Also, you Giant Ignorant Dumass or GID if you will.
Chud is an acronym.
It could also be a pejorative.
Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
But it is definitely is not an initialism you fuckwit. Or FWT if you like.
Also, maybe before you attempt to signal your superior intellect to me with one of your stupid lectures.
You could first demonstrate you know what the term empirical means and then give an example where you’re confirmation bias is preventing you from making any kind of substantial argument about almost anything, before you start another rant.
That would signal to me you are able to understand the stupidity of your FWT GID statements on here.
Because most of the time you show how much of idiot you personally are rather then school the person or show expertise about the subject you are speaking too, when you rant about shit you barely understand on here.
Not in a way attributable to them in their personal life. That’s the whole reason they adopted “chud”. I promise you 99% of the leftists using the term are not familiar with the film, they just heard it used on Chapo or some other radlib Brooklynite podcast or saw it on Reddit. They don’t think it stands for Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dweller. They just think it means “guy with shitty political views”.
You have referred to CHUDS and Kulaks multiple times. Could you please tell me how you define these terms, especially the latter one in an American context.
They aren’t truly my terms but ones I’ve borrowed from others.
Chud started as a pejorative used by leftists, I think coined by what’s called “the Dirtbag Left” originally, that if they meant to reference the film C.H.U.D.s no longer has that meaning. What it meant was “conservative shit head deplorable”. Now the use of the term chud has been largely embraced by those it was originally meant to insult and is used by the dissident right as a term for blue collar working class rural conservatives. More broadly it’s used to describe working class conservative and right wing people.
Kulak also isn’t used here in its original meaning, yeoman and freeholding peasant farmers in the Soviet Union who were liquidated so their farms could be collectivized. The way I, and others, use it in this context is to mean blue collar middle class conservatives, generally those who own their own means of production so to speak. These would be your high income tradesmen who own their own tools, or independent operators, independent owner/operator truck drivers, small business owners, and of course independent farmers.
The connotation the term Kulak carries with it from its origin to describe Soviet farmers is useful here too because those who are politically opposed to Kulaks in this new meaning do want to liquidate them and collectivize their property too. Just instead of the Soviet State they want to do it with Amazon, corporate farms, Walmart, Starbucks etc. because they value efficiency. Destroying a small business in Podunk, USA and replacing it with an Amazon distribution center not only doesn’t affect their life in LA, NYC, DC or any other major blue metro, but often materially improves it.
Thoroughly embraced? No one calls themselves chuds. They call themselves Patriots in public and our deragatorey terms for each other are much different.
Okay, obviously the Kulaks were peasants who were slightly better off then their fellow peasants. I read the Wikipedia entry and there are different definitions, but they ranged from someone who owned about 6 acres of property. (not the land term they used) to someone who owned a couple cows where other peasants had none.
Since very few Americans work as farmers any more, its being used for tradesmen, who have been stomped pretty good by “innovations” such as NAFTA .
My perspective is that capitalists do what they want, basically hurt the middle and lower classes economically if its to their benefit, and presently Republicans don’t care and many (you would say most to all) Democrats pay lip service to the working person’s concerns but don’t protect them from this. However the people who do care as Democrats are an interesting mix. For example hate Elizabeth Warren all you want but she tries to protect the little person from preditory lending. The irony is one needs a state powerful enough to regulate say, payday loans to achieve that result.