Jump to content

Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Cultural Marxism

    [edit]

    'Cultural Marxism refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory'

    Response:

    The characterization of 'Cultural Marxism' as a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory serves as a means to discredit & cancel legitimate criticisms of Marxist ideology.

    While Antonio Gramsci never explicitly coined the term 'Cultural Marxism,' it accurately represents principles within his neo-Marxist philosophy.

    This characterization mirrors the approach often taken towards critiques of Critical Race Theory, whereby dissenting voices are categorized as racism. GaryI1965 (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I there any argument, evidence or source supporting those claims? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Are any of the supporting citations from credible sources? You want to electric fence criticism of criticism based on criticism... and need us to critique your criticism of our criticism of your criticism?96.59.79.27 (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    «The characterization of 'Cultural Marxism' as a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory serves as a means to discredit & cancel legitimate criticisms of Marxist ideology.» => Because you say so? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are articles from The Atlantic, The Telegraph, BBC News, Huff Post, The Conversation, SPLC, the Tab, The Jewish Chronicles, VICE, Rewire News Group, the New York Times, the Guardian reliable academic sources? Proconsul74 (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You should know how to figure that out by reading Wikipedia policies (eg. WP:RS), not by asking others. 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:3DBC:CC54:C7EC:7FDE (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not an answer to my question. You misplaced your comment or you try to move the discussion away from GaryI1965's «source: trust me bro» statement. As for your question: No, articles from The Atlantic, The Telegraph, BBC News, Huff Post, The Conversation, SPLC, the Tab, The Jewish Chronicles, VICE, Rewire News Group, the New York Times, the Guardian are not reliable academic sources because those are not academic sources. Here the academic sources about the Cultural Marxism narrative (in no specific order):
    As far as i know, this list is complete until 2023. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that list.
    Not one of those academic sources refer to it as an "antisemitic conspiracy theory". Not one of them even mentions antisemitism, at least in their abstracts. Even if we assume these 10 papers with only a few citations each are the only valid sources and represent a meaningful academic consensus, they contradict the opening paragraph.
    Basically, it appears even the academic sources agree with the wall of text below when he says C. It cannot be stated with any definitive authority that the present-day controversy on “cultural marxism” is inherently anti-semtitic, as the subject of discussion is in no way inherently related to Judaism, is not hostile towards Jewish people, and is not hostile towards Jewish beliefs. The subject of controversy in "cultural marxism" debates is Marxism, not Judaism. See Sources 5, 7, and 10."
    Even the two sources for the opening paragraph that mention antisemitism don't state it definitively. There's a Journal of Social Justice article which starts (emphasis mine): "This article argues that “Cultural Marxism” is an antisemitic conspiracy theory...", and the Jay Martin Salmagundi magazine column alleging dog-whistles in a 1999 documentary he interviewed for: "Although there is scarcely any direct reference to the ethnic origins of the School's members, subtle hints allow the listener to draw his own conclusions about the provenance of foreigners who tried to combine Marx and Freud, those giants of critical Jewish intelligence. .... One can even quite innocently mention that the Frankfurt Schoolers had to leave Germany in 1933 because "they were to a man, Jewish," as William S. Lind does." Perhaps these would be good in-text citations in the Antisemitism section.
    But even in the academic sources, there is no justification for the "antisemitic conspiracy theory" characterization in the lede, nor this article's inclusion in Category:Antisemitism. Though I'm open to hear what I'm missing, I really think this is a nail on the coffin & we should make these changes immediately. ParanoidAltoid (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are making entirely unsubstantiated claims here, apparently without reading the sources in question. Each of these sources presents the "Cultural Marxism" trope as antisemitic and/or a conspiracy theory, and most of them depict it as both. Your suggestion that Braune and Jay somehow do not give evidence for the antisemitism they plainly attribute to the CMCT - well, that is a level of quibbling, or rather original research, that is discouraged by English Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Newimpartial (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, Each of these sources presents the "Cultural Marxism" trope as antisemitic and/or a conspiracy theory yes to conspiracy theory, no to antisemitic. I'm taking issue with the latter, sorry my wording made that unclear, please reread my comment with that clarified.
    To state it clearly: The lede definitively states that it is antisemitic, despite none of the sources doing so. Those 10 articles above don't even present it as antisemitic, eg Busbridge starts with
    "As a conspiracy promoted by the far-right, Cultural Marxism has gained ground...". It presents it as a conspiracy theory, it presents it as far-right, but like all 10 of those sources, antisemitism isn't even mentioned in the abstracts. The closest thing we have is an article that "argues" it is an antisemitic conspiracy theory, still stopping short of the opening sentence's wording, even if we pretend that a single <10 citation Journal of Social Justice article should dictate our presentation, in contradiction to every other source.
