Creationism is definitely an assault upon reason and trust in observed reality. They're both attempts to retain or assert power by groups that have lost power to empiricism.
Critical Theory is Systemically Brainwashing Us
- Thread starter Brian4Liberty
- Start date
-
- Tags
- critical theory
Creationism is definitely an assault upon reason and trust in observed reality. They're both attempts to retain or assert power by groups that have lost power to empiricism.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,042
TL;DR: Creationism does not reject reason and empiricism. It attempts to use them. It has done so poorly and has thus far failed. On the other hand, Critical Theory (and its branches, such as Critical Race Theory) does reject reason and empiricism. Not only does it not attempt to use them, but it reflexively and explicitly dismisses all attempts to use them as "oppressive" expressions of "systemic racism" or "patriarchy" or what-have-you.
No, it isn't.
It is a transparent, biased and failed attempt to construct a rationally empirical justification for a literal interpretation of a particular religious text.
The whole point of things like "Creation Science" and "Intelligent Design" is to provide Creationists and their ilk with a rationally empirical justification for their beliefs. They are not attempts to assault reason and empiricism. On the contrary, they are attempts to give Creationism rationally empirical bona fides. The fact that they have failed to do so does not change this.
In living memory, Creationism has had no power to retain or assert (except among its "true believers"). It reached its relatively impotent zenith in its ultimately failed attempt to enforce the teaching of Creationism in public schools.
Critical Theory, in contrast, has never "lost power to empiricism" (which it categorically rejects - along with reason - as being "colonizing" and "oppressive"). In fact, it has done nothing but continuously gain power against reason and empiricism, ever since its inception four decades or so ago as an amalgam of post-Marxism, post-modernism, radical feminism, etc. We are now beginning to reap the fruits of that poisonous seed.
It was allowed to take root and metastasize by unwitting left-liberal academics who did not agree with it, but who indulged its existence and who did not realize the extremely illiberal danger it posed until it was too late. Now, particularly in the form of Critical Race Theory, it has nearly completely conquered the education system (K-12 & college level) and has moved on to infect public institutions and the private sector (in the form of indoctrination programs propagandistically labelled as "racial sensitivity and diversity training," for just one example).
Limited as they are by the constraints imposed by reason and empiricism, Creationists could only ever have dreamed of achieving such success.
No, it isn't.
It is a transparent, biased and failed attempt to construct a rationally empirical justification for a literal interpretation of a particular religious text.
The whole point of things like "Creation Science" and "Intelligent Design" is to provide Creationists and their ilk with a rationally empirical justification for their beliefs. They are not attempts to assault reason and empiricism. On the contrary, they are attempts to give Creationism rationally empirical bona fides. The fact that they have failed to do so does not change this.
In living memory, Creationism has had no power to retain or assert (except among its "true believers"). It reached its relatively impotent zenith in its ultimately failed attempt to enforce the teaching of Creationism in public schools.
Critical Theory, in contrast, has never "lost power to empiricism" (which it categorically rejects - along with reason - as being "colonizing" and "oppressive"). In fact, it has done nothing but continuously gain power against reason and empiricism, ever since its inception four decades or so ago as an amalgam of post-Marxism, post-modernism, radical feminism, etc. We are now beginning to reap the fruits of that poisonous seed.
It was allowed to take root and metastasize by unwitting left-liberal academics who did not agree with it, but who indulged its existence and who did not realize the extremely illiberal danger it posed until it was too late. Now, particularly in the form of Critical Race Theory, it has nearly completely conquered the education system (K-12 & college level) and has moved on to infect public institutions and the private sector (in the form of indoctrination programs propagandistically labelled as "racial sensitivity and diversity training," for just one example).
Limited as they are by the constraints imposed by reason and empiricism, Creationists could only ever have dreamed of achieving such success.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,042
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,042
This is the guy who created the Critical Race Theory "flashcards" in my previous post.
He is a co-author (with Helen Pluckrose; see below) of the book Cynical Theories and a co-founder of the New Discourses website.
He was also one of the three principals in the so-called Grievance Studies Affair.
The Truth About Critical Methods | James Lindsay
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSHL-rSMIro
This is the co-author (with James Lindsay; see above) of the book Cynical Theories.
She was also one of the three principals in the so-called Grievance Studies Affair.
The Evolution of Postmodern Thought | Helen Pluckrose
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoi9omtAiNQ
He is a co-author (with Helen Pluckrose; see below) of the book Cynical Theories and a co-founder of the New Discourses website.
He was also one of the three principals in the so-called Grievance Studies Affair.
The Truth About Critical Methods | James Lindsay
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSHL-rSMIro
This is the co-author (with James Lindsay; see above) of the book Cynical Theories.
She was also one of the three principals in the so-called Grievance Studies Affair.
The Evolution of Postmodern Thought | Helen Pluckrose
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoi9omtAiNQ
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,042
This is what the hysterical irrationalism induced and enabled by Critical Theory looks like in actual practice.
(Creationists can only wish they had ever had it so good ...)
PART ONE: Bret Weinstein, Heather Heying & the Evergreen Equity Council
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH2WeWgcSMk
PART TWO: Teaching to Transgress
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0W9QbkX8Cs
PART THREE: The Hunted Individual
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vyBLCqyUes
(Creationists can only wish they had ever had it so good ...)
