On Feb 4, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Joseph Catron wrote:
> I'd be interested in hearing how the article is any dumber, or more
> grossly simplified or New Agey, than the language it reports.
>
> If it has flaws or inaccuracies, what are they? Serious question.
Don't expect a meaningful response. Nobody who talks about "class- first-and-only leftists" is to be taken any more seriously than those (Heinrich groupy) types who attack Marx's crisis theory as "falling- rate-of-profit-first-and-only leftism." The word ONLY is where the devil's tail always sticks through.
>
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 7:28 PM, Eric Beck <ersatzdog at gmail.com> wrote:
>> This article is d-u-m. Grossly simplified, newagey taxonomy. So of
>> course
>> it's been seized upon by conservative, class-first-and-only
>> leftists as
>> revealing the shortcomings of today's (allegedly) individualist,
>> therapeutic identitarians. Bleck.
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 4, 2014, Joseph Catron <jncatron at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> There's lots of interest here for those from the right mileaus. I
>>> might follow up with some thoughts later, but will start with the
>>> link
>>> for now.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://rabble.ca/news/2014/02/check-your-privilege-rise-post-new-left-political-vocabulary
>>>
Shane Mage
This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, kindling in measures and going out in measures.
Herakleitos of Ephesos