File talk:Pol cultural Marxism conspiracy flowchart.jpg

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Anachronism[edit]

Copied from Talk:Cultural Marxism by ScepticWombat (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Contrary to their flow chart - the KGB couldn't have funded The Frankfurt School's creation - as the Frankfurt School pre-dates the KGB by 30 years. --60.241.86.130 (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Good point! However, though my inner historian really loves this anachronism, let me just play the devil's lawyer and point out that the flow chart doesn't contain any dates with regards to the funding and so it could refer to the "KGB era" from 1954 onwards. Another counterargument would be that "KGB" is simply an easily understandable shorthand covering the various names under which the USSR intelligence services operated (e.g. Cheka, GPU, OGPU, NKVD and so on and so forth) and thus covers any of these prior incarnations as well. Anyhow, the sheer vastness of this conspiracy flowchart is perhaps the best evidence against its validity as it clearly suggests a Unified Conspiracy Theory with all the necessary warning lights that entails. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Single parenthood CAUSES broken families, wtf?!?[edit]

Okay, I get the logic that high divorce rates "causes" broken families, but single parenthood? I mean since the chart points to single parenthood being caused by by a declining emphasis on chastity, that suggests that the single parenthood referred to is the kind in which a single parent is rearing a kid/kids without ever being in a relationship, so it's hardly a "broken family" since the family (in the stereotypical way used here defined as husband + wife + X number of children) never existed in the first place. But of course, if the "broken family" is simply defined as any family not fitting into aforementioned equation, then I guess the logic might (just) hold in terms of internal consistency. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Correction[edit]

This whole thing is "not even wrong," and therefore no correction is called for.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)