PART ONE: Bret Weinstein, Heather Heying & the Evergreen Equity Council
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH2WeWgcSMk
PART TWO: Teaching to Transgress
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0W9QbkX8Cs
PART THREE: The Hunted Individual
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vyBLCqyUes
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,042
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,042
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,042
h/t jct74: 15 Characteristics of White Supremacy Culture
This is the shit they are loading into the brains of kids in elementary school... it doesn't even make any fucking sense... smh.
article here:
Elementary School Kids Taught That "Objectivity" & "Perfectionism" Are Racist Traits Of "White Supremacy"
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,042
Mach
Member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,137
The MAA is all about Math! .......... and Political Correctness.
https://www.mathvalues.org/masterblog/anti-science-policy-censure-of-discourse-on-race-and-racism
About MAA
Mathematics drives society and shapes our lives. The Math Values blog from the Mathematical Association of America (MAA) explores the diverse voices of mathematics and discusses topics related to and affected by mathematics. Contact the blog or learn how to contribute content at [email protected].
The Mathematical Association of America is the world’s largest community of mathematicians, students, and enthusiasts. The mission of the MAA is to advance the understanding of mathematics, and its impact on our world. Learn more about the MAA at maa.org. Connect with the MAA and follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn.
--------------
Anti-science Policy and the Censure of Discourse on Race and Racism
A statement from the MAA Committee on Minority Participation in Mathematics
We stand in the midst of a year of transitions. We have long been aware of broad shifts in the postsecondary education landscape, but 2020 has also been marked by the COVID-19 pandemic and emergency distance/online/hybrid teaching. Each of these new challenges for higher education has evolved alongside a movement to stand up for Black lives. The data are clear: these issues are inseparable. Black, Latinx, and Indigenous lives are the most affected by policing, health, and education policies.
Policy must be informed by facts and science. Thanks to science and mathematics, we understand now that masks, social distancing, frequent, rapid, mass testing, and contact tracing are all fundamental to keep our communities safer during the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet policies at the federal level have not consistently reflected these facts; for example, choosing not to incorporate a mask-mandate in the US has had serious consequences. As Michael Dorff and Michael Pearson stated in a recent Math Values blog, “We encourage MAA members, regardless of political persuasion, to speak out for the value of science and mathematics, and hold our leaders accountable to make use of the best possible scientific evidence in policy decisions.” The social sciences are part of this community, helping us understand how to effectively communicate these practices to people, while also simultaneously analyzing our practices and policies with a critical lens. Critical race theory, referenced in recent Executive statements by the President of the United States, is an established social science inquiry which is grounded in decades of scholarship. It is misguided, at best, to reduce this theory to the race-blaming of white people and to define it and the discussion of systemic racism as a “divisive concept.” Furthermore, banning training utilizing this scholarship to raise consciousness, from federal and federal contractor workplaces, is an encroachment on science and the academy. At the first presidential debate this year, President Trump’s refusal to disavow white nationalism and his encouragement of groups that the FBI has identified as the greatest threats of domestic terrorism, only serves to reinforce the sense that his administration seeks to reverse decades of progress on civil rights for all citizens. These actions frame a current United States leadership that consistently promotes policy in direct opposition to data and science-based evidence.
Although mathematics, science, and higher education develop fact-based theories and practices that should inform policy, they are also political because they exist within a highly politicized system. Acknowledging that the United States has serious systemic discrimination has somehow leaped from a political issue to a partisan issue. More alarmingly, what we see is a series of pronouncements apparently designed to suppress conversation and action on race and racism in the United States. The American Educational Research Association recently released a statement that clearly addresses this troubling pattern of the federal response to racial justice unrest in the US, which reframes the conversation on race and racism as “unAmerican.” We borrow from and add to their list of recent, deliberate actions taken by the federal government:
A September 4th Executive Memorandum to all Executive Departments and Agencies states that “all agencies are directed to begin to identify all contracts or other agency spending related to any training on "critical race theory,” "white privilege," or any other training or propaganda effort that teaches or suggests either (1) that the United States is an inherently racist or evil country or (2) that any race or ethnicity is inherently racist or evil. In addition, all agencies should begin to identify all available avenues within the law to cancel any such contracts and/or to divert Federal dollars away from these unAmerican propaganda training sessions.”
On September 6th, President Trump tweeted that the Department of Education was investigating schools using the 1619 project - a Pulitzer-Prize winning project meant to help fill a gap in mid-20th century US history by providing educational materials on slavery - and would withdraw funding.
The September 16th launch of a Department of Education investigation into Princeton University weaponized a recent letter from Princeton’s President describing Princeton’s efforts to move forward with structural reform in response to reflection on their past. “On September 2, 2020, you admitted Princeton’s educational program is and for decades has been racist. Among other things, you said “[r]acism and the damage it does to people of color persist at Princeton …” and “[r]acist assumptions…remain embedded in structures of the University itself.”
The September 22nd Executive Order is framed by a preamble centering white men as being hurt by blame for racism in the US, which effectively extends the September 4th ban on racial equity training to all Federal contractors. It then defines a list of “divisive concepts” which, for example, includes the idea that the meritocracy is “racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race, as well as new terms such as “race and sex stereotyping” and “race and sex scapegoating” which seek to renarrate white fragility as racism against white people.
