Problematic Stuff

[Brian Peacock]

You've confused my obvious sarcasm with a personal slight - perhaps you just need to toughen up and be prepared to hear what you don't want to hear? But I'm happy to discuss things seriously, for example, to what extent do you think the ideologies of the far-(alt)-right are not bigoted and, in particular, hateful?

[Forty Two]

Look, you keep missing it. I did not view it as a "personal attack." I viewed it as a mischaracterization. If it was sarcasm, I did miss it, because I did not take your post to mean the opposite of what you wrote. Perhaps we're in agreement on the issue.

I'm always happy to hear things that are opposite of what I believe and argue - that's always been the case. I'm not one of the ones here who tries to get people who voice different opinions silenced. I have said many times that I prefer to talk to people who disagree with me.

On to your final sentence - "But I'm happy to discuss things seriously, for example, to what extent do you think the ideologies of the far-(alt)-right are not bigoted and, in particular, hateful?"

Impossible to answer that question completely, as you need to specify what belief, point, or principle you're referring to. If you want me to give you an example of a "far right" view that is not bigoted or hateful, I would say that there are many that can be - like, opposition to illegal immigration. I say "can be" because whether someone is a bigot or hates is a function of their subjective state of mind, and it is possible to oppose illegal immigration for hateful and bigoted reasons, but it's also possible to oppose illegal immigration for reasonable, tolerate and otherwise non-hateful and non-bigoted reasons.

The term "far right" or "alt right" are overarching terms that include a broad range of different types of beliefs. I would include in "far right" the ideologies of Naziism, fascism, the KKK. Much of these ideologies involves intolerance to the ideas of others (bigotry) and hate (dislike or hate of certain racial or other identity groups). In that sense, the question answers itself. I think Nazis, fascists and the KKK, and other such groups like Stormfront, American Nazi Party, that sort of thing, to be bigoted and hateful (based on their stated beliefs).

Where the thing goes off the rails, though, is when right wing politics is conflated with far right extremist ideologies like those listed in the preceding paragraph. When someone eats at Chick-fil-a and is then declared to be a fascist or a Nazi because the owners of Chick-fil-a are Christians who believe in marriage between a man and a women, then there is an improper conflation of a right of center religious Christian conservative ideology with far right fascism and Nazism.

The same objection is made on the other side to conflation of left wing ideas - like social liberalism, social democratic views with "far left" extremist ideologies like Marxism, communism, socialism, certain kinds of anarchism, ANTIFA, etc. It's not fair to declare a social liberal to be in the same group as ANTIFA or the communist party.

So, when you ask me what part of the far right ideology is not hateful or bigotted, we have to agree or settle on what constitutes the far right ideology you are referring to. What are parameters of that? What ideological ideas are you considering far right?

I wouldn't consider the owners of Chick-fil-a to be far (alt) right extremists. I don't think Trump is. I don't think the Trump admnistration is. So, to the extent that some people do think they are (and there are people that do say that), I would argue that they are not bigoted or hateful - but again - people have a wide array of views, and it's possible for a person with generally good and kind views, to harbor some views that others might consider bigoted or hateful, and still that person is a good person. And, there are Nazis and communists who have some views which other people would agree with.

[pErvinalia]

The same objection is made on the other side to conflation of left wing ideas - like social liberalism, social democratic views with "far left" extremist ideologies like Marxism, communism, socialism, certain kinds of anarchism, ANTIFA, etc. It's not fair to declare a social liberal to be in the same group as ANTIFA or the communist party.

Ironic given you constantly conflate ANTIFA with Black Bloc and communism. And SJWs with Marxism.

[Forty Two]

The same objection is made on the other side to conflation of left wing ideas - like social liberalism, social democratic views with "far left" extremist ideologies like Marxism, communism, socialism, certain kinds of anarchism, ANTIFA, etc. It's not fair to declare a social liberal to be in the same group as ANTIFA or the communist party.

Ironic given you constantly conflate ANTIFA with Black Bloc and communism. And SJWs with Marxism.

