- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 63,561
Critical Theory is Systemically Brainwashing Us
- Thread starter Brian4Liberty
- Start date
-
- Tags
- critical theory
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,059
@wokal_distance on "The Kenosha Shootings & Post-modernism"
1/
Kenosha Shootings:
The same event
The same set of pictures
The same set of videos
The same available audio
The same timeline
The same available set of facts ...
Two completely different conclusions.
Let's talk about why.
A thread
:
2/
Each side has a story they want you to believe.
So they take the audio, pictures, and video from the shooting, slice them up, and edit them into clips, soundbites, and images.
Then they reassemble those edited bits of media in a way that tells the story they want you to hear.
3/
This editing process lets them include or remove whatever context they want and place the focus wherever they want (e.g., using closeups to show certain things while leaving other things out of the frame).
This way the same bit of media can be used to tell VERY different stories.
4/
Here, we see two claims about the first shooting of that night.
The first person claims the shooter hid behind a car and shot a man in the head in cold blood.
The second person claims the shooter was being attacked by another man when he shot in self defense.
5/
Which of those stories do you believe?
We currently have 2 videos of the shooting, and depending on which video you use and how it's edited, you can make either story look correct.
Here are both videos side by side so you can see how they could be used to tell either story:
6/
Continuing on with our two narratives:
The political right says a man was trying to escape a dangerous situation and was chased by rioters, so he shot at them in self-defense.
The left says brave protestors saw a murderer on the loose with a gun and tried to stop him.
7/
Continuing on: a man was shot in the arm while wearing a paramedics hat.
The right says he's a fake paramedic wearing the hat as a disguise who tried to shoot Kyle (the man the right says was defending himself).
The left says he's a legit paramedic until proven otherwise.
8/
Next both sides humiliate themselves.
First, the right said rioters threw a Molotov cocktail at Kyle as he ran from them.
This is false, the video in tweet 5 shows whatever was thrown didn't catch fire like Molotov cocktails do.
Closeups show it was almost certainly a bag.
9/
Not to be outdone in embarrassing themselves, the left said Kyle was a white supremacist, and (this is a quote) he was white, and he was NOT Hispanic.
According to arrest records Kyle is, in fact, Hispanic.
[td="colspan: 2"]
[/td]
10/
Given that we have two narratives, we have two stories about who is good and who is evil
This means we have two crowdfunding initiatives: one for Kyle, and one for the family of a protestor that was killed.
[CONTINUED IN NEXT POST]
Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/wokal_distance/status/1298923653896130560
Thread compiled @ threadreaderapp.com: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1298923653896130560.html
Thread compiled @ threadreaderapp.com: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1298923653896130560.html
1/
Kenosha Shootings:
The same event
The same set of pictures
The same set of videos
The same available audio
The same timeline
The same available set of facts ...
Two completely different conclusions.
Let's talk about why.
A thread
: |  |
 |  |
2/
Each side has a story they want you to believe.
So they take the audio, pictures, and video from the shooting, slice them up, and edit them into clips, soundbites, and images.
Then they reassemble those edited bits of media in a way that tells the story they want you to hear.
 |  |
3/
This editing process lets them include or remove whatever context they want and place the focus wherever they want (e.g., using closeups to show certain things while leaving other things out of the frame).
This way the same bit of media can be used to tell VERY different stories.
4/
Here, we see two claims about the first shooting of that night.
The first person claims the shooter hid behind a car and shot a man in the head in cold blood.
The second person claims the shooter was being attacked by another man when he shot in self defense.
 |  |
5/
Which of those stories do you believe?
We currently have 2 videos of the shooting, and depending on which video you use and how it's edited, you can make either story look correct.
Here are both videos side by side so you can see how they could be used to tell either story:
VIDEO: https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1298941752288534528/pu/vid/480x270/HcpXQgdEfpRE4MGt.mp4
6/
Continuing on with our two narratives:
The political right says a man was trying to escape a dangerous situation and was chased by rioters, so he shot at them in self-defense.
The left says brave protestors saw a murderer on the loose with a gun and tried to stop him.
 |  |
 |  |
7/
Continuing on: a man was shot in the arm while wearing a paramedics hat.
