User talk:TidyPrepster

Notice
 Acroterion   (talk)   02:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Forum discussions
Hi, I've noticed you are new to Wikipedia, welcome and thanks for contributing. You appear to be starting forum style discussions at the Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory articles and the 2020 United States elections article, it's okay you're new to this. However, I urge you to read the Five pillars and WP:RELIABLE. Please avoid forum type discussions, these are disruptive and may result in loss of editing privileges. All the best. Bacondrum (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Bacondrum. Thank you for the introduction. Respectfully, I disagree with your characterizations of both the sources cited and the nature of my objection.


 * To take them in order. The article on reliable sources you helpfully linked contains references to the neutral point of view requirement. Specifically the following nut-shell: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." The article in question fails this test in many respects. I picked this particular aspect as the most glaring. The sources cited - specifically in their use of the pejorative "far-right" are effectively circular. No definition of "far-right" is provided. Nor is there an acknowledgment that Cultural Marxism as a descriptor has a much longer history than what is being alleged in the article. The use of the term is not restricted to "far-right" (whoever they are), or even to conservative individuals. Marxists have used the descriptor as well.


 * Second, while I appreciate that WP is not a discussion forum, the task of editing an article online requires a discussion, for which the user interface provides a forum. I do not wish to stray to topics beyond my narrow objection to the use of the undefined term "far-right" and the equally pejorative (in this context) "anti-semitic" in this article.
 * TidyPrepster (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you'll get nowhere with claims about the far-right being undefined, there's an enormous body of literature on the subject, it is very well defined. It describes a certain set of ideologies - you perceive it as pejorative term - but in a matter of fact sense it is not. I'm not really willing to get into it any further, the body of academia on the subject is clear, discussing yours or my opinion of the term is forum territory. If there are specific claims in the article you believe are not backed by reliable sources, please bring those specific claims and/or the specific sources to the talk page and we can discuss those, myself and other editors are unlikely to entertain broad, non-specific complaints about the article. There's a handy list of sources and their reliability here :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. I hope that helps. Cheers. Bacondrum (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * TidyPrepster, you really don't seem to have internalized the WP policies about verifiability and reliable sources. Wikipedia editors have to evaluate sources based on their reputation and whether their procedures assure consistent accuracy in what they publish, not based on whether they are correct or whether we agree with them in a specific instance. When an editor argues against generally reliable sources because "they are wrong" or "they are biased", this is typically a good indicator that the editor is pushing a POV, whether they are aware of it or not. Generally speaking, the way to achieve consensus on a change to an article is to provide sources showing that what is currently in the article is disputed or that something has been left out of the article which is is documented by multiple sources of high quality. Purely "logical" or argumentative objections seem forum-like and are unlikely to result in the desired changes. Just a heads-up. Newimpartial (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Re: "I'm afraid you'll get nowhere with claims about the far-right being undefined" Thank you for that link, it demonstrates my point very well. The idea that people who refer to cultural Marxism in discourse are participating in a conspiracy theory, let alone a far-right one ludicrous. Jordan Peterson is not on the far-right, nor is he particularly conservative. Ditto Gramsci, ditto Marcuse. The specific claims not backed up by "reliable sources" is the reference to far-right and antisemitism as the driving force. The sources cited are all point of view sources, and therefore cannot be viewed as reliable - let alone canonical by any measure of objectivity.
 * To the latter point that I "don't seem to have internalized WP policies about reliability," my answer is good. It will be a cold day in hell before I outsource my thinking to a rule book. My criticism stands. The pejorative use of far-right and anti-semitic in this article is not appropriate. Nor is it appropriate to insinuate that a phenomenon whose roots date back to 1930s is a recent invention of the right-wing fringe.
 * To the point about antisemitism. I see that earlier discussion asserts that antisemitism is an "essential quality" in this conspiracy theory, but the sources cited allude to nothing more than "linking," "connotations" "reminiscent" of antisemitism. The stuff of "essential quality" this is not. Lastly, I direct you to the following article in Tablet for an example of how to treat this subject more evenly: Just Because Anti-Semites Talk About ‘Cultural Marxism’ Doesn’t Mean It Isn’t Real, Alexander Zubatov.
 * --TidyPrepster (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think Gramsci or Marcuse wrote about "Cultural Marxism", or if you can't tell whether Jordan Peterson is referencing Marxist cultural analysis ( article title corrected) or the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, then you shouldn't really be trying to contribute on those topics. competence is required. Newimpartial (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC) article title corrected Newimpartial (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Having read both, this is precisely what they wrote about. The present article is an obfuscation of real phenomena through an undue focus on what is in fact a minor element. Cultural Marxism exists and the use of the term is neither conspiratorial, far-right, nor anti-semitic. Competence is indeed required, as is objectivity and a commitment to logical consistency. I suggest you internalize that. P.S. the Marxist approaches to culture article you linked to has disappeared.  --TidyPrepster (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This gets back to what I said about understanding WP policies. Cultural Marxism exists is not a statement that reliable sources support, unless you are using "cultural Marxism", the way a handful of sources do, as a synonym for Marxist cultural analysis (article title corrected above; sorry). Essentially nobody - reliable or not - uses the term "Cultural Marxism" as a proper noun for anything but the conspiracy theory. Please also look at the archives for Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, as this topic has been discussed again, and again, and again since that article was split from Frankfurt School. Also note that a very widely-participated AfD in 2014 concluded (in a unanimous ruling by a panel of three uninvolved administrators) that "Cultural Marxism" was not a real thing, but that the conspiracy theory might be worth presenting in article space on WP. A single new editor is never going to overturn a site-wide consensus, especially when they don't understand how Wikipedia works. Newimpartial (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson uses it. As does Alex Zubatov in the article I already linked to here: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/just-because-anti-semites-talk-about-cultural-marxism-doesnt-mean-it-isnt-real

