Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 30

Gaslighting
I wanted to comment on something pertinent that posted in Sennalen’s “Ask me what I think” talk. (By the way, I encourage people to check her talk and ask her questions—you will be surprised that her personal views are much more left-leaning than many have assumed.) I’m copying Newimpartial’s comment here because: (A) the issue is pertinent to this talk, and (B) I don’t want to crowd Sennalen’s space with more polemics. Here's the quote:

[Edit: 20:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)]

I apologize for the stir caused by my earlier incomplete post. If there were expectations of a political speech, I’m sorry to disappoint you. To provide clarity on my perspective, Cultural Marxism conspiracy theories are a genuine phenomenon with historical roots, warranting its own Wikipedia page. I want to dispel any notion that I have strong political affiliations or harbor secret plans to undermine the topic. I identify as more apolitical than most people. Over 13 years, except for a recent period, I can't recall editing a politically charged page—please review my history or read 's recent comments for more context. My journey into this discussion began with an incidental interest in a BLP. My interest in this subject is already waning and I don't foresee a prolonged involvement on this page.

Returning to Newimpartial's quote, I was particularly struck by the phrase “your words mean whatever I say they mean.” How is this relevant to our article? Let me explain.

How many people on the left use the phrase 'cultural Marxism'? Not that many. How many people on the right use the phrase? A lot more, including non-fringe individuals with BLPs. Now, guess what’s the first page that comes up when someone searches for 'cultural Marxism' (with or without quotes). I’m guessing many of you already know that it’s our article. As I’m googling right now, there's even a prominent sidebar box where the first sentence is displayed: The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to…

Is this a form of gaslighting, along the lines of "your words mean whatever I say they mean"? Would it be okay to use WP in this way if the shoe were on the other foot? What are the unintended consequences of this for the perception of Wikipedia in a large swath of the population? Does it not confirm their perception of "left-wing bias in social or cultural institutions"? It can be argued that this also pushes individuals leaning towards the right further into right-wing ideologies. Once a single belief is confirmed, adjacent ideological beliefs tend to strengthen, whether they are true or not, potentially leading susceptible individuals into conspiracy territory. I worry that our platform is inadvertently fostering ideological polarization and giving ammunition to conspiracy theorists.

Some may deny there is a problem here; others may say this is not a WP problem but a Google problem. In reality, Google simply follows its algorithm. When Wikipedia redirects from A to B, it tells the Google algorithm that A equals B. This is basic SEO.

Here’s my proposal:


 * A) Engage in a discussion to assess whether the problem I described is real.


 * B) If we agree, align the first sentence with MOS:FIRST, starting with "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is..." instead of “Cultural Marxism refers to/is…”

XMcan (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Please concentrate any commentary about my talk page thread on my talk page. Also don't edit war about this post, either to delete it or retain it. Sennalen (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sennalen that a user Talk page is an appropriate venue for this discission, but I believe that it is off-topic here (because for one thing, my various comments at the linked thread are blissfully unconcerned with the content of this or any other article).
 * For those lacking the motivation to read the context but still faintly curious what might have prompted my comment, it was a response to Sennalen's reference to "a pattern of gaslighting that follows when conservatives call a progressive political project by name]" which is, in my view, a thing that never happened and a mischaracterization of the events it purports to describe. Newimpartial (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:FORUM - this is an inappropriate venue for this discussion. This is an improper use of a talk page. Wikipedia is not some legal space or open court for anyone to argue matters of opinion. Talk pages are spaces for editors to discuss reliable sources and actionable edits to the encyclopedia we're all here to build. I'm closing this discussion down on those grounds. 14.202.188.111 (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Concerning the newly added part of the post - first of all, doesn't describe an example of the phenomenon to which I was referring in the text you quoted. I was to utterances more of the form, "yuur attempts to get people to be nice to each other aren't actually sensitivity training; they are this social project that I call Cultural Marxism".
 * Second, it is reliable sources that identify what the "Cultural Marxism" trope refers to, its antecedents and how it is used. There is no evidence available in reliable sources that Conservatives use it in any other way than the one reliable sources describe. There is therefore nothing (in my terms) "crypto-Nietzschean", or "gaslighting", about noting what a term actually means and how it is used. Rather, it is those redeploying "Cultural Marxism" as a floating signifier to tar their opponents and then deny their own systems of signification who are engaged in gaslighting, not the scholars.
 * And regardless of all this, it is all irrelevant speculation that cannot by policy be used on editing the article. I only place it here so that XMCan's twisting of my prior comment not stand here unrefuted - particularly given their extensive edit warring to keep a discussion here that really belongs elsewhere on enwiki if anywhere. Newimpartial (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