The September 28th Executive memorandum, which directs Federal funding agencies to “identify all programs for which the agency may, as a condition of receiving Federal grants and cooperative agreements, require the recipient to certify that it will not use Federal funds to promote the list of concepts listed in Section 5 of the[September 22nd] Executive Order.”
As mathematicians, we notice patterns - this is something we are all trained to do. We bring these Executive actions to our community’s attention for several reasons: we see the pattern of science being ignored and the pattern of violence against our colleagues that give voice to race and racism. We need to fight against these patterns. As educators, we also recognize the threatening pattern of banning education and withdrawing education funding to suppress conversations on race and racism, extending from elementary to postsecondary institutions to the workplace and research spheres.
It is time for all members of our profession to acknowledge that mathematics is created by humans and therefore inherently carries human biases. Until this occurs, our community and our students cannot reach full potential. Reaching this potential in mathematics relies upon the academy and higher education engaging in critical, challenging, sometimes uncomfortable conversations about the detrimental effects of race and racism on our community. The time is now to move mathematics and education forward in pursuit of justice.
Math Community Members:
Carrie Diaz Eaton, Chair, Committee for Minority Participation in Mathematics
Francesca Bernardi, Committee for Minority Participation in Mathematics
Christopher Goff, Committee for Minority Participation in Mathematics
Kamuela Yong, Committee for Minority Participation in Mathematics
Margaret Reese, Committee for Minority Participation in Mathematics
Michael Pearson, Executive Director, MAA
Michael Dorff, President of the MAA
Deirdre Longacher Smeltzer, Senior Director for Programs, MAA
Victor Piercey, Chair of the Michigan Section of the MAA
Jenna Carpenter, Co-Chair, Joint Committee on Women in the Mathematical Sciences
Nancy Sattler, member AMATYC, MAA, TPSE, & Joint Committee on Women in the Mathematical Sciences
Kathryn Kozak, AMATYC President
Anne Dudley, AMATYC Executive Director
Yun Kang, AMS representative for Joint Committee on Women in the Mathematical Sciences
Omayra Ortega, Editor-in-Chief of the NAM newsletter and NAM representative for Joint Committee on Women in the Mathematical Sciences
Jennifer Quinn, President-Elect of the MAA
James A. M. Álvarez, MAA Board of Directors & MAA Congress Representative for Minority Interests
Marilyn Elaine Mays, Joint Committee on Women in the Mathematical Sciences
https://www.mathvalues.org/masterblog/anti-science-policy-censure-of-discourse-on-race-and-racism
About MAA
Mathematics drives society and shapes our lives. The Math Values blog from the Mathematical Association of America (MAA) explores the diverse voices of mathematics and discusses topics related to and affected by mathematics. Contact the blog or learn how to contribute content at [email protected].
The Mathematical Association of America is the world’s largest community of mathematicians, students, and enthusiasts. The mission of the MAA is to advance the understanding of mathematics, and its impact on our world. Learn more about the MAA at maa.org. Connect with the MAA and follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn.
--------------
Anti-science Policy and the Censure of Discourse on Race and Racism
A statement from the MAA Committee on Minority Participation in Mathematics
We stand in the midst of a year of transitions. We have long been aware of broad shifts in the postsecondary education landscape, but 2020 has also been marked by the COVID-19 pandemic and emergency distance/online/hybrid teaching. Each of these new challenges for higher education has evolved alongside a movement to stand up for Black lives. The data are clear: these issues are inseparable. Black, Latinx, and Indigenous lives are the most affected by policing, health, and education policies.
Policy must be informed by facts and science. Thanks to science and mathematics, we understand now that masks, social distancing, frequent, rapid, mass testing, and contact tracing are all fundamental to keep our communities safer during the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet policies at the federal level have not consistently reflected these facts; for example, choosing not to incorporate a mask-mandate in the US has had serious consequences. As Michael Dorff and Michael Pearson stated in a recent Math Values blog, “We encourage MAA members, regardless of political persuasion, to speak out for the value of science and mathematics, and hold our leaders accountable to make use of the best possible scientific evidence in policy decisions.” The social sciences are part of this community, helping us understand how to effectively communicate these practices to people, while also simultaneously analyzing our practices and policies with a critical lens. Critical race theory, referenced in recent Executive statements by the President of the United States, is an established social science inquiry which is grounded in decades of scholarship. It is misguided, at best, to reduce this theory to the race-blaming of white people and to define it and the discussion of systemic racism as a “divisive concept.” Furthermore, banning training utilizing this scholarship to raise consciousness, from federal and federal contractor workplaces, is an encroachment on science and the academy. At the first presidential debate this year, President Trump’s refusal to disavow white nationalism and his encouragement of groups that the FBI has identified as the greatest threats of domestic terrorism, only serves to reinforce the sense that his administration seeks to reverse decades of progress on civil rights for all citizens. These actions frame a current United States leadership that consistently promotes policy in direct opposition to data and science-based evidence.