The right says he's a fake paramedic wearing the hat as a disguise who tried to shoot Kyle (the man the right says was defending himself).
The left says he's a legit paramedic until proven otherwise.
 |  |
 |  |
8/
Next both sides humiliate themselves.
First, the right said rioters threw a Molotov cocktail at Kyle as he ran from them.
This is false, the video in tweet 5 shows whatever was thrown didn't catch fire like Molotov cocktails do.
Closeups show it was almost certainly a bag.
 |  |
9/
Not to be outdone in embarrassing themselves, the left said Kyle was a white supremacist, and (this is a quote) he was white, and he was NOT Hispanic.
According to arrest records Kyle is, in fact, Hispanic.
 |  |
[td="colspan: 2"]
[/td]10/
Given that we have two narratives, we have two stories about who is good and who is evil
This means we have two crowdfunding initiatives: one for Kyle, and one for the family of a protestor that was killed.
 |  |
[CONTINUED IN NEXT POST]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,059
[CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST]
11/
Next we have some photos.
Photo 1: the man shot in the arm as a victim (emphasis on his wounds).
Photo 2: that same man attacking Kyle with a gun (emphasis on him holding the gun).
Photo 3 shows both the wounds and the gun.
12/
When it comes to punishment:
The right points to a time a black guy killed a white guy and got probation and tells you to keep that in mind and is angling toward leniency.
The left says if Kyle was black he would be dead, so they want him tried as an adult.
13/
Next, it's the old "what if the races were reversed?"
The right thinks that if a black guy shot white rioters, he'd be called a hero.
The left thinks if he was black and shot white protestors, the police would have shot him on the spot and he'd be dead.
13/
Finally, we have pictures which people interpret according the narrative they like.
Here, the right will say he is peacefully surrendering, while the left will say he was allowed to do that because police like him (because he looks white) and a black kid would have been shot:
14/
I could keep going with examples but I think I've shown my point.
There are two narratives, and audio, pictures, and video from the shooting will be sliced up and edited into clips, soundbites, and images which will be reassembled to tell the story each side wants to tell.
15/
People say the media is biased, it can't be trusted, and that they push an agenda. Some people say we are in an age of "narrative warfare." Others say people are denying reality, or they ignore facts, or live in a bubble.
But I am afraid it is much worse than all of that ...
16/
This is postmodernism, and Twitter is its prophet.
Let me explain ...
17/
Modernist thinking believes that objective truth exists and that there are statements which are true regardless of what anyone thinks.
Modernism also believes in science, individual rights, democracy, and due process of law.
18/
But here I want to focus on truth.
Postmodernism denies that there is objective truth. Postmodernism says that the only thing we are able to fully grasp is our own experience.
That's it. Postmodern thinking says that every one of us has biases, biases so deep ...
19/
... that we cannot ever fully get around them.
Postmodernism says we have biases and ideas socialized into us that we are not, and maybe even CANNOT, be aware of because we are socialized not to see them. Postmodernism claims that for those reasons we can't even actually get to ...
20/
... objective reality. We can only see what we are trained to see through the interpretive lens that we get from our culture.
But it gets worse.
Postmodernism also thinks that we don't just have biases in how we view and interpret the world, but it also thinks that language ...
21/
... is so slippery, unstable, and malleable that it's impossible to fully communicate your experience to another person. Postmodernism says that because words can be interpreted so many ways, and since we always interpret each others' words through our own lens, it's impossible ...
22/
... for a word, or phrase, or sentence, to have an OBJECTIVE meaning. Everything, says the postmodernist, can be reinterpreted so that a word, phrase, sentence, book, or scientific paper, always means something different to each person. Words don't have objective definitions.
23/
So no one can ever claim that something they say is true for everyone, because everyone will interpret what they say differently, and someone might interpret what you say as false - and that is ok because everyone is entitled to their interpretation.
24/
And finally, postmodernism says that deciding what is true is about power.
In other words, the postmodern person thinks that the decision to say that something is true or false is a political process. They think that when we say that the ideas of science are true and ...
