@LangLangC I hope you did pick up the irony in that guardian article. I'm still not exactly sure what she means "a cultural Marxism" where apparently she just means political correctness, "deplatforming", and "cancel culture", but clearly there's no connection to antisemitism.

Then

> The Labour MP Wes Streeting said Braverman should apologise for using an “ugly and reprehensible term with antisemitic connotations”. He added: “Members of parliament should know better and she should apologise immediately or the whip should be removed.”

Good lord. It's like you're intentionally doing it. The message just flew over your head.

Now the Jewish currents site.

It reads:

> "[cultural Marxism as an idea is] dangerous. It creates a rationale for violence against leftists, against Jewish people, and against anyone associated with either.

Hmmm, I'm pretty sure that's crap. At least, it's no more sensible than claiming any other idea "creates a rationale for violence". That's patently false. The rationale for violence can be and often is found anywhere. "Kill the enemy" is a primal solution to every argument.

So if I'm to sum up here: usage of any single term is almost never an indicator of anything.

@fredsbend It was invented, popularised and then picked by classic first order antisemites. It is a racist 'antisemitic 'meme' if you will. Not only by 'who said it' by every bit of content. There is nothing to doubt. "Not know about" is not ridiculous at all. Is a plantation-owner in 1861 Carolina just holding true to tradition of the peculiar institution and using it a racist?

@fredsbend That's what I tried to differentiate: disagree all you like with 'progressive leftist politics' (I do so frequently). But do not even call it cultural marxism. That term and what it means is an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Do you believe Adorno devised an anti-western plan to undermine American families by inventing 98 genders and double the pronouns?

Nothing in that theory about 'Frankfurt school' matches anything anyone from the school ever wrote? Well, with Marcuse you'll get some interesting quotes perhaps. But with Horkheimer you will fail and when you dig into Adorno you see that most from that group were pretty shocked when they saw what happened in the sixties. Adorno was famously so embarressed by naked boobs shown him in lecture to protest his alleged conservatism!

@fredsbend That is the problem with diagnosing people who 'just saying' "da Jooden are our peril" as 'harmless'. Structural antisemitism is more difficult to understand and to spot. And on that level at least we also see a lot of, 'misdiagnosing'? Or as you said simple mudslinging. That is deplorable. But for CM, just go back to the source. Antisemite presents crazy anti-Jew stuff that explains everything in simple terms, and that it's a covert action running for decades.

One might argue that language changes over time so that people saying "CM!" now don't really mean what "CM!" meant when invented. Or that they do not know about the origin and actual meaning of it. Problem the is that in all cases I saw the second order structural antisemitism is overly sharp in its presence, making the benevolent 'just unknowledgable' interpretation as unlikely as it false in principle.

@fredsbend Dunno if you know about the structuralism vs intentionalsim debate. Tried to deefr Godwin to as late as possible. But do you agree that German/European antisemitsim, classic first order, played some role in what happened in Europe in the 1940s. There was that rumour that Hitler might have been an antisemite. And allegedly he and his friends felt insulted by being called Nazis and offended by being called fascists.

"Always denying it" – ever heard the formula "I am not a racist, some of my best friends are X, but those X…" After Nuremberg for antisemitism, after civil rights for non-whites, there were some changes in society –– it was for quite some time unfashionable in respectable circles to profess the great fun last weekend at the Klansmen meeeting brought along.

@Sklivvz Why don't you agree that IQ scores are bound to the specific test used to obtain them? That is a highly relevant info for the entire argument. The ydo measure different things and jsut because the tests' results are 'standardised' to the same numerical system doesn't make them transferrable to equivalence calculations in a meaningful way. Allowing this kind of equivalence only makes sense if one disregards the concepts and does assume that any IQ = the intelligence.

Saying that: "Outside of the test situation seemingly exact scores are meaningless" is not allowed? That is a major complaint I have against the top voted answer. Feeding the fetish and reinforcing the belief in inapplicable calculations while also painting the bogus info from the clip as "close to the truth" thus promoting pseudoscience.

@sklivvz Most curiously, I tried to find the Q you hinted at and the closest I could find was skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/2758

Which seems to have a courtesy checkmark next to the answer? How is that supposed to work if it is necessary to deconstruct the question first? It asks an again trivially answered thing, as it is essentially the wrong thing. Intertest and intratest reliability is not the issue to look into. Internal and external validity from within the field and from outside are to be looked at?

That again would require to start the answer with a frame challenge and a lot of lengthy explanation. before one even can start to get to the core of what people believe and want to know from the question. How else should one go about if the very basic fundamentals in terminology are missing or misused from the existing Q&A? Re-edit the question to standards used in psychology, thus invalidating this largely non-answer, that was nonetheless well-liked?

Your own answer on James Woods was somewhat OK; despite you ignoring suggestions for improvement and shoveling that to chat. But on the whole this site is littered with horrible questions and egregious answers. skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/24056/… Straight to hell by reductionist answering, ignoring context perpetuating racism via the racist foundation of test construction in that field.