War-era propaganda conflating hippies with Marxists.

Some conservative asshat who makes a new thread every day asking a stupid question.
He always uses the same gorilla pic for every thread

jesus

Rationalwiki is good at best.
This is not it at it's best.

more liek idpolpedia amirite?

>rationalwiki.org/wiki/Louis_Althusser
archive.is/woRIt
It's like they can't even conceive of philosophy being different from hard science

This. If they stayed in their lane and offered concise, common speech refutations of creationism and climate denial, RW would be a useful resource for what it is. They'd really benefit from an article on ultracrepidarianism, basically.

Pretty much. They're a reliable resource on scientific skepticism but they inject their smug liberalism into everything.

It could otherwise be a one-stop shop for shutting up morons that think global warming was made up by liberals for no other reason than to make them miserable.

I'm 95% sure that a right-wing person wrote this article and whatever moderation they have simply didn't feel confident enough on the subject to edit/delete it.

It hits all the same notes that right-wing "critiques" of Marxism typically do:

And it even includes the "useful idiot" bit.

...

The link lead to this imgur.com/a/zlzgn

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Guy_DeBord
archive.is/lBZAZ
for such rational people they sure do love character attacks

Well, the problem is that if they did adhere to hard science, they would see that their assumptions and statements come from a position of next to no evidence.

There is nothing wrong with placing empiricism first. The problem is when you misrepresent something and then attack it with facts. Sure, you used facts, but your target is made-up.

Socialism is science. Let's never forget that.

They think they effectively shit all over Conservipedia

Do you have any examples of them practicing scientism?