25/
...should be treated as such, that we are only doing that to make sure our ideas get taught throughout society, because if our ideas are considered true then we will have power.
So in postmodernism, what matters is not finding the "truth" about what happened, because everyone ...
26/
... will interpret what happened in a different way.
What is important is finding out which beliefs will benefit which people, and then picking the beliefs which line up with the correct politics.
In other words, beliefs are not picked because they are true ...
27/
... they are picked for political reasons.
And I think this is where we are.
Twitter is a deconstruction machine that allows everyone to slice and dice the world into little pieces and reinterpret it to fit their worldview.
That's why we have the two narratives I showed you.
28/
We are living in a postmodern age.
It's not the age of narratives, or the information age, or anything else.
This is postmodernism, and the only way out is to find a way to reassert the value of truth, and to fight for that value, because if we lose that, we lose everything.
29/
So we better fight for the truth, and fight like mad, because this ... this is the tip of the iceberg if we don't start fighting back.
/fin
PS/
The work of @ConceptualJames was highly influential in the writing of this thread.
PPS/
h/t @AntifaWatch2 for the video in tweet 5
11/
Next we have some photos.
Photo 1: the man shot in the arm as a victim (emphasis on his wounds).
Photo 2: that same man attacking Kyle with a gun (emphasis on him holding the gun).
Photo 3 shows both the wounds and the gun.
 |  |  |
12/
When it comes to punishment:
The right points to a time a black guy killed a white guy and got probation and tells you to keep that in mind and is angling toward leniency.
The left says if Kyle was black he would be dead, so they want him tried as an adult.
 |  |
13/
Next, it's the old "what if the races were reversed?"
The right thinks that if a black guy shot white rioters, he'd be called a hero.
The left thinks if he was black and shot white protestors, the police would have shot him on the spot and he'd be dead.
 |  |
13/
Finally, we have pictures which people interpret according the narrative they like.
Here, the right will say he is peacefully surrendering, while the left will say he was allowed to do that because police like him (because he looks white) and a black kid would have been shot:
14/
I could keep going with examples but I think I've shown my point.
There are two narratives, and audio, pictures, and video from the shooting will be sliced up and edited into clips, soundbites, and images which will be reassembled to tell the story each side wants to tell.
15/
People say the media is biased, it can't be trusted, and that they push an agenda. Some people say we are in an age of "narrative warfare." Others say people are denying reality, or they ignore facts, or live in a bubble.
But I am afraid it is much worse than all of that ...
16/
This is postmodernism, and Twitter is its prophet.
Let me explain ...
17/
Modernist thinking believes that objective truth exists and that there are statements which are true regardless of what anyone thinks.
Modernism also believes in science, individual rights, democracy, and due process of law.
18/
But here I want to focus on truth.
Postmodernism denies that there is objective truth. Postmodernism says that the only thing we are able to fully grasp is our own experience.
That's it. Postmodern thinking says that every one of us has biases, biases so deep ...
19/
... that we cannot ever fully get around them.
Postmodernism says we have biases and ideas socialized into us that we are not, and maybe even CANNOT, be aware of because we are socialized not to see them. Postmodernism claims that for those reasons we can't even actually get to ...
20/
... objective reality. We can only see what we are trained to see through the interpretive lens that we get from our culture.
But it gets worse.
Postmodernism also thinks that we don't just have biases in how we view and interpret the world, but it also thinks that language ...
21/
... is so slippery, unstable, and malleable that it's impossible to fully communicate your experience to another person. Postmodernism says that because words can be interpreted so many ways, and since we always interpret each others' words through our own lens, it's impossible ...
22/
... for a word, or phrase, or sentence, to have an OBJECTIVE meaning. Everything, says the postmodernist, can be reinterpreted so that a word, phrase, sentence, book, or scientific paper, always means something different to each person. Words don't have objective definitions.
23/
So no one can ever claim that something they say is true for everyone, because everyone will interpret what they say differently, and someone might interpret what you say as false - and that is ok because everyone is entitled to their interpretation.
24/
And finally, postmodernism says that deciding what is true is about power.
In other words, the postmodern person thinks that the decision to say that something is true or false is a political process. They think that when we say that the ideas of science are true and ...
