Dumping quotes from a Wikipedia article, in the post-OWS era, is not at all a reasonable way to assess the political position of an individual. In practice, WP:BLP is just a mask.

I would engage with the specific misrepresentations made here, but that is clearly outside of expected HN discourse. If you care enough, feel free to email me. I use this username, on the Proton email service (the short version of the domain).

▲

thrance 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

It's not hard to confirm the stuff I quoted from Wikipedia. The guy has multiple episodes of his podcast dedicated to promoting the idea of "Cultural Marxism": a ludicrous conspiracy theory.

So, in the context of finding someone both willing and knowledgeable enough to "debunk" Marxism, I think we can find better than a guy clueless enough to fall for such theories. Note that this says nothing of Lindsay's other views, and I couldn't care less for them.

Thanks for the offer, nevertheless.

▲

zahlman a day ago | parent [-]

> the idea of "Cultural Marxism": a ludicrous conspiracy theory.

It is nothing of the sort; no conspiracy is alleged. That notion is an invention of Wikipedia's. It would make at least as much sense to describe any arbitrary religious doctrine that way.

Wikipedia's description of "groomer" as "an anti-LGBTQ slur" is also a political fabrication.

▲

thrance 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Cultural Marxism is absolutely a conspiracy theory, it requires some cabal of academics that are trying to destroy the West with progressive values. If you believe there's any truth to it, I would urge you to read on the subject from non-MAGA sources.

And no, none of this was "invented" by Wikipedia.

> Wikipedia's description of "groomer" as "an anti-LGBTQ slur" is also a political fabrication.

The word "groomer" was absolutely used to imply that all LGBT people actually are pedophiles. That doesn't mean it's its only meaning. I've seen many high-profile Republican politicians and commentators use it in that way, it's not hard to find their speeches and interviews online. And that's rich, coming from the party that harbors pedophiles so openly, that went into so much trouble to make sure no Epstein conspirator faced any justice, while offering no protection to the victims (see Pam Bondy's testimony on the subject).

	▲	zahlman 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		For someone who wasn't interested in the discussion, you sure do seem insistent on these points that I still completely disagree with, based on my own direct observations.

▲

2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]