ANTIFA is far left extremist. So I'm not "conflating" anything. They're overwhelmingly anti-capitalists, socialists and often communists and anarchists. They aren't moderate - they aren't "left of center" social democrats. Much of antifa is a pack of pro-violence shitbags, as bad or worse than much of the "alt right."https://www.theepochtimes.com/antifa-ex ... 90447.html

The communist extremist group Antifa was allegedly listed as a domestic terrorist organization under the Obama administration, in confidential documents of the FBI and Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

SJWS may or may not be Marxist. Some are, some aren't. I've seen both.

What ought not be conflated is a social democrat - left leaning liberal - left of center moderate, etc. However, antifa ain't that. That's an extremist group. SJW is a very broad term, basically a mocking term for general douchebags (who don't tend to be violent per se) who cry about absurd things - like microaggressions, and trigger warnings - and ask people to check their privilege and the like. SJWs are a joke, not really a threat, in general.

Now, some SJWs, of course, can be quite concerning - those are the types like the professors in the Wilfred Laurie university incident, and the ones who militantly go around trying to get people fired, or want to drive the wrong people out of restaurants and claim that people shouldn't be allowed a moment's peace, etc. THAT kind of SJW is a significant piece of shit. But, I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that every silly douche chanting "get your hate speech out of this campus" is a far left extremist either.

[pErvinalia]

The same objection is made on the other side to conflation of left wing ideas - like social liberalism, social democratic views with "far left" extremist ideologies like Marxism, communism, socialism, certain kinds of anarchism, ANTIFA, etc. It's not fair to declare a social liberal to be in the same group as ANTIFA or the communist party.

Ironic given you constantly conflate ANTIFA with Black Bloc and communism. And SJWs with Marxism.

ANTIFA is far left extremist. So I'm not "conflating" anything. They're overwhelmingly anti-capitalists, socialists and often communists and anarchists. They aren't moderate - they aren't "left of center" social democrats. Much of antifa is a pack of pro-violence shitbags, as bad or worse than much of the "alt right."https://www.theepochtimes.com/antifa-ex ... 90447.html

I see now that you are moving the goalposts to them being more than just commies, but anarchists and socialists. No doubt that supporters of all those three ideologies are present in ANTIFA, but that doesn't make ANTIFA communist (or socialist or anarchist). Their ideology is anti-fascism.

SJWS may or may not be Marxist. Some are, some aren't. I've seen both.

You've claimed on numerous occasions that SJW'ing is cultural Marxism. So are you now walking back those claims?

What ought not be conflated is a social democrat - left leaning liberal - left of center moderate, etc. However, antifa ain't that.

Absolutely no one has claimed that antifa are social democrats.

SJWs are a joke, not really a threat, in general.

You seem to have totally forgotten what you've repeatedly written in the past. You've specifically claimed that SJWs are a threat to society.

[laklak]

Society would be a lot better if there weren't any people in it.

[Forty Two]

The same objection is made on the other side to conflation of left wing ideas - like social liberalism, social democratic views with "far left" extremist ideologies like Marxism, communism, socialism, certain kinds of anarchism, ANTIFA, etc. It's not fair to declare a social liberal to be in the same group as ANTIFA or the communist party.

Ironic given you constantly conflate ANTIFA with Black Bloc and communism. And SJWs with Marxism.

ANTIFA is far left extremist. So I'm not "conflating" anything. They're overwhelmingly anti-capitalists, socialists and often communists and anarchists. They aren't moderate - they aren't "left of center" social democrats. Much of antifa is a pack of pro-violence shitbags, as bad or worse than much of the "alt right."https://www.theepochtimes.com/antifa-ex ... 90447.html

I see now that you are moving the goalposts to them being more than just commies, but anarchists and socialists. No doubt that supporters of all those three ideologies are present in ANTIFA, but that doesn't make ANTIFA communist (or socialist or anarchist). Their ideology is anti-fascism.

That's not all there is to their ideology. Like the alt-right, they aren't just one thing. So, I understand where you're coming from. Their ideology is part antifascism, but part other things as well, and there are different factions within. The alt right has different factions, too. It's not one thing.

The alt right began as a reaction to neoconservatism about 10 years ago. It wasn't a racist, Nazi ideology, it was just a reaction to paleoconservatism. Younger conservatives taking over and opposing the neoconservatism of the previous 20 years. It picked up a racist overtone later.

