Evil is amorphous, it does not come from any single source, although people have always preferred a simplified fantasy where there is a scapegoat for all of evil.

Because evil is amorphous, people have to make up the connections on their own. Praying for some Authority to come in and save you, isn’t going to work any more, if it ever did. It’s not going to work for healthcare. It’s not going to work for literature. It’s not going to work for identifying evil. This isn’t something easily farmed out or outsourced to some external Authority on the matter.

A war is not something that can be understood by people “reading books” and thinking long on the merits and demerits.

By way of comparison, in large parts of Europe they have a hobby horse called “neoliberalism”. It is no longer much in vogue, but some 4-5 years ago the dreaded word seemed to be on everybody’s lips, yet nobody seemed to be able to articulate with sufficient clarity what he meant by it. It was invoked, with apocalyptic visions, whenever prospects of greater market freedoms were discussed, but without actually agreeing on the body of writings, authors, economic doctrines, nor on what was specifically “neo” and specifically “liberal” about them that set them apart from other economically liberal ideas (on a separate note, keep in mind that in Europe it is the “liberals” who are the villains in the public eye, as the word seems to have retained much of its original meaning; being called a “liberal” means that you are not sufficiently socialist, quite the opposite from the American acceptation of the term).

As with “neoliberalism”, I have been trying to understand the “cultural marxism” label for years. At best, I gather that it is a sort of derogatory allusion to the Frankfurt School. I read some of that stuff during my early college years. Maybe I read the wrong things, maybe I did not read it with sufficient attention, or maybe I lacked the mental faculties to truly grasp it, but I never understood what would be “cultural” about it, i.e. why those ideas would constitute a sort of application of the Marxian ideas onto the “culture”. But suppose they were – I still do not see a _causal_ connection between some disjointed writings by a group of expat European intellectuals and the present large-scale cultural and legislative chaos. From what I am told, the Frankfurt School does not even seem to be read that widely, or that seriously, on the American campuses. I do not see it referenced all over, as one would expect if there were a unified doctrine taught by default. I have no idea what they actually read on the American campuses, but even the self-proclaimed Marxists here do not really refer to the Frankfurt School, they refer to Hegel, Marx and Engels. So where is the causal link?

As a result, whenever I end up in a discussion of any subject, and the “cultural marxism” label gets thrown around as if it were self-evident and understood by all, I become sketical. I am honest in that I have NO CLUE what precisely is meant by it and where is the causal link.

Of course, it bears repeating that the fact that _I_ do not know or do not understand these things does not mean that there IS nothing to know and nothing to understand.

You may try to deflate the activist game with devaluing characterizations such as “endless idle chatter”, “lowering of the quality of the discussion for good”, “allowing for a reductionist framing”, and “hobby horses”, and attempt to draw the others’ focus onto an aspect of the issue that you value more, but your effort to recalibrate the discussion is like trying to fight human social nature. Activism is sociology weaponized and you won’t slow down Marxist-method activists by trying to reframe the discussion. At best, you’ll drag down the potential counter-activists who may stand up to their social movement.

You may not be interested in the activist game, but the activist game is interested in you.

This is where you fundamentally missed the mark on the controversy.

Keep in mind that, based on the facts presented to the court of public opinion so far, there is no cognizable injury to ‘Jackie’ that makes her situation a legal case. The only apparent legal issues are for the entities that have suffered possible harm, such as the fraternity, due to Erdely’s article.

Rather, the issue at bar is an activist campaign, that is cultural Marxist, for colleges to ‘prosecute’ sexual misconduct allegations via an administrative disciplinary process that is essentially not legal nor even para-legal in character.

The administrative disciplinary process is described, at best, as a quasi-legal and more accurately a pseudo-legal process.

It’s not idle chatter.

Where the Church might once have filled the social function, our universities are the modern fount of our social culture. As such, the campus-based activist campaign is essentially cultural Marxist, driven by the social cultural/political motive to instate a socially transformative mechanism that moves distinctly from the traditional checks of our legal norms. At a guess, with the campus social action, the activists have an eye on eventually, subsequently changing the legal norms, too.

Again: You are incorrect that this issue is essentially legal or para-legal. The administrative disciplinary process at bar is at best quasi-legal and more accurately pseudo-legal. It is intended to function disparately from legal procedural norms.

While it has a prominent legal piece, the issue is essentially social cultural/political. Cultural Marxism is at the heart of it.

I recommend this website on the issue:
http://www.cotwa.info/

Quite the contrary. I live abroad and some of the “worldwide attention” can be more appropriately presented as follows:

First, it sparked a sort of morbid technical interest, on my and on the part of many of my (foreign) friends, as to how is it legally possible for the universities to “address” felony charges, in any capacity, in the first place. From this side of the Atlantic, the notion of a university having any sort of bylaws that allow for a para-legal “process” on such charges seems quite grotesque, to say the least. Much of the “attention” was about principally about that.

Second, being that rape is a very difficult crime to prove, and that the positive falsity of allegations is an even more difficult thing to prove, we had a look into how the two are approached – in general, not related to this specific issue. I had been suspecting for a while that it was chaotic and unclear, but the true order of magnitude of the mess surprised me. For example, I became more acutely aware that there is a class of consensual activities that can easily be redefined as “rape” retroactively, and that such “redefinitions” are not necessarily rare. On the other hand, I also became aware that numerous people throw around the syntagm “false allegations” with equally ridiculous nonchalant ease – not reserving it, as would be proper, for those cases in which the positive and intentional falsity of the allegations has been proven, but applying it instead indiscriminately to cases in which no positive guilt has been ascertained (and, as in this case, in which no real culprits were even indicated and no official report made). The scales fell from my eyes regarding some people whom I had previously estimated for their attempts to bring (legitimate) attention to the problem of false allegations, as I grew to understand that they, too, were engaging in an analogous form of trickery when it suited them.

Third, the media sensationalism was discussed, particularly in light of the quaint idea that a journalist’s job would be to istigate a generic “debate” on issues (and, as Ray pointed out, “making a difference”) rather than to inform with strict adherence to a set of professional and ethical standards.

Fourth, some new material for the endless idle chatter on “feminism” and “cultural marxism” was secured. The invoking of various “feminism”s and “cultural marxism”s as scarecrows and would-be root causes of all our problems has ensured the lowering of the quality of the discussion for good, allowing for a reductionist framing of the essentially (para-)legal issue in terms of “gender relations” and such. This slipping has happened more with the American/expat interlocutors than with the autochtone Europeans, as the latter tend to have different hobby horses, but it is still a part of “worldwide attention”.

And fifth, as attention had been diverted from more legitimate and more relevant sexual violence issues (Rotherham, the “rape culture” in Sweden etc.), those became, in turn, the new-old topics of conversations, with the annexed un-PC questions as to the common perpetrators (ethnicity, cultural-religious background, immigration status).

Such was, in brief, the dynamics and the aftermath of the “Jackie” discussion – not quite as Wenner would have it.

The article could not illustrate sexual assault cases being “swept under the rug”, since the article is about a false report. The article made life difficult for innocent men, while making it difficult for real victims to see justice. The article did the exact opposite of what its defenders claim.