25/
...should be treated as such, that we are only doing that to make sure our ideas get taught throughout society, because if our ideas are considered true then we will have power.
So in postmodernism, what matters is not finding the "truth" about what happened, because everyone ...
26/
... will interpret what happened in a different way.
What is important is finding out which beliefs will benefit which people, and then picking the beliefs which line up with the correct politics.
In other words, beliefs are not picked because they are true ...
27/
... they are picked for political reasons.
And I think this is where we are.
Twitter is a deconstruction machine that allows everyone to slice and dice the world into little pieces and reinterpret it to fit their worldview.
That's why we have the two narratives I showed you.
28/
We are living in a postmodern age.
It's not the age of narratives, or the information age, or anything else.
This is postmodernism, and the only way out is to find a way to reassert the value of truth, and to fight for that value, because if we lose that, we lose everything.
29/
So we better fight for the truth, and fight like mad, because this ... this is the tip of the iceberg if we don't start fighting back.
/fin
PS/
The work of @ConceptualJames was highly influential in the writing of this thread.
PPS/
h/t @AntifaWatch2 for the video in tweet 5
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,059
ResponsibleIdiot
Member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2020
- Messages
- 252
I guess this all sums up as, "I'm part of this group, and you're part of that group. And there can only be one."
Mach
Member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,137
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,059
@ConceptualJames on "How to Be Not-Racist"
I'm happy to present, with @HPluckrose, a long definitive guide on how to be not-racist.
We are now offering this essay as a guide to explain to readers how they can, in fact, be not-racist, which we also argue they should want to be and should be expected to be.
Step 1: Get to know yourself.
Find out who you are. Learn where you are in your principles and person. Ask yourself seriously if you hold racist beliefs, and, if you do, start changing that. If you don't, feel more confidently not-racist.
Step 2: Identify consistent principles.
Being not-racist requires being consistently not-racist, and it requires holding these views in a principled way. Explore your own principles around the issue. Are you colorblind? Individualist? Why do these matter?
Step 3. Now Be Consistently Principled - and Treat People as Individuals Who Share a Common Humanity.
Think of Step 1 like finding "you are here" on a map and Step 2 like finding your destination. Now walk the walk. Go from A to B. Treat people as individual human beings.
Step 4. Understand “Racism” as a Matter of Belief and Action and Reject It.
If you want to be not-racist, you have to understand racism correctly and put it within the sphere of agency. That means understanding it as a matter of belief and action, not overarching systems.
Step 5: Defer to the Most Objective Standards.
Objective standards are ones that do as much as possible to remove bias and partiality. Racism is a form of bias and partiality. To be not-racist, prefer and defer to the most objective standards you can find, consistently.
Step 6: Don’t Assume Racism Then Go Looking for It.
When you assume racism must be present in interactions, you are very likely to be writing racism in that's rooted in your own assumptions, not reality. Those assumptions are by definition racist. Don't do this.
Step 7: Reject Standpoint Epistemology.
Believing that different people have different and superior insights because of their racial identities, either directly or through "lived experience," requires making racist assumptions. Reject this. Treat individuals as individuals.
Step 8: Curb Your Compassion.
We should all be compassionate people, but we should not be led around by the nose by our compassion. Check your emotional empathy and increase your intellectual empathy to get results and avoid being seduced into racism.
Step 9: Learn Enough Critical Race Theory to Reject It.
Critical Race Theory is a form of systematized racism, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have utility in your goal to be not-racist. Learn enough about how CRT thinks *to reject it in real time*, and you'll be less racist.
Step 10: Steal the Kernel of “the Work” without “Doing” It.
Critical Race Theory demands you "do the work" that it recommends. That work is based in a few points of reality that you can learn from and do better with than CRT does. This can help you be not-racist.
Step 11: Be Colorblind, Even in Your Criticism.
Colorblindness, properly understood, is the key to being not-racist. You must be colorblind to be not-racist. The last hurdle in this process is being willing to give feedback, criticisms, and humor in a colorblind fashion.
Step 12: Don’t Put Actionable Social Significance into Racial Categories.