SJWS may or may not be Marxist. Some are, some aren't. I've seen both.

You've claimed on numerous occasions that SJW'ing is cultural Marxism. So are you now walking back those claims?

I've actually never claimed that "SJW'ing is cultural Marxism." I've actually rarely used that term. If you search my posts, you'll see 35 posts come up when searching "cultural marxism." Most of the posts come up because I posted in a thread which has a topic title with the words cultural marxism in it. But, only in a handful of posts do I discuss the point.

Where I do discuss cultural Marxism, I never say that SJWin is cultural marxism.

In one, I noted that Jordan Peterson argued that cultural Marxism is at the root of postmodernism and postmodernism is the philophical underpinning of the SJ movement. Nothing controversial there, really.
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... m#p1749900

You've tried to put words in my mouth before, and I've clarified - "I do not describe "all this stuff as cultural Marxism" -- that's someone else. And the links you provided do not have me describing gender studies as "adhering to postmodernism." You're overreaching." (quoting from a different discussion where you tried to tell me that I thought all gender studies was postmodernism. I tried to explain again.... http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... m#p1731720

I explain my view here: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... m#p1729042 (nowhere do I say SJWs are "cultural Marxists" - but I explain the postmodernist underpinnings of the far left's irrationality - eschew reason as being a feature of white supremacy, etc.) and here http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... m#p1729018 That isn't to say that no SJWs are Marxists or cultural Marxists - there is a wide swath of people in that group. To try to pigeonhole everyone who is a douchbag SJW into any one category is not going to be possible.

My view is obviously more complicated that "all SJWs are cultural marxists," but that doesn't help you in your goal of misstating my views and starting nitpicky fights.

I set out the philosphical and epistemological underpinnings and foundation of today's far left extreme ideas. Some SJWs are certainly in that grouping. The people who behave that way tend to accept the far left intersectional feminist ideas, they tend to be sympathetic to Marx, socialism and communism, and they tend to be seriously anticapitalist, etc. That doesn't mean all of them. But clearly there are a lot.

What ought not be conflated is a social democrat - left leaning liberal - left of center moderate, etc. However, antifa ain't that.

Absolutely no one has claimed that antifa are social democrats.[/quote]

No, they're not, nor was that the point. The point I was making is that being moderately left or liberal isn't being an extreme leftist progressive. And, those should not be conflated. Antifa are far left extremists, and they aren't moderate, or social democrat, or left-leaning or liberal. They are are set of violent, extreme leftists.

SJWs are a joke, not really a threat, in general.

You seem to have totally forgotten what you've repeatedly written in the past. You've specifically claimed that SJWs are a threat to society.

Err...not at all. I went back and confirmed by searching for all the times I used the term cultural marxism, and you miscast that.

You misstate my views again - some SJWs are a threat to society. I never said they all were.
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... y#p1778565 Read that post where I describe threats to society, and how the right tends to think the left is a threat to society, and the left tends to think the right is a threat to society. It depends on which type of "society" you want.

Also, in our previous discussions, I've been clear that it's the philosophical foundations that are the threat, and that's why we need to be vigilant against the wrongheaded far left ideas. http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... y#p1764982 - it's not the bleating SJW declaring "get your hate speech out of this campus" or marching around saying people shouldn't say "hi guys" or ask "where are you from?" It's the foundational thought process of postmodernism - the philosophical underpinnings - that's the "threat." Some jamoke protesting that the registration process at school doesn't have enough gender options listed is not particularly threatening - but, the foundational thought process many of the people who subscribe to intersectionalism and far left progressivism is a threat, because the ideologies and philosophy are antithetical to and anathema to Englightenment principles of liberalism, reason, individual ism/individual rights, and the individual as the core unit of morality.

Where you have a philosophy with an epistemology which rejects reason as the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses, then you have an ideology which threatens the very underpinning of liberal western ideals. And, when the underlying philosophy rejects logic as the method by which reason operates, it threatens the very idea that reason employs logic to reach non-contradictory identification of reality.

That's one aspect of where the threat is. Postmodernism underpinning much of present day progressive thought means that reason and logic are rejected because postmodernism rejects reason and logic. Progressivism rejects it, very often, and that can be seen when various representative persons in that faction declare reason, logic, science, etc., to be just one method of knowledge which is the method of whiteness and white oppression of minorities. That's the kind of threat I'm talking about.