    And, to offer some original research, this article should mention the antisemitic associations of proponents of the conspiracy theory. In its extreme forms, it alleges that a cabal of powerful subversive elites successfully conspired to change society in order to undermine Christian values. It dubs the culprits "Marxists" instead of just "Jews", yet this extreme form is structurally identical to Jewish conspiracy theories and would of course appeal to a similar crowd, as some academics have noted. Antisemites trying to launder their conspiracy theory would especially be drawn to this, as Jay Martin eloquently describes in his magazine article.
    This is why there's an Antisemitism section. But it's just definitionally untrue to call it "an antisemitic conspiracy theory", even the most partisan academic sources don't call it "an antisemitic conspiracy theory". Neither should we. 2001:56A:F903:9100:A520:A7B3:78ED:E5D8 (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you using the content of the abstract as a criterion for the sources? What matters is the content of the source as a whole. And in the Jay and Braune sources, for example, it is abundantly clear that the CMCT is antisemitic.
    Also note that the "far right" in the United States is generally antisemitic by definition, so it should be unsurprising that sources describing the theory as "far-right" in the abstract go on to identify antisemitic tropes in the article body text.
    Further, your distinction between sources presenting the CMCT as antisemitic and arguing that it is antisemitic is, as I said before, a level of OR quibbling (or hair-splitting) that enwiki P&Gs just doesn't allow us to do, much less use to make article content decisions. It isn't really helpful to discuss such personal theories on article Talk pages. Newimpartial (talk) 09:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your suggestion that Braune and Jay somehow do not give evidence for the antisemitism they plainly attribute to the CMCT - well, that is a level of quibbling, or rather original research This just isn't what I claimed. They do give some evidence of antisemitic beliefs among some CMCT proponents, which can be included in the Antisemitism section. They don't dub it as "antisemitic." What you'd have to argue is that the articles didn't go far enough in straightforwardly dubbing it as an "antisemitic conspiracy theory", and Wikipedia should rectify that. This is OR.
    Why are you using the content of the abstract as a criterion for the sources? The lede's verbiage is just not found in the sources, abstract or body.
    Ty for taking the time to engage, this is obviously a sensitive issue & it should be hashed out. I focused on the 10 abstracts Visite fortuitement prolongée posted, because I found it pretty appalling: He argued we should throw out The Atlantic, The Telegraph, BBC News, Huff Post, The Conversation, SPLC, the Tab, The Jewish Chronicles, VICE, Rewire News Group, the New York Times, the Guardian, and instead trust his academic sources, *none of which even mentioned antisemtism*, and hoped no one would notice.
    This behavior doesn't engender trust. If anyone can directly address my claims, please do so. If not, I'll submit the changes I've proposed. ParanoidAltoid (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have not shown that these academic sources don't mention antisemitism, you have merely stated that they don't mention it in their abstracts - which is irrelevant.
    You then concede that some of these sources do discuss antisemitism, but you state that they don't use the phrase "antisemitic conspiracy theory" - but this is also irrelevant.
    The relevant question is, do these sources establish that the CMCT is antisemitic in its origin and meaning, which is what an "antisemitic conspiracy theory" is in this context. The consensus on this Talk page, from those who have read these sources (not only their abstracts) is that they do. If you wish to contest this consensus, the first thing you need to do is read the sources (not only their abstracts). Until and unless you do that, I'm not convinced this discussion can make any progress. Newimpartial (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I second Newimpartial's advice. For better or worse there is currently only a dozen academic articles fully dedicated to the Cultural Marxism narrative, so it is not very long to read all of them in full. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 08:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not argue that we should throw out The Atlantic, The Telegraph, BBC News, Huff Post, The Conversation, SPLC, the Tab, The Jewish Chronicles, VICE, Rewire News Group, the New York Times, the Guardian, and instead trust academic sources. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 08:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    e cultural Marxist conspiracy theory is not a legitimate criticism of Marxism, which is why it is a conspiracy theory. Unlike rational criticisms, it relies on false claims. TFD (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a correct response to @GaryI1965, who definitely did not argue that cultural Marxism would be a criticism of Marxism. On the contrary, it is a prolongation of Marxism with other means - a softer, culturally oriented approach towards the kind of utopian equity that Marxism was projecting. Cultural Marxism is linked with Critical Theory in that it is a critical approach to liberalism (read: the West), which has in more recent decades delivered Critical Race Theory ('reverse racism' would be a good term for it too, as 'toxic Whiteness' is one of its many irrational component ideas - simply positing that the West can be entirely defined by its colonial past).
