https://twitter.com/IBJIYONGI/status/1625124480065445891
Sounds very neoliberal.
Sounds very neoliberal
-
Stephen Michael Clark is confident in a single, unifying definition of neoliberalism.
That's why Stephen Michael Clark for ASA president.Yes, we all know SMC is more educated and intelligent than you, as evidenced by every argument you've ever had with him on this site. Obviously American academic sociology would be in far better shape if people like Stephen were not marginalized.
So what exactly are you trying to argue here? Do you believe "neoliberal" is a useful term or not? Also, you tend to hijack threads where the word is never even used at all in order to derail any and every criticism of Democrat-aligned corporate identity politics.
Your initial line of argument was "Calling Democrat-aligned corporate identity politics 'neoliberal' is not valid usage of the word," then when shown numerous examples of prominent people using the word in exactly these terms, you stopped arguing that. Now anytime anyone criticizes Democrat-aligned corporate identitarianism in any substantive terms at all, you hijack the thread. You still haven't audited an undergrad PHI course on logic?
You deliberately get a failing grade in every debate you participate in. Is your actual agenda to try to make the Democrats look stupid with your posts? I don't think that's the case, but if so you're really staying in character in a committed way.Anytime anyone makes a valid point, you derail the conversation in puerile ways with childish namecalling or repetition of nonsensical catchphrases. I know it must make you extremely angry when you realize that, *shock*, corporate identitarianism as a political tendency is founded on pseudoscientific conspiracy theories and is not valid as social science. The fact that you've stopped even trying to defend your viewpoint because you know it's invalid and refuted by data really speaks volumes about how anti-intellectual American sociology actually became in recent years.
-
Also, the prominent usage by leftists of "neoliberal" to criticize Democrat-aligned identitarianism is entirely valid in terms of Chicago school economics. Gary Becker's entire shtick was about creating a more powerful capitalism by breaking down cultural forms of discrimination in order to enhance efficiency of markets. This doesn't make capitalism any less brutal to the poor or any less destructive to the environment, it just makes it more 'diverse.' I dislike black astrophysics lady, but she is not using the word in any improper manner here at all.
Now go on, since you can't argue against any of this, just repeat your catchphrases, or act like you are "intellectually pwning" someone by... uh... repeating their name, lol.
-
Truthfully, you're actually getting a bit better, Stephen. Here, you are at least providing something of a specific critique, for once, if not exactly a working definition of neoliberalism (which would make it a bit better).
Honestly, Stephen, most of us here don't disagree with many of these points. We don't see these transparent marketing techniques as signs of great social progress. Neither are we the champions of the democratic party that you assume.
It's more of a--yeah, we know. Where you've come to annoy everyone is with your petty personal attacks and with your failure to really engage substantively in exchanges on these topics. That's how you've managed to unite the broken toys of SJMR and make yourself the common enemy. It's not because your ideas are too revolutionary.
-
I don't think you're in a position to be intellectually judging anyone by saying things like "You're actually getting a bit better," especially seeing as these exact arguments have been made on this site for years.
Nobody has ever asked for a "working definition of neoliberal." Anyone can find this easily online. It's just one weird guy pretending the word has no real meaning and is just a vague attack slur, then he's constantly been shown this to be false. Then he constantly hijack threads *in which the word neoliberal is never even used* in order to derail any and every political criticism of corporate identity politics as associated with the Democrats. My points are the same as have been made for years.
And again -- the main thrust of arguments has never at all been about the word "neoliberal." That's what the person who hijacks threads tries to make it about. This specific word is not really the crux of any important argument, although as noted we have one weird guy who constantly derails threads *in which the word was never even used* in order to try to make it about the word. -
Your main statement in this post here is actually totally absurd, though. The personal attacks on this site and in basically every thread always began against Stephen. Stephen never throws a first punch. See now -- why are you even naming someone, instead of talking about arguments? Why does it matter to you whether or not the person you're talking to is "Stephen"? How does this have anything to do with the content of any argument at all? Being educated in philosophy, we're trained to understand this is an invalid method of argument. But if you're instead brainwashed by cable news and low-brow late night comedians and that's what you think "debate" is, this is what you believe sound argumentation would look like. I mean, look at this thread -- nobody is named here, nobody is "personally attacked," although this thread began as a forum joke about the troll who derails threads for no reason to make them about the word "neoliberal" (notice: nobody is specifically named) -- then out of the blue you just start repeating Stephen's name like it's a curse word, as if this is somehow a "major pwn" and somehow automatically refutes any argument. This is why I told you to learn what an ad hominem attack is.
-
Nahh, that's not it, Stephen. There's about 10 people on here who are all giving you a hard time. For a long time, you railed against 'neoliberalism', in a very annoyingly non-specific way, to the point where it became something of your calling-card. We all remember that. So it's become something of a meme of you. That's what that's about.
Also, none of us are your usual suspects of nobodies, whose names you throw around. Were randos, you have never met or interacted with, who are actually employed in the field of sociology and who you annoyed on this website (for the aforementioned reasons).
-
In any event, most American sociologists are indeed right-wing Democrats openly supportive of corporate identity politics. Most American sociologists supported Hillary against Bernie. Many American sociologists are directly funded by corporate foundations like Ford, Rockefeller, Brookings. Many American sociologists have abandoned any pretense of social science and instead deal in pseudoscience about "white supremacy" and "white privilege" -- I've been repeatedly told they do not represent the true state of the field, but every ASA conference of recent years shows that this pseudoscience dominates American sociology. And that has filtered throughout society with devastating impact on countless lives. Sociology actually needs real public intellectuals, but there aren't any, there are just corporate hacks.
-
For a long time, you railed against 'neoliberalism', in a very annoyingly non-specific way, to the point where it became something of your calling-card. We all remember that. So it's become something of a meme of you. That's what that's about.
That's really not true at all, though. Pretending that word was somehow ever a major focus is simply false. Pretending the word was ever used in a "very annoyingly non-specific way" is objectively false. Point to any specific threads where you claim this is the case. You're invoking a strawman version of your opponent in order to try to save face after losing the argument in this thread.
-
Strawman, according to Wikipedia:
* Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
* Exaggerating (sometimes grossly) an opponent's argument, then attacking this exaggerated version.I've posted thousands of times on this site. I've used the word "neoliberal" critically in a political sense perhaps a dozen times in total during six years. The idea that this was somehow a "calling card" is completely absurd as a personal attack. Absolutely none of those times were "annoyingly non-specific" and were always extremely clear in meaning, even explaining in detail when prompted. I'm going through the site's history now. Please point to any threads that back this line of attack you're making against me.