This, putting actionable social significance into racial categories, is the true seed and heart of racism. If you want to be not-racist, you have to stop doing this. This is the whole point of the guide.
Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1319665771539271686
Thread compiled @ threadreaderapp.com: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1319665771539271686.html
Thread compiled @ threadreaderapp.com: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1319665771539271686.html
I'm happy to present, with @HPluckrose, a long definitive guide on how to be not-racist.
We are now offering this essay as a guide to explain to readers how they can, in fact, be not-racist, which we also argue they should want to be and should be expected to be.
FULL ARTICLE: How to Be Not-Racist
Step 1: Get to know yourself.
Find out who you are. Learn where you are in your principles and person. Ask yourself seriously if you hold racist beliefs, and, if you do, start changing that. If you don't, feel more confidently not-racist.
Step 2: Identify consistent principles.
Being not-racist requires being consistently not-racist, and it requires holding these views in a principled way. Explore your own principles around the issue. Are you colorblind? Individualist? Why do these matter?
Step 3. Now Be Consistently Principled - and Treat People as Individuals Who Share a Common Humanity.
Think of Step 1 like finding "you are here" on a map and Step 2 like finding your destination. Now walk the walk. Go from A to B. Treat people as individual human beings.
Step 4. Understand “Racism” as a Matter of Belief and Action and Reject It.
If you want to be not-racist, you have to understand racism correctly and put it within the sphere of agency. That means understanding it as a matter of belief and action, not overarching systems.
Step 5: Defer to the Most Objective Standards.
Objective standards are ones that do as much as possible to remove bias and partiality. Racism is a form of bias and partiality. To be not-racist, prefer and defer to the most objective standards you can find, consistently.
Step 6: Don’t Assume Racism Then Go Looking for It.
When you assume racism must be present in interactions, you are very likely to be writing racism in that's rooted in your own assumptions, not reality. Those assumptions are by definition racist. Don't do this.
Step 7: Reject Standpoint Epistemology.
Believing that different people have different and superior insights because of their racial identities, either directly or through "lived experience," requires making racist assumptions. Reject this. Treat individuals as individuals.
Step 8: Curb Your Compassion.
We should all be compassionate people, but we should not be led around by the nose by our compassion. Check your emotional empathy and increase your intellectual empathy to get results and avoid being seduced into racism.
Step 9: Learn Enough Critical Race Theory to Reject It.
Critical Race Theory is a form of systematized racism, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have utility in your goal to be not-racist. Learn enough about how CRT thinks *to reject it in real time*, and you'll be less racist.
Step 10: Steal the Kernel of “the Work” without “Doing” It.
Critical Race Theory demands you "do the work" that it recommends. That work is based in a few points of reality that you can learn from and do better with than CRT does. This can help you be not-racist.
Step 11: Be Colorblind, Even in Your Criticism.
Colorblindness, properly understood, is the key to being not-racist. You must be colorblind to be not-racist. The last hurdle in this process is being willing to give feedback, criticisms, and humor in a colorblind fashion.
Step 12: Don’t Put Actionable Social Significance into Racial Categories.
This, putting actionable social significance into racial categories, is the true seed and heart of racism. If you want to be not-racist, you have to stop doing this. This is the whole point of the guide.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,059
@DunedainRanger9 on "So Your Child's Teacher Is Woke ..."
So Your Child's Teacher Is Woke: Suggestions On How To Navigate An Educator Who Operates In Critical Theory.
First, take a deep breath and try and to relax; you are not alone with your frustrations and concerns. There are many other parents that feel the same way. Also, know that there are those of us on the inside battling too. We can win this fight, but it's going to take hard work.
Unfortunately, this is going to be more challenging of a task than the last thread. And it may not be a win-win solution in the end, but this is about your child's future. So buckle up ...
1. First things first, get your handy dandy Wokish list ready.
2. This time though, you need to understand Critical Theory more in-depth than just a list of words. When dealing with Woke teachers, you are going to have to outsmart them. Here are some key words worth reading up on in the Wokish Encyclopedia:
Why are the chances of a younger teacher being woke higher? The Colleges of Education have been peddling Critical Theory for over a decade with their students. And since young people, developmentally, are far more ideological (due to lack of life experience), they grasp onto it.