Under postmodernism, reason and logic are rejected, in favor of subjectivism and relativism. It's called "post" modernism because it is a reaction to and rejection of the western philosophical thought of modernism (Enlightenment period, Age of Reason, through to the mid-20th century).

Postmodernism - and hence far left progressive thought today - rejects the notion that there is an objective natural reality, a reality whose existence and properties are logically independent of human beings—of their minds, their societies, their social practices, or their investigative techniques. That's a feature of intersectionalism, and at the core of leftist thought today. Instead, the leftists today view reality, such as there is one, as a conceptual or social construct, an artifact of scientific practice and language. This point also applies to the investigation of past events by historians and to the description of social institutions, structures, or practices by social scientists. Truth/reality is not out there to find - it's a feature of power dynamics among groups.

Modernism held that the views of scientists and historians could be objectively true or false. Postmodernism rejects that. Postmodernists deny the Enlightenment theory that science and technology are instruments of human progress.

That's why its dangerous, and the foundational principles of postmodernism come out in the statements and thoughts and ideas espoused by progressive leftists and SJWs today. Science is a tool of the partriarchy. Science is a tool of white oppression. Reason and logic are patriarchal or male constructs, particularly white male constructs. Science and reason and logic are colonial constructs. We have to decolonize science. You can't get there with liberal Enlightenment thought or modernism or realism. You get there with postmodernism, relativism and a rejection of Enlightenment principles. That's a threat to society.

Another area where it comes out is in the idea of "human nature." Enlightenment thinkers and modernists suggest that there is such a thing as human nature; it consists of faculties, aptitudes, or dispositions that are in some sense present in human beings at birth rather than learned or instilled through social forces. Postmodernists insist that all, or nearly all, aspects of human psychology are completely socially determined. And, this comes out in the entire gender movement today. Everything is a social construct now -- only now we also eschew reason and logic -- and people can be both "born this way" and also have their gender or preferences "socially constructed" at the same time. This is evident in the arguments made by the gender studies leftists.

It goes on and on. That's the threat to society that I'm talking about.

[pErvinalia]

I'm not going back to check what you have said, as it's pointless, as you have a history of repeated reinterpretation and denial of what you've actually said. But based on what you've said here - the philosophical underpinnings of SJW is cultural Marxism and a threat to society. Surely it follows that the practitioners of that philosophy are cultural Marxists and a threat to society.

[Brian Peacock]

...

The alt right began as a reaction to neoconservatism about 10 years ago. It wasn't a racist, Nazi ideology, it was just a reaction to paleoconservatism. Younger conservatives taking over and opposing the neoconservatism of the previous 20 years. It picked up a racist overtone later.

...

Where they started is one thing, but what the term 'the alt-right' means now, what ideas it embodies today, is another. Does anybody really think that the alt-right are not essentially far-right in their political views or inclinations, collecting, as they do, around a belief in the existence of a unique and precious 'white identity' which they say is being systematically threatened by the forces of multiculturalism, liberal elites, international Jewry, and SJWs who, it is suggested, use political correctness as a weapon to police and limit free speech and undermine Western civilisation along with the rights of white males?

Would you take issue with this definition?

[pErvinalia]

Forty Two talking about the threat SJWs and their ideology poses to society:

SJW Examples: destroy western civilization (like what's happening in universities) -- all traditional "norms" must go, etc.

The left is a far bigger threat [to society], because of they are successfully effecting many areas of society and are being taken seriously. Of particular concern is colleges/universities, and in recent years, primary and secondary schools. They are infecting the schools with SJW ideology, white privilege nonsense, bullshit about patriarchy, and the notion that hate speech is not free speech, among other things. They are successfully infecting areas of society with an illiberal, self-righteous, leftist philosophy, sympathy for socialism, incoherent nonsense like intersectionalism, the Progressive Stack and a variety of other horrid ideas.
....
When that kind of thought process is infecting society, it becomes a significant danger.

The underlying acceptance among the younger generations of socialist ideas, Marxist ideas (even without an understanding that they are Marxist), postmodernism, social constructionism, rejection of reason, etc., that is a danger to the fabric of society.