It can be argued that this also pushes individuals leaning towards the right further into right-wing ideologies. Once a single belief is confirmed, adjacent ideological beliefs tend to strengthen, whether they are true or not, potentially leading susceptible individuals into conspiracy territory. I worry that our platform is inadvertently fostering ideological polarization and giving ammunition to conspiracy theorists. Asked and answered. "Oh you're so mean to me, you made me turn fascist." Sorry, no. That's not how it works here. Our job is to craft an article based on NPOV and not a WP:FALSEBALANCE. WP:CONSENSUS applies. If you take Wikipedia out of the Google results, the 2nd result is SPLC: "'Cultural Marxism,' a conspiracy theory with an anti-Semitic twist, is being pushed by much of the American right." Here's a contrast, the 3rd result is the Heritage Foundation, pushing the conspiracy theory, and the 4th result is another right winger arguing "Cultural Marxism is real." Here's the thing: critical theory and class analysis and Frankfurt School are real. Cultural marxism is NOT real. There is NOT a left-wing conspiracy of academics trying to undermine society. DESPITE contemporary right-wingers claiming so. We don't suspend disbelief here. We're firmly ON the side of the academic POV and reliable media like the New York Times (and NOT Fox News or Breitbart, where they claim, in a parallel fact-free universe, that Marxian academics are trying hard to subvert society instead of you know, studying shit). Andre🚐 21:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Cultural marxism is a phrase which has been used extensively to discuss all of those things you listed. It is real, the belief in a conspiracy to undermine society is a mistaken one.
 * Of course there isn't a conspiracy of academics trying to undermine society, but it sure looks like there is when there is dedicated group of people who avoid describing when right-wing intellectuals or even pundits correctly describe aspects of critical theory, class analysis, or the Frankfurt School's beliefs.
 * Breitbart is totally garbage, and yes, we are on the side of reliable media. However, it seems some people are scared that certain facts, if they speak for themselves, promote the conspiracy theory. This to me seems a fear derived from a subconscious belief in what the conspiracy theory alleges.
 * It's silly to imagine there are factions on this page which inadvertently have become the conspiracy theorists they seek to dispel. I am a Leaf (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales and the Cultural Marxism
Everybody loves dropping names, so I will drop a rather large one. According to this 2014 Slate article, the co-Founder, a.k.a. Jimmy Wales, was concerned about the "Cultural Marxism" page. I’ve already shared my concerns, so I will let forensic scientists dig through the Slate article and other evidence to reconstruct why Mr. Wales felt the need to override the editorial consensus on this particular topic. Let us discuss if these concerns still apply in 2023, soon to be 2024, a decade since us dinosaurs broached our concerns. XMcan (talk) 06:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Wales, and the author of the Slate article, simply did not understand that "cultural Marxism" isn't the right term for "critical theory" or "Frankfurt School of cultural analysis" or "academic Marxian theory" or whatever you want to call it. And indeed, it plays into right wing conspiracies, which is what this article is about, there are other articles on the right names for the topics, but the Frankfurt School weren't known as cultural Marxism, but critical theory. The Slate article, which is very old, is simply mistaken. Long ago, or at least as far back as the 1960s and 70s, Marxism has been accepted in the academy, just the same as other political and social theorists like Locke, Rousseau, or whatever, and it's not some kind of Red Scare shibboleth to study Marxism. But there are right wingers who still hew to a Bircher type of view on these topics, or a Qanon type view, and persist in the idea that somehow the academic study of class and social stratification as a topic equates to somehow sympathizing with a Soviet-style totalitarian world. They aren't related except in the minds of a particular rabid segment. Andre🚐 08:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Noting, for the record, the appropriate removal of this discussion by at 06:53, 12 December 2023 (diff); reverted by  at 07:06 (diff); collapsed by  at 07:55 (diff); reverted by  at 08:12 (diff). In my opinion, this discussion is off-topic and non-compliant with WP:TALK and should be removed or collapsed for the benefit of the article, and respecting the time of volunteer editors contributing to it. As I am involved, I'll not collapse it again or close it, but I will request an Admin closure of this discussion on that basis. Mathglot (talk) 08:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC) Closure requested here. Mathglot (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I hesitate to add to this thread at all, but: considering the enormous volume of discussion this talk page already generates, I can't see how an unfocused topic like this is going to do anything but waste time of both participants and reading editors. CAVincent (talk) 09:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Rather than just shut off discussion, I would like to point to what ~might be a productive way forward: XMcan, or Jimmy, or whoever else wants an article about the subject that people mean when they use "cultural marxism" non-conspiratorially: write it! That's a different article, though; this one is about the conspiratorial usage of the term – says it right in the subject. As Andre says, though "cultural Marxism" is probably not the best title for such an article. (We might even have the article you seek already; we're a bit of a hodge-podge in this area at the moment, though; it's hard to tell.) ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 16:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that the treatment of far-right tropes on Wikipedia is an area that could be vastly improved if it were made more systematic. Newimpartial (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about far-right tropes, although you might be right there, too; I mean things like Western Marxism, critical theory, and other articles about adjacent topics – there are important differences between these, of course, but obviously lots of similarities: the "history" sections and lists of associated people/etc have a lot of overlap. So if someone is using "cultural marxism" as a sloppy catch-all for anything similar to those traditions, then they come here to find an article about it, maybe some of those articles are what they're looking for. At least this article links to some of them to aid the reader. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 16:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The thing is, an article about the subject that people mean when they use "cultural marxism" non-conspiratorially would still be an article about the trope used in right-wing discourse (as would an article addressing a sloppy catch-all for anything similar to those traditions); this is what editors have repeatedly arrived at this page to ask for; here is one such discussion.
 * People talking about the Frankfurt School or Western Marxism (or Critical Theory) typically don't use the term "cultural Marxism", and when they do it is usually in order to distinguish reality from conspiracy theory rather than simply to explain concepts. We also have the article Marxist cultural analysis, disambiguated at the topnote of this article, which already comes perilously comes perilously close to being "the article about cultural Marxism when it isn't the object of a conspiracy theory". I can't imagine that the encyclopaedia needs another such article. Newimpartial (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * would still be an article about the trope – I think you misunderstand me (and possibly Talpedia); but whatever, I think this has nothing to do with any proposed change to this article so let's let it rest. I guess if XMcan or someone follows my suggestion and gets this aspect wrong somehow then we can discuss it there as appropriate; sound good? Cheers, ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 16:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure. Newimpartial (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Contradiction in the article?
In the background section it clearly shows various members of the movement being politically involved, active, and influential, yet later on in a further section goes on to claim one of the main counterarguments as, paraphrasing, "there was no political involvement and also Horkheimer forbid it".