    It does indeed show a strong anti-Semitic tendency, but that does not make it a conspiracy theory. Anti-Semitism was not originally as obvious within cultural Marxism as it is today, Israel being deliberately projected as an example of Western colonialism (with Jews now being 'White' too, by definition - a reversal of earlier anti-Semitic depictions of Jews).
    To call cultural Marxism a conspiracy theory should therefore be suspect, as it obviously delegitimizes serious critique against it as a full-blown argumentative ideology rooted in an undeniable Marxist idealist sub-layer. It is indeed an anti-realist ideology, but anti-realist ideology is no conspiracy theory either, it is a position at the opposite end of empiricism and must be dealt with through proper argumentation. And this is being done: in fact all serious writers against 'wokism' (such as Caroline Fourest, Douglas Murray, Glenn Loury, Greg Lukianoff, Helen Joyce, Helen Puckrose, James A. Lindsay, Jonathan Haidt, Jordan B. Peterson, Susan Neiman, Thomas Sowell, and many others) are obviously serious critics of Critical Race Theory, Critical Social Justice, Intersectionality Theory, DEI, and all other related idioms - these authors are by no means dismantling a 'conspiracy theory'. Western institutions, academia, established media, cultural organisations, are largely imbued with woke ideology which has indeed some roots in Cultural Marxism (even while an anti-realist position does not need to rely on anything Marxist in order to push its political hyper-progressive agenda). Bernard.Libbrecht (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my response to Bernard's comments below. Concerning this Comment, it consists almost entirely of original research that, according to enwiki policy, should not be allowed to affect the content of any article.
    Equating "Cultural Marxism" with reverse racism and toxic whiteness is simply not documented in any reliable sources I've seen on this topic. If "Cultural Marxism" were, as Bernard alleges, a full-blown argumentative ideology, presumably some reliable sources would describe it as such and explain how it is the underlying framework for "wokism" and Critical Race Theory, Critical Social Justice, Intersectionality Theory, DEI, and all other related idioms.
    To the best of my knowledge to date, such sources simply do not exist, and Bernard's anti-realist ideology uniting progressives against something ("Western values"?) is simply an original rephrasing, intentional or otherwise, of the conspiracy theory described in this article.
    (As an aside, I find the anti-realist label deeply ironic in this context since the main advocates of philosophical realism in the social sciences, over the last 30 years or so, have been Marxists and post-Marxists along with many varieties of feminists). Newimpartial (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Critical Race Theory doesn't come from Critical Theory exactly, it comes from Critical Legal Studies, which comes from American Legal Realism.
    "It does indeed show a strong anti-Semitic tendency, but that does not make it a conspiracy theory." - no the fact it makes a bunch of false claims about The Frankfurt School and Identity Politics is what makes it a conspiracy theory. The fact allows a myriad of unrelated movements and groups to be labelled "Marxsts!" without them necessarily stating that's their belief is what makes it a conspiracy theory. There's a bunch of things about it that makes it a conspiracy theory.
    "To call cultural Marxism a conspiracy theory should therefore be suspect, as it obviously delegitimizes serious critique against" creating a strawman to knock down is never legitimate. The conservatives should have argued againt progressive politics, third and fourth wave feminism, identity politics, and the black lives matters movement if that's who they wanted to critique... but you don't just get to say "all these are now one thing with a single history and all came from The Frankfurt School - when they didn't.... then pretend like that's a reasonable or legitimate approach to critique. It's not. You can go research those various movements if you want to find out where they came from. None of them have a direct origin from the Frankfurt School, and the Frankfurt School were the progenitors of none of those movements.