Although mathematics, science, and higher education develop fact-based theories and practices that should inform policy, they are also political because they exist within a highly politicized system. Acknowledging that the United States has serious systemic discrimination has somehow leaped from a political issue to a partisan issue. More alarmingly, what we see is a series of pronouncements apparently designed to suppress conversation and action on race and racism in the United States. The American Educational Research Association recently released a statement that clearly addresses this troubling pattern of the federal response to racial justice unrest in the US, which reframes the conversation on race and racism as “unAmerican.” We borrow from and add to their list of recent, deliberate actions taken by the federal government:
A September 4th Executive Memorandum to all Executive Departments and Agencies states that “all agencies are directed to begin to identify all contracts or other agency spending related to any training on "critical race theory,” "white privilege," or any other training or propaganda effort that teaches or suggests either (1) that the United States is an inherently racist or evil country or (2) that any race or ethnicity is inherently racist or evil. In addition, all agencies should begin to identify all available avenues within the law to cancel any such contracts and/or to divert Federal dollars away from these unAmerican propaganda training sessions.”
On September 6th, President Trump tweeted that the Department of Education was investigating schools using the 1619 project - a Pulitzer-Prize winning project meant to help fill a gap in mid-20th century US history by providing educational materials on slavery - and would withdraw funding.
The September 16th launch of a Department of Education investigation into Princeton University weaponized a recent letter from Princeton’s President describing Princeton’s efforts to move forward with structural reform in response to reflection on their past. “On September 2, 2020, you admitted Princeton’s educational program is and for decades has been racist. Among other things, you said “[r]acism and the damage it does to people of color persist at Princeton …” and “[r]acist assumptions…remain embedded in structures of the University itself.”
The September 22nd Executive Order is framed by a preamble centering white men as being hurt by blame for racism in the US, which effectively extends the September 4th ban on racial equity training to all Federal contractors. It then defines a list of “divisive concepts” which, for example, includes the idea that the meritocracy is “racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race, as well as new terms such as “race and sex stereotyping” and “race and sex scapegoating” which seek to renarrate white fragility as racism against white people.
The September 28th Executive memorandum, which directs Federal funding agencies to “identify all programs for which the agency may, as a condition of receiving Federal grants and cooperative agreements, require the recipient to certify that it will not use Federal funds to promote the list of concepts listed in Section 5 of the[September 22nd] Executive Order.”
As mathematicians, we notice patterns - this is something we are all trained to do. We bring these Executive actions to our community’s attention for several reasons: we see the pattern of science being ignored and the pattern of violence against our colleagues that give voice to race and racism. We need to fight against these patterns. As educators, we also recognize the threatening pattern of banning education and withdrawing education funding to suppress conversations on race and racism, extending from elementary to postsecondary institutions to the workplace and research spheres.
It is time for all members of our profession to acknowledge that mathematics is created by humans and therefore inherently carries human biases. Until this occurs, our community and our students cannot reach full potential. Reaching this potential in mathematics relies upon the academy and higher education engaging in critical, challenging, sometimes uncomfortable conversations about the detrimental effects of race and racism on our community. The time is now to move mathematics and education forward in pursuit of justice.
Math Community Members:
Carrie Diaz Eaton, Chair, Committee for Minority Participation in Mathematics
Francesca Bernardi, Committee for Minority Participation in Mathematics
Christopher Goff, Committee for Minority Participation in Mathematics
Kamuela Yong, Committee for Minority Participation in Mathematics
Margaret Reese, Committee for Minority Participation in Mathematics
Michael Pearson, Executive Director, MAA
Michael Dorff, President of the MAA
Deirdre Longacher Smeltzer, Senior Director for Programs, MAA
Victor Piercey, Chair of the Michigan Section of the MAA
Jenna Carpenter, Co-Chair, Joint Committee on Women in the Mathematical Sciences
Nancy Sattler, member AMATYC, MAA, TPSE, & Joint Committee on Women in the Mathematical Sciences
Kathryn Kozak, AMATYC President
Anne Dudley, AMATYC Executive Director
Yun Kang, AMS representative for Joint Committee on Women in the Mathematical Sciences
Omayra Ortega, Editor-in-Chief of the NAM newsletter and NAM representative for Joint Committee on Women in the Mathematical Sciences
Jennifer Quinn, President-Elect of the MAA
James A. M. Álvarez, MAA Board of Directors & MAA Congress Representative for Minority Interests
Marilyn Elaine Mays, Joint Committee on Women in the Mathematical Sciences
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,042
Scientists Forced To Take Woke Pledges To Get Funding (Pt. 1) | Gad Saad | ACADEMIA | Rubin Report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Jlr1PTijQU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Jlr1PTijQU
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,042
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,042
This Is How Anti-Woke Professors Are Treated On Campus (Pt. 2) | Gad Saad | ACADEMIA | Rubin Report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKRKG5pyoLE
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,042
Psychologist: How To Fight Woke Brainwashing Of Your Kids (Pt.3)| Gad Saad | ACADEMIA | Rubin Report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMr-GEPYlXg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMr-GEPYlXg
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,042
Why Is Wokeness Winning?
The astonishing and continuing success of left illiberalism
https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/why-is-wokeness-winning
Andrew Sullivan (16 October 2020)
A question I’ve wrestled with this past year or so is a pretty basic one: if critical race/gender/***** theory is unfalsifiable postmodern claptrap, as I have long contended, how has it conquered so many institutions so swiftly?