Forbidding something doesn't prevent it from occurring, otherwise crime wouldn't exist. Even within organizations, factions can coordinate and go against dictates of the leader.

Second, the claim that there is no elite group of politically involved thinkers is in contradiction to how in "Background" quite a few examples are given. 90.167.95.197 (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * "the movement" and "elites" are very vague terms. The Frankfurt School didn't control or plan any movement, or any group of elites. Cherry picking abstract concepts isn't really a useful discussion. Perhaps you'd like to nominate the movements of elite groups you believe The Frankfurt School controlled... even though, they were clearly pointing them out and critiquing them (see Adorno's essay here ).
 * The point is, this page is about the conspiracy theory. That there is a culture industry is a statement of The Frankfurt School, and would be better discussed on that talk page (talk:culture industry). 220.235.252.149 (talk) 04:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Columbia University isn't a political movement, but various academics there may have political involvement. But if they do, they do so as individuals, not part of the group. TFD (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Suggested modification to lead
So, once you've finished deciding how to refer to the conspiracy theory, with the exception of one suggestion, all versions of the lead would end with:

[blah blah blah]...misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness. The conspiracy theory posits that there is an ongoing and intentional academic and intellectual effort to subvert Western society via a planned culture war that undermines the Christian values of traditionalist conservatism and seeks to replace them with culturally liberal values.

This seems to put the important part last. Perhaps something like:

[blah blah blah]...misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for an ongoing and intentional academic and intellectual effort to subvert Western society via a planned culture war that undermines the Christian values of traditionalist conservatism and seeks to replace them with culturally liberal values, by encouraging [engendering? inciting?] modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness.

might be better?

All the best,

IP194 (loving my new name, might change it by deed poll 🙄) 194.60.136.6 (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Whatever you want to say about the new name, it has an early George Lucas quality that "Tewdar", say, notably lacks. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I think claims that The Frankfurt School were all "Jewish Kabbalistic Satanists" or that they put gays on television, or that they promoted atonal music to induce mass necrophilia (breitbart, 2015) all go beyond the idea that they were merely inciting or engendering social change. I don't think we should be trying to soften or shy away from the bizarre claims made by conspiracy theorists. This is after all, a page about The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. If you wish to discuss the Frankfurt School in general, there is a page for that. 220.235.252.149 (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I am aware that this is a page about The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and I have no wish to discuss the Frankfurt School in general on this page, and I have no idea which part of my comment you believe implies otherwise. I cannot understand why you would think that my suggested change soften[s] or sh[ies] away from the bizarre claims made by conspiracy theorists, as it merely reverses the order of, and merges, two existing sentences. In fact, I am suggesting that you emphasise the bizarre claims made by conspiracy theorists, by putting the purported goal ("ongoing and intentional academic and intellectual effort to subvert Western society via a planned culture war") first, and the supposed methods of achieving this goal ("by encouraging [...] modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness.") last. Honestly, I did not understand the relevance of any part of your reply to my suggestion, and I read it about 10 times, or for however long it took me to eat three bratwürste.