    Ahh yes, James A. Lindsay the social critique whose areas of academic credential are massage, and mathematics? Neither of which have anything to do with Sociology, or the history of The Frankfurt School. All you names are like that unfortunately. Many are little more than political talking heads... and a lot of them plain and simply don't mention and have never referenced "Cultural Marxism".... but I can understand you might think they have if you're perfectly happy to smear ideas, groups, and people together without checking into the facts of the matter. But that approach isn't going to work on Wikipedia. We check sources here. 2405:6E00:22EE:E12C:4535:AFEF:5286:4223 (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI WP:SIGNUP. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    «This is not a correct response to GaryI1965, who definitely did not argue that cultural Marxism would be a criticism of Marxism. On the contrary, it is a prolongation of Marxism with other means - a softer, culturally oriented approach towards the kind of utopian equity that Marxism was projecting.» => This is not a correct response to TFD, who did not argue that Cultural Marxism is not a criticism of Marxism, but that «[the] cultural Marxist conspiracy theory is not a legitimate criticism of Marxism». Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    «It does indeed show a strong anti-Semitic tendency, but that does not make it a conspiracy theory. Anti-Semitism was not originally as obvious within cultural Marxism as it is today, Israel being deliberately projected as an example of Western colonialism» => Again you are conflating and confusing the Cultural Marxism movement (the alleged conspiracy to take over the West) and the Cultural Marxism narrative, what the Cultural Marxism narrative say and the Cultural Marxism narrative itself, the in-universe perspective and the out-of-universe perspective, the signified and signifier, the the map and the territory. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    «these authors are by no means dismantling a 'conspiracy theory'.» => Of course. They are not dismantling a conspiracytheory but building a conspiracytheory. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    «Western institutions, academia, established media, cultural organisations, are largely imbued with woke ideology which has indeed some roots in Cultural Marxism» => I there any argument, evidence or source supporting those claims? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Critical theory is not a "culturally oriented approach towards the kind of utopian equity that Marxism was projecting." Instead, it is an analysis of capitalist culture from a Marxist perspective. We rightly call Cultural Marxism a conspiracy theory because it makes false claims against practitioners of critical theory.
    So while critical theory ascribes pornography to capitalist exploitation, the conspiracy theorists ascribe it to a plot by critical theorists to overthrow capitalism. Of course no such plot exists except in the mind of the Nazis who invented it and people today who continue to believe it. TFD (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ok, if "cultural Marxism" doesn't usually mean any kind of conspiracy (I agree, FWIW), what do you want to change about this article? This article is about the meaning of the term, not the non-conspiratorial meaning of it. It says so right in the title. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is not a conspiracy and it is not antisemitic, it should notbe labeled as such. Tparaiso601 (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A coordinated plan to overthrow Western civilization by corrupting its culture and replacing its citizens with foreigners is by definition a conspiracy. What else would you call it? TFD (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What about it is antisemitic, Since you only want to answer half the question? Tparaiso601 (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    References documenting the antisemitism of the CT are already cited in the article. Perhaps start with Martin Jay. Newimpartial (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ParanoidAltoid has legitimate arguements against the claim that the "conspiracy theory" is rooted in antisemitism. Tparaiso601 (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither ParanoidAltoid nor any other editor has produced evidence based in reliable sources that the conspiracy theory is not antisemitic. Only such evidence matters in deciding on article content on Wikipedia. Newimpartial (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling yourself impartial is, quite frankly, hysterical. Your labeling of this theory definitively a far-right, anti-semitic conspiracy theory is incredibly subjective. Tparaiso601 (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What reliable academic sources have produced evidence that the culutural marxist theory is inherently anti-semitic? Tparaiso601 (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already answered this question, but - again - I would start with Martin Jay. Newimpartial (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone who believes those whom they label as being "alt-right" should change their thoughts and behaviors is unable to be subjective about this topic.
    Keep bludgeoning though, you're quite fond of it from what I understand. Tparaiso601 (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But... there is an anti-semitic conspiracy theory. this article is about that thing, specifically. It says so right in the title. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there are antisemites that prescribe to the theory. That does not make the theory inherently antisemitic. Tparaiso601 (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's anti-Semitic because the the conspiracy is either implicitly or explicitly ascribed to the Jews. Who else do you think is behind it? TFD (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Heritage Foundation's 45 page report "How Cultural Marxism Threatens the United States—and How Americans Can Fight It" does not once implicitly or explicitly ascribe cultural marxism to Jews.
    https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/report/how-cultural-marxism-threatens-the-united-states-and-how-americans-can-fight Tparaiso601 (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gonzales and Gorka write, "Universities today have almost completely succumbed to the ideology imposed by those who have followed the cultural Marxist pioneers of the 1980s." "The sexual revolution, of which critical theorist Herbert Marcuse was also a guru, has been clearly part of the strategy." "America’s wars over climate are also a part of a Marxist strategy." "It is important to take a look, albeit briefly, at what exactly the cultural Marxists are in the process of trying to destroy." I could go on.