It’s been a staggering achievement, when you come to think of it. Critical theory was once an esoteric academic pursuit. Now it has become the core, underlying philosophy of the majority of American cultural institutions, universities, media, corporations, liberal churches, NGOs, philanthropies, and, of course, mainstream journalism. This summer felt like a psychic break from old-school liberalism, a moment when a big part of the American elite just decided to junk the principles that have long defined American democratic life, and embrace what Bari Weiss calls “a mixture of postmodernism, postcolonialism, identity politics, neo-Marxism, critical race theory, intersectionality, and the therapeutic mentality.”
It’s everywhere. Across the country, schools and colleges are dumping SATs so they can engineer racial equity, and abolish the idea of merit. The Smithsonian backed the idea that working hard, showing up on time and perfecting a task are functions of “whiteness”. In California, there’s a ballot initiative to legalize government discrimination on the basis of race; and a new mandate that company boards add members from under-represented communities. Corporations who haven’t publicly committed themselves to the full woke project are being hounded by their employees into doing so, meaning hiring and firing on the basis of race, or forcing employees into re-education sessions, guided by DiAngelo and Kendi. The NBA, for Pete’s sake, is now a festival of wokeness, even as viewership collapses. CRT propaganda like the NYT’s 1619 Project can be exposed as untrue and unethical, but the paper can both debunk it in its own pages and still hail it as a triumph. And the pièce de resistance: 21 percent of liberal students in the Ivy League favor some level of violence to stop campus speech they disapprove of.
There seems no stopping this. But why? Why this powerful, seemingly inevitable shift, especially among white elites? I’d posit some obvious reasons, but this is a rough guess and I hope we can start a conversation here about the reason for this astonishing change — and how better to engage it.
The first, it seems to me, is emotional. [...]
[...]
There’s little doubt, either, it seems to me that there is a religious component to wokeness. A generation of nones can feel bereft of transcendence and meaning, and “becoming woke”, like being “born again,” fills that spiritual hole. In an atomized and lonely age, feeling as if you are on “the right side of history”, banishing doubt, joining with countless of your fellow converts in marches and seminars, can abate the isolation and emptiness of it all. Many moderns want the experience of religion without God. With CRT, as in the past with communism, they can have it.
But what also make CRT so successful is ruthlessness. Those who hold a view of the world in which only power, and the struggle for power, matters, have few qualms in exercising it. After all, under CRT, power is always on the side of the white cis-heteropatriarchy, so payback is always fair play. Discriminating against the unwoke or whites or males or the cis-gendered or Asian-American, is not just fair, but vital. Shutting down speech protects the oppressed; bullying on social media and in the workplace becomes a form of virtue; mercy and forgiveness are mere buttresses for white supremacy; HR departments diligently identify dissidents, and discipline them. Once you set up this system of censorship and fear, persecute a few prominent sinners pour décourager les autres, and encourage snitches, dissidents will increasingly self-censor, and dissent peter out, until the new orthodoxy is the only one.
In the past, a new set of ideas could be engaged in a clash of argument and debate. But you’ll notice that the advocates of what Wes Yang has called “the successor ideology” never debate any serious opponents of their position. This is because debate in a liberal society implies equal standing for both sides, and uses reason to determine who’s right or wrong. But there can be no “both sides” within CRT, no equation of “racists” and “antiracists”, and debates are inherently oppressive. Logic, evidence, and reason are, in this worldview, mere products of white supremacy, forms of violence against the oppressed. In CRT, remember, there is no truth or objectivity; there are merely narratives. So, yes, 2 + 2 = 5, and math is inherently a function of whiteness. And what racist is going to deny this?
The truth is that liberal democracy is hard, counter-intuitive, complicated and requires self-restraint, reason, and toleration at levels most humans are incapable of. That’s why it is such a rare and fleeting exception in the world today and all but non-existent for the vast majority of human history. Critical race theory is much more attuned to human nature. It gives you the simplest template for understanding the world, it assigns you virtue if you assent, it gives you instant power over others purely because of your and their identity, and it requires nothing more than tribal instinct to thrive. That’s why it is here to stay. And why the fight for liberalism is going to be long and hard and require as much courage, steel, and rigor as we can muster.
FULL ARTICLE AT LINK: https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/why-is-wokeness-winning
The astonishing and continuing success of left illiberalism
https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/why-is-wokeness-winning
Andrew Sullivan (16 October 2020)
A question I’ve wrestled with this past year or so is a pretty basic one: if critical race/gender/***** theory is unfalsifiable postmodern claptrap, as I have long contended, how has it conquered so many institutions so swiftly?
It’s been a staggering achievement, when you come to think of it. Critical theory was once an esoteric academic pursuit. Now it has become the core, underlying philosophy of the majority of American cultural institutions, universities, media, corporations, liberal churches, NGOs, philanthropies, and, of course, mainstream journalism. This summer felt like a psychic break from old-school liberalism, a moment when a big part of the American elite just decided to junk the principles that have long defined American democratic life, and embrace what Bari Weiss calls “a mixture of postmodernism, postcolonialism, identity politics, neo-Marxism, critical race theory, intersectionality, and the therapeutic mentality.”