The conspiracy theory angle is obfuscatory, supported exclusively with left-wing sources the “reliability” of which is supported exclusively by other left-wing sources. That this topic has been discussed before is an observation of the obvious. It is being discussed now and doubtless will continue to be discussed. That a panel of some unknowns decided something somewhere means absolutely nothing to the central point. Pejorative statements sourced entirely from one side of the debate do not contribute to view point neutrality, they detract from it. TidyPrepster (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * If you are going to dismiss all academic and mainstream journalistic sources as left-wing, then I suspect you would be more comfortable participating in a collaborative encyclopedia with different (lower) standards of evidence than wikipedia.
 * By the way, neither Jordan Peterson nor Alex Zubatov is a reliable source about Marxism, and both of them are, in fact, deploying the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Given that you are unwilling to learn either what reliable sources say on this topic or how Wikipedia works, I believe I am finished replying here. Newimpartial (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * There's always https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page, they don't really apply any standards for sourcing and claims. Bacondrum (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And they have a page on Cultural Marxism, go for it! https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism Bacondrum (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

No. I’m am not willing to dismiss all academic sources - by the way academic sources are not journalistic by definition. I simply do not accept the claim that all academic sources agree on this point. They do not. If you believe otherwise, then the standard which to which you refer are not worthy of the name.

Your article presents a false vision of consensus that does not exist.

“Mainstream journalistic” sources is another false category. “Mainstreaming” is a point of view.

The latter point about Peterson and Zubatov is both sophistry and tautology - impressive. It alone illustrates that a person willing to deploy such smears should not be editing anything. TidyPrepster (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So provide the sources that contest this view. The lede is very well cited, all academic journal papers and books written by leading social science experts. It's not a credible argument to write them off as leftists (this is also against wikipedia policy), so your only other option is to find similar high quality academic papers that contest the claim. Failing that, there's always rationalwiki or others with little or no standards for citations. I'm not willing to engage in this any further. Provide reliable sources, nothing else will convince anyone here. Bacondrum (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I have. The Zubatov article is one such. I can source others. The point is that when all academic sources presented agree, the presentation is not balanced, by definition. The other individual failed to even read that article before dismissing it. I know this by his/ her incorrect assertion of the terms usage by the author. TidyPrepster (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * If you don't think I read Zubatov, then you don't know me or my editing record. I read the piece years ago, and that is my go-to mental model of "it isn't always antisemitic, and it isn't a conspiracy theory if it's real" - which isn't a compelling argument given his pathetic standards of evidence and complete lack of standing as a reliable source on Marxism. Newimpartial (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * “ given his pathetic standards of evidence and complete lack of standing as a reliable source on Marxism. ” Those are not given. They are asserted, by you, without support. Frankly, one questions your understanding of the material, in addition to your objectivity, with a statement like that.
 * I suggest you re-read the article and take a refresher course in epistemology. TidyPrepster (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as the Zubatov piece is concerned, he falls off the epistemological cliff, inter alia, in his "It is a short step" paragraphs, which operate on the principle of alchemical sympathetic magic rather than scholarly evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * What are those "other things" among which this objection is situated? Again, it's fine for you to assert your disagreement with his view (which is what you just did), but do not pretend that your view on the matter is authoritative, dispositive, or viewpoint neutral. I see no magic in that particular paragraph. What is there is an assertion that one view is similar and perhaps even the progenitor of the others. If you disagree with this, then your quarrel is with the reasoning provided above the paragraph to which you referenced. At least you're looking at it (however fleetingly), so I suppose that is progress of a kind.