    All of this implies that some puppet-masters are behind this. While Nazis and neo-Nazis were explicit in who they were, modern proponents of the theory usually leave it blank. But it is obvious they are "the Jews." If not, who are they? TFD (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "It is obvious that its is the Jews" is subjective. It's an opinion. Tparaiso601 (talk) 05:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Experts can identify implicit statements without it being subjective opinion. I mean, if not the Jews, then who are they accusing? TFD (talk) 11:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Elitists? "New world order"? Tparaiso601 (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "New world order" itself refers to an antisemitic conspiracy theory. MrOllie (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another subjective take. Why is this article not labeling the NWO as a "far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory" then? Go do your dirty work. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_conspiracy_theory Tparaiso601 (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read the whole article, it does a good job of explaining it. I am satisfied with it as it stands now. MrOllie (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Who are the elitists behind the New World Order? TFD (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    elitists Tparaiso601 (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Globohomo

    [edit]

    The article implies this word is a combination of homophobia and anti-globalization. But then in the same paragraph implies it is a combination of globalization and homogenization (which I had thought it was). Should the paragraph be written so it is more clear? Captchacatcher (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The first source cited in the section does suggest to me that "globohomo" is a homophobic theory, as well as antisemitic. Newimpartial (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it meant "global homosexuality" with similar connotations to "international Jewry" but it is perfectly possible that different dingbats are using it in different ways. DanielRigal (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the paragraph is need of clarification. I am also of the understanding of "globohomo" as referring to unified "globalization" and "homogenization." I have never before heard of it used as referring to "globalization" + "homophobia," "homosexuality," or homophobic beliefs.
    In present form, the section does favor the "homophobic/homosexual" version as the primary use and suggests that the "homogenization" use is secondary. "Globalization" + "homogenization" in tandem is a common point of discussion in scholarship in cultural anthropology, international studies, foreign affairs, regional studies, international development, etc. The pairing of "Globalization" and "homosexuality/homophobia" is definitely fringe in comparison.
    -
    Barnet, Richard and John Cavanaugh. 2001. "Homogenization of Global Culture," in The Case Against the Global Economy. Routledge Press.
    Hassi, Abderrahman and Giovanna Storti. 2012. "Globalization and Culture: The Three H Scenarios," in Globalization - Approaches to Diversity. IntechOpen Press.
    O'Hara, Sabine U and Adelheid Biesecker. 2003. "Globalization: Homogenization or Newfound Diversity?" Review of Social Economy 61 (3), p. 281-294.
    https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20120522-one-world-order
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_homogenization#:~:text=Cultural%20homogenization%20is%20an%20aspect,David%20E.
    Many more sources available. Amlans (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What do these sources have to do with "globohomo", the trope of the conspiracy theory? Are they cited by conspiracy theorists? Newimpartial (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? I'm not following the relevance of your questions.
    This discussion is about the issue of the "globohomo" section explaining the "globohomo" concept as primarily referencing "globalization" and "homosexual"/"homophobic" and secondarily referencing "globalization" and "homogenization" when the opposite is true. These sources support that.
    "Globaliztion" + "homogenization" is standard. "Globalization" + "homosexual" or "homophobic" or "homophobia" is fringe. Amlans (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer youe question, this article is about the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, which uses the "globohomo" concept specifically. Uses of globalization + homogenization that don't use "globohomo" or aren't by Cultural Marxism conspiracy theorists aren't relevant here.
    In other words, this article is about the fringe usage. Newimpartial (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's totally fine! I'm not arguing against that. That's not what this discussion is about. Amlans (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The policy-relevant topic of this discussion is supposed to be, what do adherents of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory mean when they refer to "globohomo"? As far as I can tell, the unequivocal answer from reliable sources is, "a homophobic conspiracy theory/alt-right meme about globalization". Amlans has not produced any reliable sources suggesting that these figures mean anything else when they invoke the "globohomo" trope, so unless they can offer RS to the contrary, I don't see the point in further "substantive discussion" of this issue. Newimpartial (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A central concern of this discussion is still not being addressed.
    I fully agree that the core function of the paragraph should be explanation of conspiratorial use of globohomo. I am not trying to suggest otherwise. The point that myself, and I think OP, are trying to make is that this section needs to take more care in its attempt to connect+differentiate conspiratorial "globohomo" from legitimate, non-conspiratorial conversations on globalization/homogenization.
    In other words, the section's present wording is unclear in such a way that it seemingly lumps any conversation on the subject of globalization/neoliberalism/homogenization/uniculture in with conspiratorial use of globohomo. Which is wrong because legitimate, non-conspiratorial conversations on globalization/neoliberalism/homogenization/uniculture have long been in existence before, and totally separate from, the 4chan globohomo concept.