It’s everywhere. Across the country, schools and colleges are dumping SATs so they can engineer racial equity, and abolish the idea of merit. The Smithsonian backed the idea that working hard, showing up on time and perfecting a task are functions of “whiteness”. In California, there’s a ballot initiative to legalize government discrimination on the basis of race; and a new mandate that company boards add members from under-represented communities. Corporations who haven’t publicly committed themselves to the full woke project are being hounded by their employees into doing so, meaning hiring and firing on the basis of race, or forcing employees into re-education sessions, guided by DiAngelo and Kendi. The NBA, for Pete’s sake, is now a festival of wokeness, even as viewership collapses. CRT propaganda like the NYT’s 1619 Project can be exposed as untrue and unethical, but the paper can both debunk it in its own pages and still hail it as a triumph. And the pièce de resistance: 21 percent of liberal students in the Ivy League favor some level of violence to stop campus speech they disapprove of.
There seems no stopping this. But why? Why this powerful, seemingly inevitable shift, especially among white elites? I’d posit some obvious reasons, but this is a rough guess and I hope we can start a conversation here about the reason for this astonishing change — and how better to engage it.
The first, it seems to me, is emotional. [...]
[...]
There’s little doubt, either, it seems to me that there is a religious component to wokeness. A generation of nones can feel bereft of transcendence and meaning, and “becoming woke”, like being “born again,” fills that spiritual hole. In an atomized and lonely age, feeling as if you are on “the right side of history”, banishing doubt, joining with countless of your fellow converts in marches and seminars, can abate the isolation and emptiness of it all. Many moderns want the experience of religion without God. With CRT, as in the past with communism, they can have it.
But what also make CRT so successful is ruthlessness. Those who hold a view of the world in which only power, and the struggle for power, matters, have few qualms in exercising it. After all, under CRT, power is always on the side of the white cis-heteropatriarchy, so payback is always fair play. Discriminating against the unwoke or whites or males or the cis-gendered or Asian-American, is not just fair, but vital. Shutting down speech protects the oppressed; bullying on social media and in the workplace becomes a form of virtue; mercy and forgiveness are mere buttresses for white supremacy; HR departments diligently identify dissidents, and discipline them. Once you set up this system of censorship and fear, persecute a few prominent sinners pour décourager les autres, and encourage snitches, dissidents will increasingly self-censor, and dissent peter out, until the new orthodoxy is the only one.
In the past, a new set of ideas could be engaged in a clash of argument and debate. But you’ll notice that the advocates of what Wes Yang has called “the successor ideology” never debate any serious opponents of their position. This is because debate in a liberal society implies equal standing for both sides, and uses reason to determine who’s right or wrong. But there can be no “both sides” within CRT, no equation of “racists” and “antiracists”, and debates are inherently oppressive. Logic, evidence, and reason are, in this worldview, mere products of white supremacy, forms of violence against the oppressed. In CRT, remember, there is no truth or objectivity; there are merely narratives. So, yes, 2 + 2 = 5, and math is inherently a function of whiteness. And what racist is going to deny this?
The truth is that liberal democracy is hard, counter-intuitive, complicated and requires self-restraint, reason, and toleration at levels most humans are incapable of. That’s why it is such a rare and fleeting exception in the world today and all but non-existent for the vast majority of human history. Critical race theory is much more attuned to human nature. It gives you the simplest template for understanding the world, it assigns you virtue if you assent, it gives you instant power over others purely because of your and their identity, and it requires nothing more than tribal instinct to thrive. That’s why it is here to stay. And why the fight for liberalism is going to be long and hard and require as much courage, steel, and rigor as we can muster.
FULL ARTICLE AT LINK: https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/why-is-wokeness-winning
tebowlives
Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2019
- Messages
- 3,239
I'm a Lead which is a mod for Nextdoor and during a video meeting on bias they pulled this woke crap. The usual suspects, slavery built America, bias against women since there aren't many CEOS, say anything against BLM you're racist. Nothing to back up what is said just because she says so. I emailed her, included the Nextdoor person who set it up, and refuted her nonsense with facts. Her answer to the facts I presented was "you are wrong just google it". lol That was how she addressed my points.
Her name is Christina Blacken and her made up company is TheNewQuo.com
They really are sleazy.
Her name is Christina Blacken and her made up company is TheNewQuo.com
They really are sleazy.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,042
The anti-concepts employed by the "woke" (such as "anti-racism" or "equity" or "decolonization" or "diversity" or "inclusion" or etc. ad nauseam) are just happy-talk camouflage.
What they really want is MONEY and POWER.
Listen to and believe them when they tell you so:
https://twitter.com/BalqeesJama/status/1311833807033700352
What they really want is MONEY and POWER.
Listen to and believe them when they tell you so:
https://twitter.com/BalqeesJama/status/1311833807033700352
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,042
Historian Phil Magness on the 1619 Project Scandal
^^^ This is a link to a post in this thread from last year: NY Times Piles Hate on America with the 1619 Project
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,042
@wokal_distance on "Deconstruction"
1/
Deconstruction.
You've likely seen this word in media and in academic literature. If you want to understand wokeness and how it operates, you MUST understand deconstruction. It is the key method the woke use to attack both our institutions and our civilization.
A thread:
2/
To understand deconstruction, we first need to know what it's purpose is.
The Purpose of deconstruction is to undercut the ideas, beliefs, words, ideologies, art and discourses of our civilization by attacking their MEANING.
