DOMA and Prop 8. Both History.

[FireIceTalon]

The "forest for the trees" accusation is exactly what I was saying to you when I said that you view everything in terms of capitalism. Capitalism is your Yggdrasil, and it has grown so large you can't see any of the other trees around it. You, specifically, are at a disadvantage in assessing social situations because of this. For example, if you're going to make a claim that nationwide gay marriage will cause backlash, you need a basis upon which to make that claim. My guess here is that your basis consists of "The Capitalist power structure doesn't want it, so they will fight!" It is very easy to view this as plausible, but absent any other perspective on this issue (e.g., being LGBT and living in a bigoted area) it is a guess at best. I did not say to you that your lack of one specific perspective makes your point invalid but that your lack of any other perspective makes it unsophisticated and ignorant.

If you go back and read my original post, I didn't say nationwide gay marriage would inevitably create backlash, but that it was a possibility, and one that I think is strong due to the backwards and reactionary political culture of the U.S. relative to other nations. So while such a prediction isn't inevitable, it is possible, and given the circumstances one could make the argument that it is even probable. I don't think any person, unless they have some sort of crystal ball that we are deprived of, is going to say such an outcome is inevitable. That would be overly deterministic. Systems of analysis (Marxist or non) aren't used to predict outcomes, but to show which outcomes are possible or not possible. Which of the possibilities will result is anyone's guess, it all depends on a variety of material factors and how they play out.

Capitalism IS the forest (it is the entire social order in which we live, you can't get much bigger than that), and in my case, I think your argument would be "you are missing the details in the big picture" is a more accurate and better way of trying to argue against my viewpoint (or a Marxist viewpoint in general). There are decent arguments out there against the Marxist standpoint, but I've yet to see anyone on this board provide one - all I see are the typical, average everyday arguments and misconceptions of what Marxism is, from pro-capitalist sources that have been debunked a million times already. Combined with a snide remark here and there. The whole point of Marxism is to look at things in a systemic totality (aka not missing the forest through the trees), and it understands social problems to be a product of and shaped by and around the current social order; not as individual, isolated static problems that exist in a vacuum independent of one another, or independent of the material conditions of which they developed. There is a class element to almost any given social identity and the problems it faces. Nor does it views these problems as a product of human nature (since human nature itself is a social construct, and not some fixed, innate concept that makes people behave or think the same way all the time, like most people have been led to believe it is). I just get tired of people pointing fingers and putting the blame and scapegoat on one group of persons for all our problems, or blaming government for everything.

If I had a nickel for every person who blamed all the problems of capitalism as being caused by government (rather than by the social relationships of the capitalistic system itself), or on who the latest fashionable scapegoat of the world is, I'd be filthy fucking rich and be able to start a new communist party. It is too easy to blame solely the state and its functions for all our problems, without examining WHY the state exists to begin with, and looking at the entire social order and mode of production, in context, as a whole. Want to blame government for the problems we face (or a particular group of people, perhaps Muslims)? Yes, because thats the trendy thing to do so it must be right! Capitalism is the problem? Oh no, capitalism is great, hands off my capitalism!! I want to solve the problem(s) by keeping or even having more of what caused the problem to begin with!! How genius is that!? *sarcasm mode off*

My friend, I'm not at any disadvantage in accessing the material conditions of society - quite the opposite actually. People like Hammer though, who are dumber than shit to begin with, are at a multitude of disadvantages when speaking on any intellectual based topic.

People have little taste in anything these days. Otherwise, Justin Bieber wouldnt be worth millions with a shit ton of grammies.

Do you even understand who his demographic is? It's tween girls. Are you really extrapolating the interests of tween girls to the whole rest of society? Of course tween girls like terrible things! The capitalist-patriarchal power structure understands how gender is culturally conveyed to little girls and consequently markets to the interests with which they are indoctrinated. To assume that their tastes are completely independent of the overarching power structure seems completely unlike you.

I know all this already. The point I was making to Kandrathe was that lists, awards, and other such things that measure how good or popular something is in our culture should be taken lightly, and that he shouldn't necessarily be using such things to try and drive his points home. I was using Beebs as an analogy to point out that Rand topping some novels reader list is meaningless. Marx's "Capital Vol.1" skyrocketed in sales after capitalism dropped over dead for the millionth time in 2008 and had to be resuscitated by the state, but it doesn't mean anything. That's all.

I also factchecked your Grammy claim. It is false: the BeebZ has no grammies.

Ok, so I was wrong that he didn't win any grammies. But I think the overall point I was getting at still stands.