Identity politics uses the concepts of class and oppressor/oppressed dichotomy, but starting in the 1970s, the postmodernists who were steeped in Marxism transferred those concepts into race and sexual identities. We're seeing the fruits of that now, and it's plenty dangerous to our society, given their open authoritarianism. We see it with movements to compel the use of words (pronouns) and to limit the use of words (censorship and advocacy of censorship) on college campuses. These ideas are infecting society.

[JimC]

The biggest part of that crap is "The underlying acceptance among the younger generations of socialist ideas, Marxist ideas (even without an understanding that they are Marxist), postmodernism, social constructionism, rejection of reason, etc., that is a danger to the fabric of society"

I know many young university students (friends of my sons), and that is overwhelmingly not the case.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, it's hyperbolic nonsense. He lives in a right wing media bubble.

[Forty Two]

...

The alt right began as a reaction to neoconservatism about 10 years ago. It wasn't a racist, Nazi ideology, it was just a reaction to paleoconservatism. Younger conservatives taking over and opposing the neoconservatism of the previous 20 years. It picked up a racist overtone later.

...

Where they started is one thing, but what the term 'the alt-right' means now, what ideas it embodies today, is another. Does anybody really think that the alt-right are not essentially far-right in their political views or inclinations, collecting, as they do, around a belief in the existence of a unique and precious 'white identity' which they say is being systematically threatened by the forces of multiculturalism, liberal elites, international Jewry, and SJWs who, it is suggested, use political correctness as a weapon to police and limit free speech and undermine Western civilisation along with the rights of white males?

Would you take issue with this definition?

I don't have any real quarrel with the defining of present day "alt right" as far right extremism with racist undertones and even overtones, sure. It was coopted over the years by a far right groups.

What I object to is lumping in right-of-center conservatives - or even Christian religious-right douchebags - into the realm of alt-right. I especially object to libertarianism being lumped into that, and I object when people who oppose illegal immigration are said to be "alt right" not because of racist of far right views, but merely because they oppose illegal immigration.

What i'm getting at is how - for example - some people will label conservative commentator Ben Shapiro an alt-right person or even a Nazi. I disagree with a lot of what Ben Shapiro writes, but he's certainly not alt right or a Nazi.

The latest example of this dynamic unfolded with these claims from Bari Weiss of The New York Times: “Failing to draw distinctions between people like Sam Harris and people like Richard Spencer strips the designation ‘alt-right’ of its power and meaning,” she wrote on Twitter. “When that label is used promiscuously, people start to take it less seriously … And when conservatives, classical liberals or libertarians are told by the progressive chattering class that they—or those they read—are alt-right, the very common response is to say: ‘Screw it. They think everyone is alt-right.’ And then those people move further right.”

The left should stop promiscuously labeling popular figures as ideologically diverse as Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro as members of the alt-right. Doing so is wrong simply because it is inaccurate. And strategically, if you want the term to retain any stigma, you could hardly do a dumber thing than expanding its scope to inaptly include very popular figures. Their fans will sooner conclude that they cannot trust the mainstream to apply the label, or that it doesn’t mean anything, or that they must be alt-right if it definitionally includes someone who likes Harris or Shapiro, than abandon commentators to whom they’re drawn.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ht/560285/

The strateg makes sense politically - you have a vilified group - racists/alt right (whatever), so you use that vilification to include other political opponents so as to sully those political opponents. People call Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson alt right to saddle them with the worst racism and extremism of the alt right. It's a common political strategy.

It happens in the other direction too - some people really don't like communists, so suddenly certain political opponents become communists. I've heard Hillary Clinton called a communist in the past. Or a Marxist or socialist. These words lose their meaning if people who are left of center moderates, or mainstream social democrats, etc., are lumped in with those extremists.

It happens with Trump a lot now - in 2016, he suddenly became an arch-racist, alt-right figure, purveyor of hate - a fascist and a Nazi. Everyone, pretty much, knows he's not that, but it makes for good politics because he's now a fascist and a Nazi....like... Ben Shapiro, Christina Hoff-Sommers, Laura Kipnis, Ayaan Hirsi-Ali, Mary Beard....