    Does that make sense? Amlans (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand why Amlans thinks legitimate, non-conspiratorial conversations on globalization are a relevant topic for this article. I would observe the following:
    • the current article text by no means denies that such discourse exists;
    • "legitimate" discussion of cultural homogenization doesn't use the 4chan meme "globohomo"; and
    • alt-right conspiracy theorists are invoking the meme, not the "legitimate" discourse.
    Based on these three observations, I don't think the article paragraph needs to do anything different from what it is currently doing. If we have good RS that differentiate explicitly between "globohomo" and "legitimate" cultural homogenization discourse, then great, but I would point out that the opening paragraph of this section seemed determined to confound the two (and possibly bury the homophobic meme), which is contrary to the purpose of the article text. Newimpartial (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Globohomo is a 4chan "manosphere" idea that men are being feminized and turned gay. It's a combination of Globalism and the Gay agenda, designed to sound humorous and witty. It involves homogenization, but I don't think that's what the term means, the people who came up with the portmanteau just aren't that sophisticated, they're not academics, they're random young people on 4chan and 8chan 1, 2, 3. They've included "homo" because they know it's a slur, and think that's clever.
    The concept comes from the "Manosphere" who are concerned with their testosterone levels, and the perceived "feminization" of men. The term is on par with "soy boys" and "cucks".... it's anti-feminist, anti-LGBT terminology, not well considered critique. It's nothing that advanced. Some (perhaps polite minded) people have later decided it must mean "Global Homogenization" but they simply haven't been exposed to it in context, as used in the wild. The Gay Rights website GLAAD discusses this here 4 claiming the origin of that conception is the popular blog "We Hunted The Mammoth" - but their site is currently down, so their research can't be viewed. Others have decided it's an art style that already existed under the name Corporate Memphis, which whilst it fits in with the homogenization idea, was already quite dated when the term came along, and already had a name.
    In its broadest sense, "globohomo" is considered a Jewish plot, to make White American Men into gays and transgender people, as a way to diminutize American power. 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:1976:4608:F3D:3D0C (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my above responses. The combined discussion of globalization and homogenization has a long, legitimate, well-documented history in many realms of scholarship. It is the dominant/mainstream combination.
    4chan conversations on globalization and homosexuality are new and fringe. Amlans (talk) 04:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "The combined discussion of globalization and homogenization has a long, legitimate, well-documented history in many realms of scholarship" No academic in that discourse uses the term "Globohomo". What you're saying makes as much sense as adding racial slurs to the page on homosexuality and pretending they're legitimate "because gay people already existed". We're discussing a term here, not a concept. If you want to discuss the concept of Globalization, the place to do that would be on the Globalization page. 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:1976:4608:F3D:3D0C (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a huge leap and not at all equivalent to the case I am making.
    I'm suggesting that the decades on decades on decades of conversation on globalization and homogenization by well-regarded scholars, evidenced in the smallest form by the examples I provided, legitimizes the assertion that globohomo primarily refers to globalization and homogenization, as acknowledged in public platforms (see below) - regardless of whether or not the scholars themselves shorthanded it that way - and secondarily to the 2016 emergence of 4chan users saying globohomo and referring to homosexuality.
    It's a conversation on mainstream versus fringe.
    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/globohomo
    https://digitalcultures.net/slang/internet-culture/globohomo/#google_vignette
    https://gnet-research.org/2023/09/22/from-british-imperialism-to-globohomo-analysing-the-irish-far-rights-engagement-with-irish-nationalism-on-telegram/
    https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/paleoconservatives-and-american-identity Amlans (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Globohomo is a 4chan "manosphere" idea that men are being feminized and turned gay. Globohomo is also a long-standing, reputable academic debate on cultural homogenization by way of ever-increasing globalization.
    It is both. Amlans (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Globohomo is also a long-standing, reputable academic debate on cultural homogenization by way of ever-increasing globalization. - no it's not. The sources you're citing are only about the right wing usage. None of them are academic discussions of globalization and homogenization, that use the term "globohomo" because it's not a term used that way by academics.
    If academics don't use the term in their discussions of globalization and homogenization - then globohomo is a term limited to the fringe. So the page should describe it as such, rather than dragging academics by claiming they'd use such a stupid term in their "debate on cultural homogenization". They don't, so we're not about to describe them as doing so without any sources showing they do so (sources that aren't focused on investigating alt-right politics, and their terms).