You can often measure the teacher's "Wokeness" by the frequency of the Wokish words they use. The more ideological, the more often they speak Wokish. Just listening to them speak, the writings they send out or viewing their social media can tell you a lot. Advanced scouting helps.
4. I want to jump off topic slightly for a bit; the older the child, the greater this opportunity is to also teach them about Critical Theory, how to navigate others using it, and to actually teach your child critical thinking skills. Have them go through the process with you.
5. Monitor student assignments; many schools are now using either Microsoft Teams or Google Classroom regardless of schooling from home or in-person. Start having your child show you the assignments posted to their class accounts.
If you don't want your child feeling like you are snooping on them (first ... too bad!), say its a chance to learn about how the software works and how they are using it in class. That in its self is also an important tool for them in the long term.
6. When looking through assignments, use your Handy Dandy Woke List. Again, the more the keywords appear, the higher the Woke ranking. IF the assignments are actually presented in a debating format (ex: defend both positions) then I'm ok with that as long as the teacher is too.
7. Engaging the Teacher: Here is the real tough part. Teachers steeped in CT are going to be hard to budge. It truly is a religious zeal for them even though they don't think of it that way.
Many districts are literally forcing teachers to be trained up in Critical Theory; and it can feel like a "born again" religious emotion for some. Be ready for them to get defensive as you challenge their newfound orthodoxy.
8. When addressing an issue with the teacher, pick a focal point (i.e. one thing to lock onto). Why? Because part of CT is victimhood and word games. Do not let them stray off target. Remind them (and yourself) that it's about your child's education, NOT the teacher.
There is no room for compromises in this regard. If the teacher starts to play the victim, speaks about your child's privilege, other students' oppression, etc. STOP them! Get things back to the topic at hand. They will run you in circles before you know it.
If a teacher is truly about the education of all their students, you have some common ground to work from; so get them back to that main point. An aside: If you want to see the word games they play and how to defend your position, watch this:
9. One of the hard areas to address is in-class lectures and "discussions." For the sake of the thread, let's go with the teacher isn't taking a neutral stance, that it's quite clear they are pushing CT. Call them on it head-on and ask them to explain their position.
Seek to understand where they are coming from first. Example: Your child is reading The Crucible (about the Salem Witch Trials) and the teacher pushes female oppression as the primary reason for the trials. Ask how they know this and what leads them to this conclusion.
And do your homework on the subject matter. Did you know that The Crucible was written in the mid-1950s by an avowed Communist? It was not written in the late 1600s. So how could the author know what was truly happening back then? Challenge the teacher to justify with facts.
10. Stand your ground with the teacher, but try to never make it personal from your side (even though it's deeply personal). Make sure you are clear that you are challenging the ideas and philosophy, not the person. If they make it personal, that proves how pathological this is.
11. If the teacher will not acknowledge your concerns and is not willing to make changes or accommodations, inform them that going forward you expect that your child's "Diversity of Thought" should be respected as much as the next students.
That last part should be non-negotiable regardless of the teacher's position on a topic. ALL students should be respected in this manner. PERIOD! If they push back; inform them you believe this is indoctrination and propaganda and will approach it as such.
12. On the positive side: use this as a chance to educate your child on Critical Theory and being able to intellectually defend themselves. No surprise, but going forward (ex: going to college) they must have this skill set in place. Being able to articulate their position.
13. In the end, if things do not change. Document everything! All meetings, emails, etc. You will next need to go to the Admin.
And that will be for a future thread.
Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/DunedainRanger9/status/1307072069931331585
Thread compiled @ threadreaderapp.com: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1307072069931331585.html
Thread compiled @ threadreaderapp.com: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1307072069931331585.html
So Your Child's Teacher Is Woke: Suggestions On How To Navigate An Educator Who Operates In Critical Theory.
First, take a deep breath and try and to relax; you are not alone with your frustrations and concerns. There are many other parents that feel the same way. Also, know that there are those of us on the inside battling too. We can win this fight, but it's going to take hard work.