--TidyPrepster (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Are you simply trying to generate clicks for Tablet? Because I read the piece in its entirety two years ago - there isn't anything there for me to learn. As far as the repeated (not just one) "It is a short step" paragraphs, they are literally assuming sameness on the basis of alchemical similarity - a sort of rhyme - between the positions of Marxist humanists discussed earlier and those of postcolonial theorists, feminists and intersectional activists, but without showing any actual connection between the latter and any kind of "C/cultural Marxism". Zubatov's reading of Marcuse's "repressive tolerance" concept is laughable, and many of his claims made in passing, like the one where Gramsci was "building upon Lukács’ ideas", are provably false. The piece doesn't meet the evidential standards of a second-year paper in the history of polical thought, which is pretty much what it purports to be. Newimpartial (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * No, I am trying to get you to see that you're purporting to be an editor of an article which is required to be viewpoint-neutral. You dismiss all information that does not conform to your own viewpoint as inadequate not on the basis of sound argumentation but by way of pejorative labels, grandstanding and appeals to your own authority (as above). What would indeed not pass an undergraduate paper smell test is your comment. I get that you disagree with Zubatov's take on the "repressive tolerance" concept. Calling it "laughable" is not an argument. It's not even a cogent viewpoint, for that matter. What about that concept does Zubatov get wrong? Your comments above, in totality, amount to a drive-by smear of a perspective with which you disagree. That suggests that your edits to this article are motivated by something other than the pursuit of impartiality, objectivity, and the finding of fact. This much is clear. --TidyPrepster (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Reading a source and finding its treatment incompetent isn't about POV, it is about having standards. Please read WP:SEALION - I am not going to follow the moving goalposts and engage with any additional detail about the Zubatov piece, since that would not be germane. The fact is that - quite apart from the actual sophomoric quality of his argument - there simply isn't anything about Tablet or about Zubatov that would make the source plausible as a reliable, expert presentation of anything except the author's opinion, and his opinion on this carries no WP:WEIGHT.
 * What you don't seem to get is, different standards apply here to me and to Zubatov, because nobody is proposing to cite me - or any wikipedia editor - as a RS on the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (or Marxist cultural analysis) but you are proposing to cite Zubatov or follow his argument. Therefore it actually matters that Zubatov fails basic evidential standards as he uses magical thinking to give his readers a dopamine hit by confirming their pre-existing biases, but I don't have to prepare a paper for journal publication to prove that, because nobody is presenting my work as a reliable source. If I did make that kind of sourced argument on Wikipedia (presumably out of boredom), it would be original research anyway and not usable in article-writing. The onus, as always, is against the inclusion of contentious material in WP articles, and you just don't have any reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "Therefore it actually matters that Zubatov fails basic evidential standards as he uses magical thinking to give his readers a dopamine hit by confirming their pre-existing biases" This is an assertion provided without evidence. Which thinking is "magical" and what specifically is wrong with his standards of evidence? The only standards which are evident in your responses thus far are those which elevate your viewpoint. Such are not standards, they are speech codes. You're correct that no one is proposing to cite you, and no one should. However, you are proposing to edit and likely largely author an article that purports to be viewpoint-neutral when it is not. Further - it is on a subject you appear to know little of. The little dominance display above from you and your evident co-thinker is amusing. It is not, however, persuasive. --TidyPrepster (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