But it is also a concerted attempt to significantly redraw the bounds of acceptable thought and speech. By tossing people like Mary Beard and Christina Hoff Sommers into the slop bucket with the likes of Richard Spencer, they are attempting to place their reasonable ideas firmly outside the mainstream. They are trying to make criticism of identity politics, radical Islam and third-wave feminism, among various other subjects, verboten. For even the most minor transgressions, as in the case of Professor Beard, people are turned radioactive.

There are consequences to all this “fascism” — and not just the reputational damage to those who are smeared, though there is surely that.

The main effect is that these endless accusations of “fascism” or “misogyny” or “alt-right” dull the effects of the words themselves. As they are stripped of meaning, they strip us of our sharpness — of our ability to react forcefully to real fascists and misogynists or members of the alt-right.

For a case study in how this numbing of the political senses works, look no further than Mitt Romney and John McCain. They were roundly denounced as right-wing extremists. Then Donald Trump came along and the words meant to warn us against him had already been rendered hollow.

Orwell warned that the English language “becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.” He added, however, that “the process is reversible.”

Will true liberals do what it takes to reverse it? We can only hope so, because the battle against genuine authoritarian threats needs to be waged consistently, credibly and persuasively. For that to happen, words need to mean something. Calling women like Christina Hoff Sommers and Mary Beard fascists and racists only helps the other side.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/07/opin ... s-now.html

[Forty Two]

Forty Two talking about the threat SJWs and their ideology poses to society:

SJW Examples: destroy western civilization (like what's happening in universities) -- all traditional "norms" must go, etc.

Are SJWs now alright with western civilization as a concept, and traditional norms are just cool?

I mean, social justice warriors - aren't they out for social justice, against the patriarchy, etc., and aren't they out there saying that reason, science and logic are patriarchal, white, racist concepts. Don't they want us to stop teaching ancient English literature in English literature classes? https://reason.com/blog/2016/06/01/yale ... fs-to-stop

The left is a far bigger threat [to society], because of they are successfully effecting many areas of society and are being taken seriously.

Isn't that true? Or are colleges - particularly humanities and social sciences - under the thumb of the alt right?

Of particular concern is colleges/universities, and in recent years, primary and secondary schools. They are infecting the schools with SJW ideology, white privilege nonsense, bullshit about patriarchy, and the notion that hate speech is not free speech, among other things.

Aren't they?

They are successfully infecting areas of society with an illiberal, self-righteous, leftist philosophy, sympathy for socialism, incoherent nonsense like intersectionalism, the Progressive Stack and a variety of other horrid ideas.

Aren't they?

....
When that kind of thought process is infecting society, it becomes a significant danger.

The underlying acceptance among the younger generations of socialist ideas, Marxist ideas (even without an understanding that they are Marxist), postmodernism, social constructionism, rejection of reason, etc., that is a danger to the fabric of society.

Identity politics uses the concepts of class and oppressor/oppressed dichotomy, but starting in the 1970s, the postmodernists who were steeped in Marxism transferred those concepts into race and sexual identities. We're seeing the fruits of that now, and it's plenty dangerous to our society, given their open authoritarianism. We see it with movements to compel the use of words (pronouns) and to limit the use of words (censorship and advocacy of censorship) on college campuses. These ideas are infecting society.

[/quote]

Yes, and your rebuttal is?

[Forty Two]

The biggest part of that crap is "The underlying acceptance among the younger generations of socialist ideas, Marxist ideas (even without an understanding that they are Marxist), postmodernism, social constructionism, rejection of reason, etc., that is a danger to the fabric of society"

I know many young university students (friends of my sons), and that is overwhelmingly not the case.

The numbers are concerning. https://reason.com/blog/2018/08/13/demo ... fer-social 47% of Democrats view capitalism positively, down from 56% in 2016 - 57% of Democrats now view socialism positively, little changed from 2010
Republicans very positive about capitalism; 16% positive on socialism.

"This represents a 12-point decline in young adults' positive views of capitalism in just the past two years and a marked shift since 2010, when 68 percent viewed it positively," notes Gallup, which defines young Americans as those aged 18 to 29.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/14/fewer-t ... alism.html