 * Perhaps the ...responsible for an ongoing and intentional... part could be improved by changing it to ...responsible for a purported [supposed? alleged?] ongoing and intentional..., to avoid the possible suggestion that there really is an "ongoing and intentional academic and intellectual effort to subvert Western society via a planned culture war". If you or anyone else really want to add the stuff about Jewish Kabbalistic Satanists, gays on TV, or music to induce mass necrophilia to the lead, you go right ahead.
 * Happy holidays,
 * IP194 (Do I sign this, or what?) 194.60.136.6 (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I had problems with the engendering/inciting part, and that the nature of the run on sentence had me confused. It can be difficult to characterize what conspiracy theorists are saying The Frankfurt School are actually doing, as there's a variety of claims. I do think many of those claims go beyond inciting or engendering, and that's what I saw as softening the claims of the conspiracy theory. I see those claims as being closer to saying The Frankfurt School has staged a society wide take over of culture. Sorry for misunderstanding your suggestion. 220.235.252.149 (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * To speak only for myself, I am resistant to foreground the most bizarre of the CT claims because doing so can obscure what I take to be the core claim - the purported culture war, launched from the left, consisting inter alia of progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness. The RS on the topic don't see this as a real thing and therefore don't see the need for either a conspiratorial or a benign explanation of it. The CT sees it as real, calls it "Cultural Marxism", and then goes a greater or a shorter distance along the path of blaming the Jews for it. But to identify the conspiracy theory only with that final link in the chain seems to me to miss the key move, which is to identify the culture war as something launched by the left regardless of its imputed intentions in doing so. Newimpartial (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Antisemitism
What's the connection between Cultural Marxism and anti-semitism? As a newcomer to this, the connection is unclear to me. The article Frankfurt School doesn't mention the word Jew/Jewish/anti-semitic/anti-semitism anywhere in its body. This article doesn't mention Jew/Jewish/anti-semitic/anti-semitism in the lead. The section in this article #Antisemitism in my opinion rambles and does not get to the point. Perhaps there's an opportunity here to add clarity to the article. – Novem Linguae (talk) 11:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The relevant section of the article, this one, seems clear enough to me. What about it confuses you?
 * Also, I dont know why you are bringing up the article Frankfurt School, since the topic of that article is not an antisemitic conspiracy theory - but the topic of this one is. Newimpartial (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, one train of logic would be "Cultural Marxism is anti-semitic -> Cultural Marxism blames the Frankfurt School -> therefore the Frankfurt School must be Jewish". So I was surprised to not find any mention of Frankfurt School being Jewish. Since that's not it, I am missing something. – Novem Linguae (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * NL, note that I have corrected the title of this section, and I would advise you to avoid (and redact) other antisemitic dogwhistles in your own writing.
 * Our task as Wikipedia editors is not to reason out what role being Jewish does or does not play in prompting antisemitic conspiracy theories, but rather to follow the highest-quality sources available on a topic. Unless you have something to contribute that is relevant to the way this article uses sources in the Antisemitism section, I think we are done here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs)
 * You don't appear done, did you really think we were or were you just being uncivil? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, I don't see anything uncivil in my comment, except the appearance created by my failure to sign it. At the time I wrote, I was more hopeful not to see this page digress into a largely original discussion of the "Jewishness" of the Frankfurt School than I now am. Sigh.
 * To place things in context, the edit I reverted did the equivalent of adding "Jewish" to the lead sentence of George Soros, in my view, and I don't believe such an addition to be compatible with enwiki policies or with the sourcing on this article's topic. Newimpartial (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure how you can deliver "Unless X (pointy and pedantic task which is tangential to the discussion), I think we are done here" in a collegial+civil tone. We have antisemitism in the lead sentence. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think a more relevant analogy would be George Soros conspiracy theories, which does mention that he is Jewish in the 2nd paragraph, for what that's worth. No strong feeling from me about the recent edits, to be clear. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 19:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * From a factual point of view, some associated with the Frankfurt School were Jewish and some were not. From the perspective of the conspiracy theory, as William Lind stated: "These guys were all Jewish.". It can be tricky to balance the claims of the conspiracists with facts. MrOllie (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * From a factual point of view you have to try really hard to find anyone who isn't Jewish (at least in the sense that matters to conspiracy theorists and anti-semites, I don't believe that any of them were practicing Jews in a religious sense). Horkheimer... Jewish family. Adorno... Extremely assimilated Jewish family. Fromm... Jewish family. Marcuse... Jewish family. Weil... Jewish family. Grünberg... Jewish family. Pollock... Jewish family. Lukács... Jewish family. Thats what makes the anti-semitic element of the conspiracy theory so powerful, they never need to say Jewish they can just say Frankfurt School and mean Jewish. Lots of things wrong with the conspiracy factually, that almost everyone involved in the Frankfurt School had Jewish ancestry isn't one of them. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info everyone. I took a stab at clarifying things, and sourced it to a Jewish magazine. – Novem Linguae (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Reverts
. All my edits tonight were reverted. Does anyone like the edits, or should we keep the status quo? As mentioned above my goal is to increase clarity for someone new to the topic like me. – Novem Linguae (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The edits I reverted here ran counter to a rather lengthy prior discussion that produced consensus behind the status quo language (I can dig out the link to that discussion if you want; as I recall it was an unstructured discussion rather than an RfC).
 * The edit I reverted here adds material to the lead sentence about the Jewish emigré composition of the Frankfurt School - material that is not mentioned in the relevant section of this article and that is not, to my knowledge, emphasized by the sources on this article's topic (and the source offered is not at all about the topic of this article).
 * Therefore, in both cases, I conclide that consensus should be obtained here on Talk before either change is made, and also, as one editor's opinion, I personally oppose both proposed changes as infelicitous and UNDUE. Newimpartial (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * While I understand where you're coming from with WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY concerns, adding enough context to understand something seems like a copy editing thing to me. – Novem Linguae (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I just don't think the edit was adding enough context to understand any more than adding "Jewish billionaire and philantropist" to the lead sentence of George Soros conspiracy theories would be "adding enough context to understand.". But obviously different editors will have different views on this matter. Newimpartial (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thats because Soros isn't Jewish, he just has Jewish heritage (which I will note is not a distinction antisemites generally make, but its one we do). Soros is an atheist as far as I know. The distinction is the same for the guys here, we can say that they have Jewish heritage but we shouldn't be saying that they're Jewish. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. So, the proposed addition here is equivalent to adding "billionaire and philanthropist of Jewish heritage" at the lead sentence of George Soros conspiracy theories. I'm not clear how that would be policy-compliant or appropriate, either. Newimpartial (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't do that, but I don't see any policy reason we couldn't. It certainly would't be policy non-compliant or inappropriate. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying MOS:ETHNICITY applies as written, but certainly the principle behind MOS:ETHBICITY would discourage the placement of "Jewish" idetifiers in the lead sentence of articles where the sources do not support this. Newimpartial (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And how could the sources at George Soros conspiracy theories possibly construed as not supporting that? That doesn't seem like it would be possible for a competent good faith editor to come to that conclusion even if they did not support its inclusion on other grounds. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * To answer your question: I am less familiar with the reliable sources on the Soros conspiracy theories than I am with the RS on the CMCT; however, I doubt that the former place any more emphasis on the Jewishness of the CT's protagonists than do the latter. So I don't think it is DUE in either case to circumcent the principle underling MOS:ETHNICITY. Verifiability is never, in itself, grounds for the inclusion of content, and especially not in the lead sentence of an article that deals with a contentious topic. Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