One last comment on the ad hominem: a subject you appear to know little of? Really? Unlike Zubatov, I have actually read Lukacs, Korsh, Gramsci, Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Althusser, Hall, Said, Davis, and the intersecrional feminists and antiracists, as well as a good deal of the secondary literature, and have produced peer-reviewed work on some of them as well. I know of what I speak. Meanwhile, what you find persuasive, amusing or a drive-by smear are opinions of no relevance to WP as a project, since you refuse to accept such key principles as reliable sourcing and no original research. Newimpartial (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "One last comment on the ad hominem" That's rich coming from the chief purveyor of ad hominem in this conversation. And my observation does not qualify, because you indeed appear to know little of Marxism. I make no judgment about your knowledge of the culture. I too have read most of the writers on your list. I dare say I've understood them too. But that's completely beside the point, which is this: one-sided standards are not viewpoint-neutral. Smearing someone a "magical thinker" without standards does not make him so, and your (now repeated) appeals to speech codes and what you appear to see as your own authority is just funny. Tautologies can be interesting, circular reasoning can be entertaining, but when it begins to spiral bad faith (if not pathology) is to be suspected. --TidyPrepster (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Someone who makes an argument based on a rhetoric of similarity, rather than citing actual evidence of relationship, is employing what rational scholars consider to be "magical thinking". You are clearly unable to distinguish between actual, based criticism and ad hominem, which is just sad.
 * Also, why on earth are you referring to speech codes? Talk about tautology (if not pathology). :) Newimpartial (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "Someone who makes an argument based on a rhetoric of similarity, rather than citing actual evidence of relationship, is employing what rational scholars consider to be "magical thinking"." The "conspiracy theory" contention is yours, not Zubatov's. Similarity is his claim. A claim he has proven with inline references. A "relationship" between (presumably) the authors is not something he needs to establish to demonstrate that one idea is similar to the other - comparison of the ideas themselves and their effects is all that is required. That he refused to engage in a conspiracy you posit exists, is not a problem for him. It is a problem for you.
 * "You are clearly unable to distinguish between actual, based criticism and ad hominem" You have yet to provide any criticism other than charges of missing standards and "magical thinking." Neither of which you have supported beyond the bare assertion. This is ad hominem by definition. Finally, I refer to speech codes because you insist on using them. --TidyPrepster (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * According to the reliable sources, Zubatov is participating in the conspiracy theory, because the narrative he provides - It is a short step - 'is" the narrative of the conspiracy theory, not the wie es eigentlich gewesen of actual history.
 * Also, you clearly don't understand what anyone means by speech codes, sorry to say. Newimpartial (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "Also, you clearly don't understand what anyone means by speech codes, sorry to say" says the fellow who opens up with "according to reliable sources." To describe this tactic as Orwellian is to state the obvious. What you describe as a "conspiracy theory" in that article is merely an observation - that is to say a theory - that related concepts are in fact related, and that modern progressivism finds some of its roots in Marxist critique. Denying this by way of smearing any such observation as a "conspiracy theory" is in itself conspiratorial nonsense. Admission by projection. This much is plainly evident from the bare facts of history, as well as intellectual history. What you said above, however, is quite a bit of circular gobbeldygook wrapped into a short passage. Impressive.


 * Let's unpack that a little bit:
 * You: "Reliable Sources," say that saying X is a conspiracy theory
 * Me: Who are these sources, what makes them reliable, is their perspective balanced or skewed, moreover, does what they say cohere and conform with basic logic?
 * You: that's precisely what a conspiracy theorist would say!