    So unless you have multiple longstanding sources where academics are discussing globalization and the homogenization of cultures using the term "globohomo" then we're not going to describe them as doing so. To do so would be WP:Original Research, and not permitted. The page is about the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory - not all and any academic discussion that may come up everywhere. That's why we have a page for globalization - and it's not the page for Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. So we're not writing an article on globalization. Is that clearer? 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:1976:4608:F3D:3D0C (talk) 07:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No...the sources I am citing are not, as you state, only about right wing usage. Please do your due diligence and review the sources I provided again. Amlans (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As per the current Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory page we're on the talk page of; the conspiracy theory was created from and by Paleoconservatives. Some of the editors of Crisis Magazine for instance are believers in the conspiracy theory (eg. Paul Kengor) - so this is not a legitimate source. It's a non-academic source, edited by some adherents of the conspiracy theory. 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:1976:4608:F3D:3D0C (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay but you're once again glossing over the mere fact that there are two ways that globohomo is used. Homosexual and the homoginzation. Once again, that is all that I, and OP, are trying to express.
    I am not trying to defend paleoconservativism or Crisis Magazine or Paul Kengor. All I am trying to show is that, once again, globohomo can refer to both homogenization and homosexual. That's it. Nothing more. Amlans (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a very strong impression that the most prominent purpose of using a word like Globohomo on this Wikipedia article is indeed to reduce Cultural Marxism to a conspiracy theory à la 4chan. If, however, an article about cultural Marxism needs to include that kind of trickery to 'prove' that cultural Marxism can be pushed aside as a conspiracy theory (which then obviously cannot be criticized for its underlying serious ideology as an extension upon Marxist theory) then I think we have clear evidence that Wikipedia should indeed not always be trusted as an at least objectivity-loving source. Notice I said "not always be trusted". I find most Wikipedia articles highly trustworthy, but this one looks like a clear exception to this observation. Bernard.Libbrecht (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason this article refers to "Cultural Marxism" proponents as promoting a conspiracy theory is that this represents the consensus of the reliable sources on the topic. The only form of objectivity available on wikipedia is to reflect the consensus of reliable sources.
    There are many articles on wikipedia that discuss underlying serious ideology as an extension upon Marxist theory - just not "Cultural Marxism", because according to RS "Cultural Marxism" isn't such an extension. Instead, RS describe "Cultural Marxism" as an antisemitic trope and kudgel of culture wars in the USA. Newimpartial (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I maybe agree with you about the state of the article, but maybe part of the problem is your approach here. "globohomo" is, I think undeniably, legitimately a part of the conspiratorial argument made by the conspiracists that promote the subject of this article. You seem to be making the argument that there's a thing called "cultural Marxism" that is not any kind of conspiracy. I agree. But that isn't the subject of this article – so: what do you want to see changed exactly? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "We Hunted The Mammoth" article can be found archived here, and correctly states:

    And so “globohomo” has come to mean something like “the global homosexual/Jewish conspiracy to degenerate our culture up real good with drag queens and anal sex and possibly Ben Shapiro.”

    As well as pointing out that the term originated in the Pick Up Artist and Manosphere community. 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:1976:4608:F3D:3D0C (talk) 04:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be misunderstanding me and appear to be ignoring the point that I am trying to make.
    I do not deny that "globohomo" is used to refer to a "globo homosexual" conspiracy. I see that and acknowledge that is true.
    It is also true that "globohomo" refers to globalization homogenization which is a well-documented, long-standing, legitimate conversation/point of study point in academic disciplines with no connection to the above "globo homosexual" conspiracy.
    As OP pointed out, this article presently posits the "homosexual" play on the words as the primary use/point of origin while OP understands the opposite to be true.
    I am saying that based upon the longstanding history of legitimate globalization homogenization conversation, contrasted with the very recent emergence of this "homosexual" iteration that you point out, I believe it is more logical to assert that "homogenization" is mainstream and "homosexual" is fringe, and I therefore agree with OP's suggestions to edit. Amlans (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "legitimate globalization homogenization conversation" no academic discussion of globalization uses the phrase "globohomo" as a term. If you have evidence showing otherwise, you should include it. 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:1976:4608:F3D:3D0C (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I provided you with four sources that very clearly use globohomo in the context of "global homogenization" (one of the sources you yourself attempted to use to suggest the phrase only refers to homosexuality while the source very clearly states otherwise...).
    Use of the term, or not, by an academic is not the end-all-be-all standard of judgment here. And very clearly so as the standard use you are arguing for is one with origins on 4chan.
