Uproxx unearthed a list of bands that SJWs in the Soviet Union tried to ban for reasons such as nationalism, racism, neofascism, sex, eroticism and their favorite, “Anti-Soviet propaganda.”
Included on this list were Black Sabbath, Alice Cooper, Nazareth, AC/DC, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest and Kiss. As we go through another round of political figures attempting to brand metal as evil and force people to ostracize it, it helps us remember who their ideological ancestors are.
Tags: censorship, metalgate, sjws
Anyone who honestly believes that the philosophy of the Soviet Union is in any way owed to contemporary social justice theory is so brainless and so dishonest, they can safely be dismissed immediately.
This towering ignorance of both subjects, shaped both by lazy refusal to educate yourselves on important world affairs and by emotionally biased vendettas, are why you lot will inevitably be left on the ash heap of history in short order. Rawls and his retinue have offered vital and novel intellectual innovations beyond any known reproach; all you’ve offered is self-centered phony victimhood.
Clever misdirection. Rawls is not the origin of social justice theory; egalitarianism arising from the Enlightenment is. Rawls is just a method toward that goal, much like Communism.
I’m afraid the misdirection is yours, given that your dilletantish conflation between the USSR and “SJWs” refers to a conception of social justice owed entirely to Rawls in the present day. The snarl term “SJW” describes a contemporary Rawlsian phenomenon in no way connected to the USSR, so if you insist on picking the hill you die on then go ahead, because it won’t matter in the end.
It’s interesting that you’re nasty. Is there some reason you have to be defensive?
In the meantime, what you’re doing here is a misdirection. The historical lineage of SJW ideals is clear; trying to pin it on Rawls is a typical deflection which hopes to limit the critique, but it’s historical nonsense. In addition, it’s philosophical nonsense, since the two originate in the same root, which is a Utopian desire for equality.
This is like me claiming that conservatism in its modern form — “moral majority warriors” — began with Ronald Reagan and thus comparisons to the original French right-wing are inapplicable.
“In the meantime, what you’re doing here is a misdirection. The historical lineage of SJW ideals is clear; trying to pin it on Rawls is a typical deflection which hopes to limit the critique, but it’s historical nonsense. In addition, it’s philosophical nonsense, since the two originate in the same root, which is a Utopian desire for equality.”
Very true. The SJW worldview is closer in form and practice to that of people like Leon Trotsky, Mao Zedong, and Rosa Luxembourg than I think even its most well-read proponents are aware. I highly doubt most of them have even heard of Rawls, let alone read him. There’s a great intersection of ideas, sure, but it’s hardly worth calling Rawls the father of the movement because of it. In any case, it’s disingenuous to say that Rawls’ theories on the subject are any more similar or influential than those of, say, Antonio Gramsci, even if most of these people (ooooh, I did a microaggression!) have no idea who that is. All you really have to do is replace commentaries about the modes of production and the bourgeoisie with misgendering and the cishet patriarchy. Hell, take it back to Lenin and replace “revolutionary vanguard” with “tumblr blogger” and you’re still not far off the mark.
Joe, you simpleton. Something can resemble something else in striking ways without being identical to it. And history is cyclical not linear, you rube.
How often do your ipse dixit claims fool people in these sorts of arguments? I’m genuinely curious, as I’ve never had this problem.
Why do you need to be so nasty and contentless when someone challenges you? Are you defensive, upset?
Joe acting like he knows what ipse dixit means.
Actually the well known reproach to Rawls is that his philosophy of “Justice” is based primarily on a hypothetical abstraction that actually has no applicability or precedent in reality, and I am not sure he would disagree with this. In addition, Ralws is required to do philosophical dances in order to have his theory fit into the socially acceptable enlightenment project, from whence he derives his fundamental principles of equality, and fairness. Moroever, he is social contract theorist, which in itself is a philosophical idea of dubious worth. Furthermore, he presumes that fairness is a-priori associated with the equal distribution of goods, and equality of liberty. He also does a poor job of differentiating between positive and negative rights. When we break his philosophy down it really just sounds like he resents hierarchy.
A)Rawls is under no immediate obligation to author any idea that must be applicable in reality; simply being illustrative of an ideal condition to strive for is adequate enough to start from. This is a complete lie upon examination, at any rate, given the casually uncovered glut of applications of Rawls’ theory of justice.
B) “socially acceptable” project, huh? Is this the same one that prohibits all of humanity from uttering their innermost true feeling about The Jews and The Feminist Cabal and all the other intellectualy bankrupt causes whose dismissal in everyday life is attributed to the censure of some imagined boogeyman culture war?
C) Social contract theory as opposed to what? Natural rights? Let me guess, “fuck you got mine” is going to emerge at some point inevitably?
Rawls hasn’t achieved the final victory of social philosophy, but he doesn’t have to, either; he (including those from his school of thought) simply needs to we better than all available alternatives. You can’t niggle over fine details in Rawls’ work as a method of intimating that we adopt the work of far inferior thinkers.
Ideas inapplicable to reality generally go under a different heading, which is “mental health problems.”
You seem to be arguing with some party who is not present. Social contract theory suggests society as a mechanism of something created already by society, e.g. contract. More traditional interpretations see it as a voluntary collaboration.
Joe,
How is the philosophy of the USSR different from the philosophy of the SJW’s? How are the goals different, and what are the goals?
I’m surprised that they didn’t also accuse Iron Maiden for “anti-communism” because of The Trooper, but the list is most likely from the very early 80s.
I remember my dad telling me that rock and metal bands weren’t banned in Yugoslavia… except if they “promoted nationalism”. Bands that were banned because of that were usually folk bands, but Laibach is a well known example of a band which was banned due to accusations of promoting nationalism.
Vodka! Balalaika! Democracy!
Happy holidays =)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1OF91ZDaoM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5q9HGOEehw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz-sKIT4Obs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IvUgRylquA
The original list had Russian transliterations of band names but not these idiotic “Kenet Hit”, “Klesh” or “Stodges”. This is the list turned “back to English” by some modern-day idiot.
The reasons are mostly made up out of whole cloth, so no wonder Iron Maiden wasn’t blamed for anticommunism.
Ironic how Village People weren’t banned for homosexualism…