 * I don't think I'm the one wearing the tinfoil hat in this conversation. --TidyPrepster (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * No, no, no. I answered your question: Who are these sources, what makes them reliable already, with all academic and mainstream journalistic sources. They are reliable because they follow practices of peer review and fact-checking - not because they happen to agree with one another - but they do all happen to agree that the Cultural Marxist narrative is, in fact, a conspiracy theory. And I am not going to waste my time giving exegesis of the logic of particular sources, because that would clearly be wasted on you. But the basic historical facts are that (1) yes, 20th-century Marxists wrote about Western culture; (2) yes, 21st-century poststructuralist, postcolonial and intersectional theorists criticize various things, including culture, but (3) no, there is no direct or salient connection deriving (2) from (1); however (4) some conspiracy theorists, informed by antisemitism and the Judeo-Bolshevism hypothesis, created specious or allusive connections between (1) and (2) as part of a rather emphatic move in the Culture War, positing that Marxism was the basis of an attack on Western values. And, like (1)-(3), (4) is supported by actual evidence - that is, reading the primary sources and the scholarship, it is clear that the work of the conspiracy theorists themselves is not scholarship but, rather, motivated reasoning. Newimpartial (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "No, no, no. I answered your question: Who are these sources, what makes them reliable already, with all academic and mainstream journalistic sources." Are you serious? "all academic and mainstream journalistic sources"? in point of fact, that isn't what you said above, but that being as it may - are you seriously contending that all academic sources agree on this point? Really? Can you be that ill-read? It is a minor miracle if academics agree on what to have for breakfast, let alone on major points of contention regarding Marxism. What is true, is that most academics on a particular side of a hotly contested debate agree - by virtue of being on one side of that debate. Presenting sources from just one of these sides is not viewpoint neutral. Further suggestion: to obtain an understanding of whether Marxism is hostile to the underpinnings of Western Civilisation, I suggest you read Marx and Engles. For variety, you could add a bit of Lenin as well. I understand that the collected works of each are freely available online. --TidyPrepster (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * If you think Marx, Engles and Lenin are hostile to the underpinnings of Western Civilisation, then you just have some basic issues in reading comprehension that I'm afraid are beyond my ability to remedy. And specifically what I am saying is that all reliable sources on intellectual history, broadly defined, agree that the "Cultural Marxism" thesis is a conspiracy theory and that there are no sources that meet the basic evidential standards of the field presenting the contrary position - that Cultural Marxism (as I have defined it above, as deriving contemporary cultural criticism from Marxist Humanism or Western Marxism) is a real phenomenon. Nor are there any reliable journalistic sources making that argument either. The personal beliefs of Jordan Peterson or Alex Zubatov just don't matter in this context, because neither has any expertise in this area. Newimpartial (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You're hilarious. You could indeed remedy your own lack of reading comprehension by reading some of the original sources. Your contention that there are no "credible" sources for this particular position requires you to know what all the sources are, in order for you to judge their credibility. I very much doubt that I'm talking to an artificial intelligence :-) As for the more concrete point about Marxist hostility to Western Civilization, I take Marxists themselves at their word - and current Marxists too - since that seems to matter over here. The BLM organizers until very recently stated openly that they are both 1. "trained Marxists", and 2. are hostile to the idea of Western nuclear family, concepts of meritocracy, objectivity, etc as white notions. No conspiracy is required to take them at their word when they assert the origins of their theorizing. --TidyPrepster (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's easier to leave this conversation now that it's degenerated to the level of anecdote. So in parting, a simple point about social psychology: I don't have to read literally all of the possible sources, because I have paid attention to the large number of editors (usually new accounts) making the same point you have tried to make at Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, and prior to the split, at Frankfurt school, and prior to that at the deletion discussion for the original Cultural Marxism article. I have read each of the sources offered by those holding your position - and many, unlike yourself, have clearly tried to find the best sources they could - and literally all of the sources located by these highly motivated individuals are either talking about Marxist humanists without making the leap into the contemporary Culture War (usually referring to "cultural Marxism"), or are reinscribing the conspiracy while offering neither expertise or evidence on the topic (usually discussing "Cultural Marxism"). Literally no reliable sources have been presented that don't fall in one or the other category - and yet I wait and watch. Newimpartial (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "Well, it's easier to leave this conversation now that it's degenerated to the level of anecdote." Isn't it interesting how any mention of what Marxists themselves admit to in a moment on incaution is "anecdotal" whereas obfuscatory articles from other Marxists and fellow travelers are reliable and authoritative.


 * You responded with scorn to my earlier assertion that Marx, Engles, and Lenin were hostile to the underpinnings of Western Civ. It strikes me that this point is worth expanding a bit. I suppose Lenin and the Bolsheviks disbanded the Duma out of a deep and abiding commitment to representative governance in which people choose leaders from among themselves at regular intervals? I also suppose that Lenin violently collectivized the country's farms and murdered those he considered kulaks out of an ingrained belief in the necessity of private property ownership.


 * The claim that progressives find their root in Marxist critique is self-evidently true. The claim that this observation amounts to a conspiracy theory is not supportable by facts nor logic. The pretzels you twist yourself in order to assert the impossible is just... frankly impressive. --TidyPrepster (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Sometimes it's just entertaining to sit back and watch the goal posts move on their own. Newimpartial (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems that the POV pushers this article is so worried about are already on the inside. One of their number is Newimpartial. The Cultural Marxism "conspiracy theory" article is obscurantist propaganda, not even thinly veiled at that. Sure, I have a point of view. I don't mind disclosing what it is. You pretend that your point of view doesn't exist and is also the default point of view for everyone admitted to the discource. An accusation of moving the goalposts requires there to be reliably placed goalposts that can be moved.  --TidyPrepster (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)