Unironically what's the philosophical School people who constantly say heteronormative, oppression, patriarchy...

Deviation from equality of outcome being caused by oppression is a Marxist principle whether you want to accept it or not. No one is saying these ideas are what Marx said, they’re just his ideas applied to identity groups instead of rich and poor.

>Deviation from equality of outcome being caused by oppression is a Marxist principle whether you want to accept it or not. No one is saying these ideas are what Marx said

Then how is it a Marxist principle?

Don’t cut off a thought in the middle when the rest answers your question you dishonest metrosexual

>Deviation from equality of outcome being caused by oppression
This is not a 'Marxist principle' and has nothing to do with Marx's analysis.
>you dishonest metrosexual
wow you BTFO'd me

Please, define 'cultural Marxism'.

The idea that rich people are rich only because they oppress the poor is fundamentally based on the same philosophy that women bring scarce in engineering is due to men oppressing them.

>The idea that rich people are rich only because they oppress the poor is fundamentally based on the same philosophy that women bring scarce in engineering is due to men oppressing them.
Marx said that wealth comes from the appropriated surplus value of the laboring classes. I don't see what connection that has with some vague idea of women being oppressed by men. 'Proletarian' and 'bourgeois' are definite categories defined by one's relation to production, unlike 'male' and 'female'.
You could just as easily say that it's 'cultural Nazism' because
>the same philosophy that women bring scarce in engineering is due to men oppressing them.
Is identical to the idea that Germans are being held down by the Jews.

>cultural Marxism
Is this an argument in favor of anti-natalism or just retarded?

I’m not saying there aren’t a lot of Jews peddling this identity politics bullshit, but they’re not the cause. If every Jew in acedemia were to vanish overnight you’d be in the exact same position. You’re peddling the same argument they are really, except you’re using a different scapegoat.

>'Proletarian' and 'bourgeois' are definite categories defined by one's relation to production

>he thinks that investment isn't in and of itself a form of productive labor
>he thinks that an economy can function without price signalling created by private markets

top kek

So, what are the central tenets of their beliefs? That everyone is oppressing everyone?

That natural differences do not exist, and that all differences in outcomes is due to oppression.

I don't think it has a name yet. Jordan Peterson calls it post-modernism, idiots from /pol/ call it cultural marxism, in my head I refer to it as SJWism.

While it doesn't have an agreed upon, well defined character right now I do think it has certain definitive properties.

kwesthues.com/regiftedxmas12.html
Here's an article I once found I really like on this. Major point I would take away is "it" has a central property of strong group consensus desire. It's main goal is getting people to agree with the "proper" hive consensus.

ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind
Another central property, imo, is a shift into a purity based moral pillar, traditionally not the purview of "liberals" until now. The five common moral foundations in modern politics according to Haidt being:
1. Care/Harm
2. Fairness/Cheating
3. Loyalty/Betrayal
4. Authority/Subversion
5. Purity/Sanctity

I also suspect this post-modernism or whatever you call it has a central value of irrationality. It's a strong rejection of Enlightenment/Modernist thinking, which is very logical and rational based. Not so much in the sense that people that subscribe to this ideology are opposed to thinking logically at all times or will jump off a bridge at any given moment, but that the ideology is willing to lie for power. Even if it means being completely internally inconsistent.

It also won't compromise the strength of the group/ideology based on challenges of internal consistency or logic. Similar to a medieval Christian not letting doubts about God sway their "faith". It doesn't matter if you don't understand, protecting the experience of being devout is more important.

>inb4 postmodernism

AFAIK intersectional feminism is the term they use for their worldview
According to this narrative, only white people are oppressive, especially white men. Meanwhile, everyone else is a perfect angel who can do no wrong. You're not allowed to acknowledge how non-whites in general treat women, children, gays, etc. like utter garbage, even though these idiots claim to be standing up for women, children, gays, etc..
It's just pathological hatred of white people and western civilization, and a refusal to hold any other group of people up to any standards whatsoever. The question we should be asking is how these people got so much control over our institutions, and what purpose they might serve.

>"""""""people""""""" who unirionically use those buzzwords
>>>>>>>philosophical school

Attached: 1521419133435.jpg (323x326, 16K)

Marx’s analysis of the worker in industrial Europe is identical to the use of oppressed minorities in the West. Women, blacks, gays, Muslims, trannies all fit the “oppressed” category that Marx first came up with

You don’t need to read Marx to understand that the Labor theory of value is total horseshit.

The School of Resentment.

That's not a philosophy just many buzzwords. Things like patriarchy and eurocentrism are real though.

Critical Theory
Gender Theory
Postcolonialism
Feminism
Postmodernism
And a little bit of Marxism here and there

It's not just one school of thought, but multiple under one big tent of "Intersectionality", which is not so much a united movement but a web of alliances. As you might imagine, it's not very coherent and each group is willing to throw the other under the bus the moment it becomes convenient.