"refers to", once more
The lead sentence of this article seems to have fluctuated between "Cultural Marxism" is a […] conspiracy theory and "Cultural Marxism" refers to a […] conspiracy theory. I raised a mild objection against both wordings earlier when this material was still part of the Frankfurt School page, shortly before it was factored out here, at Talk:Frankfurt School/Archive 18. I'll quote myself from back then: "The sentence 'Cultural Marxism refers to a […] conspiracy theory' means that the conspiracy theory itself is called 'Cultural Marxism'. Of course it isn't. Cultural Marxism is not the name of the conspiracy theory; Cultural Marxism is what the conspiracy theory claims to be against." My suggestion was, and still is: "Cultural Marxism" is the object of a […] conspiracy theory.. I still find that a lot clearer and a lot more logical. Otherwise, wouldn't the reader be left to expect that the adherents of that conspiracy theory consider themselves, or are considered, "Cultural Marxists"?

As for the choice between pure "is" and "refers to", I don't see much of a difference between the two; both carry the same problem, to my mind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd like to re-propose We had some rough consensus back in November, with prior discussion at . Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, 'Cultural Marxism', whether in scare-quotes or not, is used by some of the article's sources to mean the conspiracy theory itself. In fact, there are three main names used for the conspiracy theory by the sources that are already cited in this article:
 * (1) Cultural Marxism
 * (2) Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory
 * (3) Frankfurt School conspiracy theory
 * So, I'd like to re-propose:
 * The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, also known as the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory or simply 'Cultural Marxism', is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness.
 * This suggestion previously encountered some objections. I am not convinced that any of these objections were based on either the sources or Wikipedia policies. Incidentally, the lead of the White genocide conspiracy theory article, which seems to be patrolled by many of the regulars on this talk page, is very similar to this suggestion. I would suppose that any objections would also apply to that article's lead, which has been quite stable for several years. 194.60.136.6 (talk) 10:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The Frankfurt School would have liked and encouraged all three of them. But in reality, except from those who could comprehend the incomprehensible jargon they were spewing out, the Frankfurt School was pretty powerless and could not effect social change. So, yeah, they had a great vision, but that vision wasn't shared by the adepts of Mao's Little Red Book who were occupying faculties in the West. Nor by the Flower Power folks, who were generally speaking opposed to Marxist prudes. The Frankfurt School was leadership, but they had no followership. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Apart from the first sentence, I am having serious trouble understanding how your reply relates to my comment, or indeed this entire section. 194.60.136.6 (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The Frankfurt School wanted That isn't a conspiracy theory. The conspiracy theory is that they were the driving force behind such changes. They were dreamers and dreamed of such a world. But they could not effect such change, so it isn't their work. Conspiracy theorists will find quotes from their works which anticipate such change, and the conspiracy theorists will say that it was planned and executed very carefully by the Frankfurt School. It's like saying that Jules Verne was the brain who planned and executed the Moon landing. Yup, Verne made strikingly accurate claims which match the real Moon landing.
 * So, the conspiracy theorists aren't idiots, but they misconstrue dreaming of a better world for evidence of an occult plot. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So... somehow I suspect that I will be no closer to satori after asking this, but... is your objection to my proposal: that the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is not, in your estimation, a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory, or that the conspiracy theory does not, in your opinion, [misrepresent] the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness, or that the conspiracy theory is not, (or should not be referred to in the lead at any rate) known by the three names listed above? Or is there some other objection to the proposed text hidden somewhere in your comment? 194.60.136.6 (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * is roughly speaking correct, but it is lacking nuance. And the nuance is that the Frankfurt School did dream/anticipate those changes, but it was not a plot, it wasn't a conspiracy. So, when conspiracy theorists are saying that the Frankfurt School wanted those changes, they are technically correct. They are wrong that the Frankfurt School is the cause of those changes.
 * tgeorgescu (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * some writings expressing the dreams of a better world of the Frankfurt School I, erm, personally don't think we should phrase it quite like this. 194.60.136.6 (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So, when conspiracy theorists are saying that the Frankfurt School wanted those changes, they are technically correct. no they didn't. No where in their writings is it suggested they wanted any of those three large concepts... this is a very vague claim being debated here. Undoubtedly they'd have very specific opinions on the current state of politics had any of the first generation of the Frankfurt School lived to see them. So let's not go pretending we know what The Frankfurt School would have to say about modern politics - that is after all, part of the conspiracy theories claims. 121.45.252.212 (talk) 12:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * &mdash;okay, agreed, that's what the conspiracy theorists claim. But they still interpret some writings of the Frankfurt School as "evidence" for their claims. I guess I'm not wrong about this.