Read that again because it's important.
3/
Now, everything we do (relationships, work, school, politics...everything) we do based on our ideas and understanding of the world, and our ideas and understanding of the world are built from such things as concepts, beliefs, words, ideologies, art and discourses.
4/
If a set of ideas and a way of understanding of the world provide the blueprint for a society, then you can tear down that society by destroying it's blueprint. You do that by destroying the IDEAS and understanding of the world used to create that societies blueprint.
5/
This is the game that the woke are in. They do not like our liberal democracy, and they want to tear it down by destroying the ideas that hold it up and keep it together. Which is why "deconstruct" almost always appears alongside "dismantle" and "disrupt."
now...
6/
So how does deconstruction work?
Deconstruction operates by attacking at the level of MEANING. What gets deconstructed are words, ideas, ideologies, concepts, discourses, art, texts, symbols, etc. Whatever can be used to MEAN something or communicate gets deconstructed. Why?
7/
Because if you destroy the MEANING of ideas (or the concepts that make up or communicate those ideas) you can suck the power out of those ideas. If ideas lose their power, whatever is held together by those ideas (in this case our society) will begin to come apart...
8/
Consider capitalism:
The person who “deconstructs” capitalism is attempting to attack the concepts, beliefs, and ideas which power capitalism. Why? Because if the concepts that are used to create an communicate about capitalism lose their power then capitalism falls apart.
9/
In the same way that a person who loses faith in Jesus will stop going to church, a person who does not see the value in liberal democracy will cease to care about or defend it. People defend things that have MEANING to them, and MEANING is what deconstruction attacks.
10/
Jacques Derrida, the father of Deconstruction, had a core group of tactics and ideas that make up his concept of deconstruction. I can't list them all here (this is twitter not a full fledged academic journal ��
but I'll give a brief outline of the main ideas
11/
Derrida said words had "traces" ( a sort of linguistic residue) of other words because words define each other. So the word Cat contains traces of "cute" furry" "small" etc. Thus you can consider the “traces” of a word when interpreting what that word means in a given context
12/
Derrida's next idea was sometimes meaning comes from what is missing. Think of an archivist deciding which things to archive and which things to throw out. You can learn something about the archivist by what he leaves out, what is "absent" from the archive tells us something
13/
Or think of a wedding. if the best man doesn't show up the fact that he is absent tells us something. Maybe there was a fight, or his plane was late...we may not know what, but it does tell us that something went wrong.
14/
The intent of the author, does not decide what the meaning of a text is. Consider a postcard. You can understand a postcards meaning even if you don’t know who wrote it. Derrida thought this showed you don't need to know what the authors intent was to grasp the meaning
15/
Add all this up and see what happens.
The theory of traces means I can say "you're a racist for saying you prefer white shirts to black shirts, To not like a black shirt is rooted in not liking the concept of black. and African Americans are black, which you don't like"
16/
The theory of meaning from what's missing (absence) means one can say
"you're racist because only white people were at your wedding."
"I only invited family. My family's white"
"So what? By not going out of your way to invite a non-white person you were excluding non-whites"
17/
Saying the author's intent is irrelevant to a text's meaning means anyone can misinterpret me and claim that I said something I never said. Why? Cause their interpretation of what I said is as good as mine. I can't say"that's not what I meant" because my intent doesn't matter
18/
Do all three and you can distort and destroy the meaning of nearly anything. Which is of course the point of deconstruction. If you can make the meaning of an idea unclear, you take away justification for acting on it you suck the power out of the idea, and that.s the point.
19/
Another tactic is to claim an idea can’t be defined. Take for example a pile of leaves. 1 leaf is not a pile. Neither is 2 leaves. Well, what about 3, or 4? How many leaves are needed to make a pile? If you can’t answer the woke will say your meaning is unclear.
20/
And if the meaning of an idea is unclear you suck the power out of the idea, and that's the point. One thing which gives an idea power is that it can be acted on. However, if an idea is not clear enough to be acted on then it loses all it’s power.
21/
Parodying or Mocking an idea or concept until it loses it's meaning is another way to deconstruct. So is "flipping the script." Think of Jon Stewart. He used parody to mock the news, and flipped the script by making himself (the comedian) look more serious than the real news.
22/
Get the picture?
When the woke aren't mocking ideas so no one takes them seriously, they muddy the waters by re-interpreting, or decontextualizing or recontextualizing ideas to blur their meaning. This makes ideas less clear, making it hard to organize around them.
23/
That my friends, is deconstruction. It operates at the level of MEANING, attacking words, ideas, ideologies, concepts, discourses, art, morals, values, texts, symbols, and so on. Anything that can be used to MEAN something, or to communicate information can be deconstructed.
24/
Now that you know the tactic, call it out. You don't need to play along.
Reject their stupid word games.
When they mock you stand firm.
When they re-interpret you to make you look racist push back.
Postmodern Deconstruction is a dishonest and unfair game.
Don't play.
/fin
Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/wokal_distance/status/1283646877699731456
Thread compiled @ threadreaderapp.com: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1283646877699731456.html
Thread compiled @ threadreaderapp.com: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1283646877699731456.html
1/
Deconstruction.
You've likely seen this word in media and in academic literature. If you want to understand wokeness and how it operates, you MUST understand deconstruction. It is the key method the woke use to attack both our institutions and our civilization.