    Again, please refer to:
    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/globohomo
    https://digitalcultures.net/slang/internet-culture/globohomo/#google_vignette
    https://gnet-research.org/2023/09/22/from-british-imperialism-to-globohomo-analysing-the-irish-far-rights-engagement-with-irish-nationalism-on-telegram/
    https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/paleoconservatives-and-american-identity
    Amlans (talk) 08:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of those sources are what was requested, which was multiple longstanding sources where academics are discussing globalization and the homogenization of cultures using the term "globohomo" and sources that aren't focused on investigating alt-right politics, and their terms. All the sources you listed are non-academic sources, which only discuss "globohomo" in the context of alt-right politics. None of them are discussions of globalization in general which use the term "globohomo". Because legitimate discussions of globalization that are from reliable sources DON'T USE the phrase "globohomo"... showing sources that are just people talking about the alt-right doesn't qualify as "legitimate discussions of globalization" from "reliable sources". 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:1976:4608:F3D:3D0C (talk) 08:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But "multiple longstanding sources where academics are discussing globalization and the homogenization of cultures using the term 'globohomo' and sources that aren't focused on investigating alt-right politics, and their terms" are not the standard by which whether or not globohomo is judged refer to globaliziation. That is an arbitrary standard that you are attempting to enforce here.
    And I'm not sure why you keep coming back to "sources that are just people talking about the alt-right" as an issue...
    In the context of this discussion, all that is needed to be shown is that globohomo is sometimes used to refer to globalization/homogenization. Not just 4chan globo/homosexual. And all four of the sources I provided do exactly that. Amlans (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no long standing history of the term "globohomo" being used in relation to legitimate discussions of globalization. None of your sources are longstanding. See WP:NOTDICT and WP:DICTIONARIES. I'm not even a strong believer that the term "globohomo" has much of anything to do with the "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" and feel the page is WP:coatracking by including it here. 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:1976:4608:F3D:3D0C (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And none of the sources using "globohomo" to refer to homosexuality are longstanding either! And that's fine!
    It's a concept...that supposedly originated on 4chan...in the year 2016...like... Amlans (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it seems weird that we introduce the paragraph with the "A combination of homophobia..." – I feel like that suggests that that is the origin of the phrase, and I don't think we know that it is, and homogeneity is probably/maybe the original word there. The rest of the paragraph seems to clarify the main intent, but this opening seems wrong. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it weird that we're trying to jam random bits of 4chans lingo into the page as if they're meaningful or noteworthy, when they're not. 101.115.142.29 (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The current section on this is based on how the term is treated in long-form, peer-reviewed sources that discuss the term in relation to the "Cultural Marxism" trope. If anyone would like to see the topic treated differently, cite something other than personal interpetations of primary sources, please. Newimpartial (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The term Globohomo only appeared on Google Trends in 2018. It's an alt-right term people try to pass off as more than that. To quote the first line of WP:NEOLOGISM "Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." - that appears to be all that's going on here. References to the term in the article should be removed. 2405:6E00:22EC:D9AE:2965:CCD0:883F:4655 (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't an article on the neologism, though: it's an article on a conspiracy theory, and the article explains one of its tropes. There's nothing wrong with that. Newimpartial (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really think it's a trope intrinsic to the conspiracy theory. It's more of an adjacent after thought. 101.115.132.15 (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't really matter whether the trope is intrinsic to the conspiracy theory or not. Its relevance to the CT has to do with its origin and rhetorical logic, both of which belong to the CT. Newimpartial (talk) 09:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I accept this, but I think the language should match the academic sources better, describing it as a similar offshoot, rather than a necessary part of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. 101.115.132.15 (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The present article text uses "variant", which reads to me much more like your proposed offshoot than it does to the necessary part that you recommend avoiding. I believe the article is already following the sources in this respect. Newimpartial (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The term also appears to be used to describe the "Memphis Corporate" 2D art style, which is based on the design work of the Memphis Group. You might have seen it, it's usually blue people with strange limbs made up of basic shapes. Image searching "Memphis Corporate" will show you the style.
    However, 4chan refers to the style as Globohomo, and there's now a subreddit for it. Will this eventually also need to be mentioned? Are we going to WP:Coatrack the article with every non-notable 4chan term there is? 101.115.142.29 (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The current section on this is based on how the term is treated in long-form, peer-reviewed sources. If anyone would like to see the topic treated differently, please cite something other than personal interpretations of primary sources. Newimpartial (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&oldid=1240659210"