 * And some of the conservative commentators who advance this conspiracy theory are very intelligent people. Might be paranoid, but still very intelligent people. So, if there were obvious flaws in rendering the POVs of the Frankfurt School, they would have spotted them already.
 * tgeorgescu (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I oppose this proposal. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this is an improvement; the idea that FS is simply responsible for the 3 listed things isn't the conspiracy, which is what the current lede suggests. I mean, it might be wrong, but there's nothing conspiratorial about it. The conspiracy theory is the idea that they did so for sinister reasons; a la the more broad anti-semitic conspiracy theories. Anyway: i at least like the addition of the word "sinister". ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 21:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And some of the conservative commentators who advance this conspiracy theory are very intelligent people. Might be paranoid, but still very intelligent people. So, if there were obvious flaws in rendering the POVs of the Frankfurt School, they would have spotted them already.
 * ...sorry, are you saying that the conspiracy theorists are very intelligent people, who are capable of reading and understanding the works of The Frankfurt School, and correcting any obvious flaws they're having in their interpretations of The Frankfurt School's writings?
 * To be clear; the late Frankfurt School strongly critiqued Identity Politics, and strongly oppose it taking president over traditional economic class politics - see Nancy Fraser's "Rethinking Recognition" . Likewise Herbert Marcuse states in Repressive Tolerance that political correctness should only be employed where the ways and means of democracy are blocked, and none of them had any idea what modern progressive politics is (because they didn't live to see it). 220.235.224.32 (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * «The Frankfurt School wanted modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness.» => No. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Point granted. Anyway, "leftists side with leftists" isn't a conspiracy theory. Conspiracist claims are: "they seek to destroy the soul of America" or "they seek to destroy Western civilization". And the conservative commentators are skillful at finding quotes which justify their conspiracist beliefs. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And the conservative commentators are skillful at finding quotes which justify their conspiracist beliefs.
 * Are they? I've seen no evidence of this. Do you have any? 220.235.224.32 (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean: they don't claim that being leftist is a conspiracy; they're not that stupid. And, yes, right-wing pundits have a reputation for quote mining. They can even uncover evidence that Alexis de Tocqueville was a Communist and Ronald Reagan was a pinko. In respect to the Frankfurt School: they just have to search for a quote which roughly predicts social and political change which happened during several decades and claim that that was their master plan. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think perhaps it's that there's different standards of evidence going on here. I'm more of the mindset that faulty evidence is no evidence at all. These sorts of discussions can be difficult because sometimes people will assume the mindset or perspective of conspiracy theorists or far-right conservatives in order to argue from (or merely casually state things from) that side of the case (a sort of devils advocacy) and those discussions often end up derailing.
 * It's a topic that's both fairly important to be precise when discussing, and fairly difficult to be precise when discussing. This is why it's always good to display evidence, and show a strong basis for any proposed changes. 220.235.224.32 (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The opening sentence could be fixed simply by changing "refers to" to "is used by". I do not think "refers to" is a minor error, for me it is huge. Can someone tell me which sources use "cultural marxism" as a name for a conspiracy theory in which cultural marxism is the enemy? I'm genuinely curious to understand how a neutral non-idiotic source could do that, but not curious enough to spend the maximum time that might take, if it turns out to be in the last of 104 links. Chris King (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my request for help with the sources. The one to an article by "Joan Braune" in "The journal of social justice" was enough for me. I only had to read a few paragraphs to accept the problem does seem to be the intellectual quality, rather than malice. Chris King (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a topic that's both fairly important to be precise when discussing, and fairly difficult to be precise when discussing. This is why it's always good to display evidence, and show a strong basis for any proposed changes. 220.235.224.32 (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The opening sentence could be fixed simply by changing "refers to" to "is used by". I do not think "refers to" is a minor error, for me it is huge. Can someone tell me which sources use "cultural marxism" as a name for a conspiracy theory in which cultural marxism is the enemy? I'm genuinely curious to understand how a neutral non-idiotic source could do that, but not curious enough to spend the maximum time that might take, if it turns out to be in the last of 104 links. Chris King (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my request for help with the sources. The one to an article by "Joan Braune" in "The journal of social justice" was enough for me. I only had to read a few paragraphs to accept the problem does seem to be the intellectual quality, rather than malice. Chris King (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, this is not about predictions, but about "'master plan' for the overthrow of Western civilization from within, personified by those members of the Frankfurt School...".