A thread:
 |  |
 |  |
2/
To understand deconstruction, we first need to know what it's purpose is.
The Purpose of deconstruction is to undercut the ideas, beliefs, words, ideologies, art and discourses of our civilization by attacking their MEANING.
Read that again because it's important.
3/
Now, everything we do (relationships, work, school, politics...everything) we do based on our ideas and understanding of the world, and our ideas and understanding of the world are built from such things as concepts, beliefs, words, ideologies, art and discourses.
4/
If a set of ideas and a way of understanding of the world provide the blueprint for a society, then you can tear down that society by destroying it's blueprint. You do that by destroying the IDEAS and understanding of the world used to create that societies blueprint.
5/
This is the game that the woke are in. They do not like our liberal democracy, and they want to tear it down by destroying the ideas that hold it up and keep it together. Which is why "deconstruct" almost always appears alongside "dismantle" and "disrupt."
now...
 |  |
 |  |
6/
So how does deconstruction work?
Deconstruction operates by attacking at the level of MEANING. What gets deconstructed are words, ideas, ideologies, concepts, discourses, art, texts, symbols, etc. Whatever can be used to MEAN something or communicate gets deconstructed. Why?
7/
Because if you destroy the MEANING of ideas (or the concepts that make up or communicate those ideas) you can suck the power out of those ideas. If ideas lose their power, whatever is held together by those ideas (in this case our society) will begin to come apart...
8/
Consider capitalism:
The person who “deconstructs” capitalism is attempting to attack the concepts, beliefs, and ideas which power capitalism. Why? Because if the concepts that are used to create an communicate about capitalism lose their power then capitalism falls apart.
9/
In the same way that a person who loses faith in Jesus will stop going to church, a person who does not see the value in liberal democracy will cease to care about or defend it. People defend things that have MEANING to them, and MEANING is what deconstruction attacks.
10/
Jacques Derrida, the father of Deconstruction, had a core group of tactics and ideas that make up his concept of deconstruction. I can't list them all here (this is twitter not a full fledged academic journal ��
but I'll give a brief outline of the main ideas11/
Derrida said words had "traces" ( a sort of linguistic residue) of other words because words define each other. So the word Cat contains traces of "cute" furry" "small" etc. Thus you can consider the “traces” of a word when interpreting what that word means in a given context
12/
Derrida's next idea was sometimes meaning comes from what is missing. Think of an archivist deciding which things to archive and which things to throw out. You can learn something about the archivist by what he leaves out, what is "absent" from the archive tells us something
13/
Or think of a wedding. if the best man doesn't show up the fact that he is absent tells us something. Maybe there was a fight, or his plane was late...we may not know what, but it does tell us that something went wrong.
14/
The intent of the author, does not decide what the meaning of a text is. Consider a postcard. You can understand a postcards meaning even if you don’t know who wrote it. Derrida thought this showed you don't need to know what the authors intent was to grasp the meaning
15/
Add all this up and see what happens.
The theory of traces means I can say "you're a racist for saying you prefer white shirts to black shirts, To not like a black shirt is rooted in not liking the concept of black. and African Americans are black, which you don't like"
16/
The theory of meaning from what's missing (absence) means one can say
"you're racist because only white people were at your wedding."
"I only invited family. My family's white"
"So what? By not going out of your way to invite a non-white person you were excluding non-whites"
17/
Saying the author's intent is irrelevant to a text's meaning means anyone can misinterpret me and claim that I said something I never said. Why? Cause their interpretation of what I said is as good as mine. I can't say"that's not what I meant" because my intent doesn't matter
18/
Do all three and you can distort and destroy the meaning of nearly anything. Which is of course the point of deconstruction. If you can make the meaning of an idea unclear, you take away justification for acting on it you suck the power out of the idea, and that.s the point.
19/
Another tactic is to claim an idea can’t be defined. Take for example a pile of leaves. 1 leaf is not a pile. Neither is 2 leaves. Well, what about 3, or 4? How many leaves are needed to make a pile? If you can’t answer the woke will say your meaning is unclear.
20/
And if the meaning of an idea is unclear you suck the power out of the idea, and that's the point. One thing which gives an idea power is that it can be acted on. However, if an idea is not clear enough to be acted on then it loses all it’s power.
21/
Parodying or Mocking an idea or concept until it loses it's meaning is another way to deconstruct. So is "flipping the script." Think of Jon Stewart. He used parody to mock the news, and flipped the script by making himself (the comedian) look more serious than the real news.
22/
Get the picture?
When the woke aren't mocking ideas so no one takes them seriously, they muddy the waters by re-interpreting, or decontextualizing or recontextualizing ideas to blur their meaning. This makes ideas less clear, making it hard to organize around them.
23/
That my friends, is deconstruction. It operates at the level of MEANING, attacking words, ideas, ideologies, concepts, discourses, art, morals, values, texts, symbols, and so on. Anything that can be used to MEAN something, or to communicate information can be deconstructed.
24/
Now that you know the tactic, call it out. You don't need to play along.
Reject their stupid word games.
When they mock you stand firm.
When they re-interpret you to make you look racist push back.
Postmodern Deconstruction is a dishonest and unfair game.
Don't play.
/fin
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,042
Similar threads