Also, I deny that right-wing pundits are aware they tell lies/delusions. My perspective is that they are sick or brainwashed, rather than being evil or liars.

This is about Marxist revolutionaries and Cultural Marxists predicting the dissolution of marriage, interpreted as a master plan.

This says "Antonio Gramsci, who produced in his prison notebooks of the 1930s a Marxist strategy for world domination [...] His solution was a 'cultural Marxism' that was aimed at destroying the influence of religion in society and of promoting instead 'secular humanism' by quietly infiltrating civil society institutions [...]". And claiming that Gramsci was the mastermind behind Western secularization is just a small step. Many gullible people will take that claim at face value. You need a whole library to refute that one-liner.

So, yeah, their claims about marriage and about secularization could be misconstrued as evidence of a conspiracy. So, obviously, the conspiracy theorists are convinced there is objective evidence for the master plan of this conspiracy.

The argument is really simple:


 * the Frankfurt School stated they desire some social change;
 * that change really happened;
 * so that's "evidence" of their master plan. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * This is really now getting miles and miles off course. This section was opened to discuss one small technical problem of wording. I would still like that question discussed. Can we please return to the topic? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I mildly prefer FFF's suggestion of "Proponents of a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory use the term 'Cultural Marxism' ..." to " 'Cultural Marxism' is the object of ...", and I think that satisfactorily addresses the concern you raised. I'd consider either a slight improvement to the article. I'd strongly prefer any option at all to long-winded, forum-ish speculation into the hearts of conspiracy theorists. CAVincent (talk) 08:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is accurate to say the Frankfurt School advocated social change or that it wanted modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness. Basically they analyzed the effects of capitalism on modern culture.
 * The cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is an update of Cultural Bolshevism, the theory that the Communists had created modern culture in order to undermine Western civilization. It's not based on anything the Frankfurt School said or did, although information is cherry-picked to support a narrative. TFD (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes it's an interesting suggestion... we'd be downgrading from a fairly assertive - The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to... to a much more open ended - [some/only] "Proponents of a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory use the term "Cultural Marxism" to misrepresent the Frankfurt School... - which suggests that oh perhaps some other conservatives or members of the far-right use the term in a way that's correct. Or that if it's not being used in an overtly antisemitic manner, then that's therefore a fine and correct usage. There's more leeway for those readings with the newly suggested text.
 * So far there's no academic consensus that the words 'cultural Marxism' have a set meaning within academia. Some writings have tied the words to specific theorists (The Frankfurt School, Birmingham School, and E.P. Thompson), others to developments in cultural studies, others use it in more general discussions of "what's to be done!". None of the academic writings that use the term suggest it's a set or fixed school of thought or longstanding approach or plan. Given that the second paragraph of the lead ends with "Scholarly analysis of the conspiracy theory has concluded that it has no basis in fact." I don't really think we should be suggesting, or even inferring that there's some correct usage outside of the conspiracy theory. Suggesting there is a correct usage that some conservatives or far-right proponents might be utilizing or tapping into seems to be approaching original research, and giving a slight indulgence to the conspiracy theory usage.
 * Not to mention that there are now 4 very recent discussions on this page all focused on making changes to the lead, none of which have been successful thus far. This suggests a fairly strong consensus against changing anything. Sure that consensus can change, but it hasn't in the other 3 discussions. I think the current lead has stuck around so long because the best compromises are ones in which no one is happy. 220.235.224.32 (talk) 11:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * use the term in a way that's correct – or in a nonconspiratorial way that is also not correct. But, I think the old way had this problem, too – just because the term refers to X doesn't mean it doesn't also refer to Y. Elsewhere the article discusses non-conspiracy uses of the term. That's ok: we don't have to nail all that down in the lede, I think. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 16:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * One line discusses the academic usage. My comment was referencing the false idea that there might be some accurate conservative or far-right usage, which I feel the FFF text can be read as suggesting. It's at least more ambiguous in that regard than the current text. 220.235.252.149 (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a fair criticism. Care to weigh in on IP194's proposal? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's alright. I don't think I have any specific arguments against it currently. Perhaps one or two more editors will chime in to form a consensus. 220.235.252.149 (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Fut.Perf that this keeps getting off the rails. Options on the table: I would prefer to drop Tgeorgescu's proposal and focus on the other three. We could discuss separately the idea that the content of the conspiracy theory should be described differently. Assuming we're keeping the status quo content description the same, all the other proposals are just about how to refer to the conspiracy theory. I think all three proposals for that (Fut.Perf, FFF, IP194) are improvements over the status quo, and you can interpret me as supporting whichever one is the closes to gaining consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Status quo:
 * Fut.Perf:
 * FFF:
 * IP194:
 * Tg:


 * I somewhat support Tg's proposal over the others, since it contains the key element of sinister motive. If someone mistakenly has an outsized view of FS's influence in modern left political thought, there's nothing conspiratorial about that, of course, it's just a bad reading of history/etc. I say "somewhat" because of course the reader can probably infer the point about sinister intent from the word "conspiracy" anyway. (If that's what you meant by "described differently" and we don't want to have that discussion here beg pardon.) ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 16:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That is what I meant by "described differently". I'm not against having that conversation. Maybe in a subsection? Separate it from that, we're discussing how to refer to the conspiracy theory. Discussions here frequently devolve into choice paralysis, so a little bit of focus goes a long way toward productive consensus-building. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Of those, the IP194's is my preference. It puts the title of the article up front, which is great. And it doesn't suggest there is some single non-conspiracy 'true Cultural marxism' (a notion that I do not think would find consensus). The first 4 options are all preferable to Tg's, though, since that one suggests that the theory is inspired by the Frankfurt school's actual writings, and I do not think that supported by the sources we have. MrOllie (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's some good reasoning. Count me in favor of IP194's too., since the IP's proposal starts off the same as your preferred version (Tg's), would you support the former as an incremental improvement over the status quo. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That isn't the thing that mostly appeals to me about Tg's proposal, but sure putting the title verbatim earlier is nice, all else being equal. No objections to the change. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 21:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Of the proposals for change, I'd say that IP194's is "the best" (most comprehensive and accurate) and tg's is "the worst" (most misleading and FALSEBALANCE-ey). I see certain advantages in the IP194 proposal comparison to the status quo, while each of the other proposed changes seems "worse" to me than the status quo in one respect or another. Newimpartial (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you count Gramsci as belonging to or at least a forerunner of the Frankfurt School? Because in his case the evidence is undeniable.
 * If not, the Cultural Marxism is simply about Gramsci, not about the Frankfurt School, which have been mistakenly conflated with him. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * To answer your question: no, I do not regard Gramsci as at least a forerunner of the Frankfurt School - nor even as an influence, due to the publication history of his work. Nor do I regard his broader influence as being in any way responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness - and that, in spite of the career of Ernesto Laclau, who is sadly neglected by CMCT proponents. Newimpartial (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Point granted. But that aside, Gramsci did plot about Marxist world domination, did not he? And I agree that SJWs aren't Marxists: they simply want a better capitalism. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, Gramsci like any good Marxist of the Second or Third International advocated for world revolution - I'm not sure plot is the right word. But very few of the CMCTheorists seem even to know who Gramsci was, much less blame any "plots" on his influence. Newimpartial (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's : while rank-and-file Marxist revolutionaries pleaded for overt revolution, he pleaded for discretely infiltrating the bourgeois culture and the civil society. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It has been a long time since I read Gramsci, but I'm quite confident he never said that. In any case, this thead is now well off-topic. Newimpartial (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Your claims don't line up with anything on our Antonio Gramsci page, nor on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's page . Much as The Frankfurt School pointed out The Culture Industry, Gramsci pointed out Hegemony. The conspiracy theorists seem to make a leap, that they thus, must have expressed a desire to take over these phenomena and had a plan to. This is however not the case.
 * Gramsci for instance, was of the point of view that the prevailing Hegemony at the time needed a vibrant working class culture as it's competition. One that was more morally upstanding than the bourgeois hegemonic forces. Essentially he expressed a model of competition.
 * Likewise The Frankfurt School expressed the idea that Avant-garde high culture was put at risk by the Capitalist Culture Industry, and he expressed a desire to protect the high arts, and create a culture more capable of satisfying human psychological needs than generic commercial mass culture could (as per Marcuse: they claimed true psychological needs were "freedom, creativity, and genuine happiness").
 * This is part of why Adorno enjoyed atonal music, and was basically of the mindset that if culture was authentic, it didn't necessarily have to be polite, pleasant, or even enjoyable. Basically he didn't necessarily like hollywood happy endings, closure, and glossy magazine culture (probably more a fan of German cinema of the time than American). He believed that culture should fulfill and address all parts of the human soul, and not just whatever market researchers and focus groups determined would have wide spread mass appeal. This is also part of why Richard Hoggart of The Birmingham School (UK) rallied against what he called "mass culture" and even "Americanization".
 * One could say this is a lineage of critiques, Gramsci desiring a working class culture, Adorno worrying about the avante guard and the arts, and Hoggart complaining about Americanization (the next link perhaps being complaints of "globalization" which came later in leftist discourse). But basically, these were all left wing complaints about Commercial, Capitalist mass culture and its effects on the minds of previously culturally "localized" populations and individuals. They thought humanity was losing something in these totalizing processes of the culture industry.
 * Part of these viewpoints relate to the historic changes around WW1, where Western Europe went from being a series of empires, with royalty forming sovereignty, but local communities forming daily life, to nations, with anthems, traditions, and cultures, drawn from those previously localized communities. Here is an interesting educational video that covers some of those historical changes (see the 11 minute mark). 220.235.252.149 (talk) 06:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, hopefully it goes without saying that none of these guys owned PR agencies, or worked in media. They were social theorists and academics, and weren't active players in the constructions or disseminations made by those in the culture industry. 220.235.252.149 (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * do you have a non-conspiracy theory source for that? I tried googling but the only people I found saying it where absolute nut jobs. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 12:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought of Armin Krishnan's book WP:CITED in the article, but seen the above replies, I think he felt prey to the conspiracy theory. Beforehand, I thought he knows what he is speaking about. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think thats the case... Krishnan cites Robert Chandler's book Shadow World for the claim. Shadow World is one of the foundational texts in the "Obama is a foreign born marxist Trojan horse" genera of conspiracy nonsense. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Charlie Kirk
Hardly worth inclusion but I thought I'd note it here anyways, Charlie Kirk recently made the claim that Jewish people were the ones primarily funding cultural Marxism, and that it's backfired by leading generations of Americans to view things through the lens of Oppressor vs Oppressed, or Good guy/Bad guy... and that this has resulted in the left being against Israel wanting to do a genocide. Anyways, the clip is here (via Media Matters). I don't really see it as noteworthy enough for inclusion, and it would be hard to find a place for it in the article. Just thought I'd live the link here anyways. 124.170.173.183 (talk) 11:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you IP, your comment is exactly what should have been done. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * He's very clearly talking about Jewish people funding left idpol ("everything through an oppressor, oppressed lens"). If he had said "backfired" that would be compelling evidence that he doesn't see it as a conspiracy, but instead that he sees it as good faith activism for misguided policies, but I think he isn't being 100% clear that this is his point. (I think it is his point, but he simply isn't being super explicit here.) Anyway all for naught, as you note this probably isn't noteworthy enough and the analysis I give here would need sources one way or the other for inclusion. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting interpretation of what he said. So the Jews are funding the promotion of policies that threaten your livelihood, your country, your family, your religion, but they mean well. Good thing he didn't say they were doing this maliciously or it might have made his viewers mad at them.
 * Anyway, unless Kirk's speech receives widespread ongoing attention, it's undue for the article.
 * TFD (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I mean, whatever political policies you don't like you probably think they are bad for your country and so on. (If anything he's claiming here that CM itself is a conspiracy to harm Jews, which is sort of the opposite of what the lede says.) Anyway you're right about undue, and who cares about our analysis of Kirk, so I'll say no more about it unless I (or someone else) finds a good source. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 23:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Kirk did not say that CM was "a conspiracy to harm Jews," but that during the current war it had become a consequence. I assume he meant an unintended consequence.
 * Also, people don't assume policies are bad for them and others because they don't like them, they don't like them because they believe they will be bad for them and others. TFD (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thats not true, people do in fact assume policies are bad for them and others because they don't like them... Its not super rational but since when has public perception of policy been rational? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I cannot think of any policies people dislike but don't think they are bad for them. Do you have any examples? TFD (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Obamacare is a good modern example, a lot of the people it would benefit most assumed that it was bad for them based on name alone. They didn't like Obama so they opposed the policy with his name on it (even if it didn't really have his name on it), often while admitting that it would objectively benefit them. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)