Unfortunately, this is going to be more challenging of a task than the last thread. And it may not be a win-win solution in the end, but this is about your child's future. So buckle up ...
1. First things first, get your handy dandy Wokish list ready.
ARTICLE: Translations from the Wokish - The plain-language encyclopedia of social justice terminology
2. This time though, you need to understand Critical Theory more in-depth than just a list of words. When dealing with Woke teachers, you are going to have to outsmart them. Here are some key words worth reading up on in the Wokish Encyclopedia:
- 1619 Project
- Ally
- Antiracism
- Bias
- Critical
- Critical Race Theory
- Cultural Racism
- Decolonize
- Diversity
- Equality
- Equity
- Identity
- Implicit Bias
- Lived Experience
- Microaggression
- Oppression
- Power
- Privelege
- ***** [<-- spelled Q-u-e-e-r]
- Racism
- Social Justice
- Systemic Racism
- Ways of Knowing
- White Fragility
- White Privilege
Why are the chances of a younger teacher being woke higher? The Colleges of Education have been peddling Critical Theory for over a decade with their students. And since young people, developmentally, are far more ideological (due to lack of life experience), they grasp onto it.
You can often measure the teacher's "Wokeness" by the frequency of the Wokish words they use. The more ideological, the more often they speak Wokish. Just listening to them speak, the writings they send out or viewing their social media can tell you a lot. Advanced scouting helps.
4. I want to jump off topic slightly for a bit; the older the child, the greater this opportunity is to also teach them about Critical Theory, how to navigate others using it, and to actually teach your child critical thinking skills. Have them go through the process with you.
5. Monitor student assignments; many schools are now using either Microsoft Teams or Google Classroom regardless of schooling from home or in-person. Start having your child show you the assignments posted to their class accounts.
If you don't want your child feeling like you are snooping on them (first ... too bad!), say its a chance to learn about how the software works and how they are using it in class. That in its self is also an important tool for them in the long term.
6. When looking through assignments, use your Handy Dandy Woke List. Again, the more the keywords appear, the higher the Woke ranking. IF the assignments are actually presented in a debating format (ex: defend both positions) then I'm ok with that as long as the teacher is too.
7. Engaging the Teacher: Here is the real tough part. Teachers steeped in CT are going to be hard to budge. It truly is a religious zeal for them even though they don't think of it that way.
Many districts are literally forcing teachers to be trained up in Critical Theory; and it can feel like a "born again" religious emotion for some. Be ready for them to get defensive as you challenge their newfound orthodoxy.
8. When addressing an issue with the teacher, pick a focal point (i.e. one thing to lock onto). Why? Because part of CT is victimhood and word games. Do not let them stray off target. Remind them (and yourself) that it's about your child's education, NOT the teacher.
There is no room for compromises in this regard. If the teacher starts to play the victim, speaks about your child's privilege, other students' oppression, etc. STOP them! Get things back to the topic at hand. They will run you in circles before you know it.
If a teacher is truly about the education of all their students, you have some common ground to work from; so get them back to that main point. An aside: If you want to see the word games they play and how to defend your position, watch this:
9. One of the hard areas to address is in-class lectures and "discussions." For the sake of the thread, let's go with the teacher isn't taking a neutral stance, that it's quite clear they are pushing CT. Call them on it head-on and ask them to explain their position.
Seek to understand where they are coming from first. Example: Your child is reading The Crucible (about the Salem Witch Trials) and the teacher pushes female oppression as the primary reason for the trials. Ask how they know this and what leads them to this conclusion.
And do your homework on the subject matter. Did you know that The Crucible was written in the mid-1950s by an avowed Communist? It was not written in the late 1600s. So how could the author know what was truly happening back then? Challenge the teacher to justify with facts.
10. Stand your ground with the teacher, but try to never make it personal from your side (even though it's deeply personal). Make sure you are clear that you are challenging the ideas and philosophy, not the person. If they make it personal, that proves how pathological this is.
11. If the teacher will not acknowledge your concerns and is not willing to make changes or accommodations, inform them that going forward you expect that your child's "Diversity of Thought" should be respected as much as the next students.
That last part should be non-negotiable regardless of the teacher's position on a topic. ALL students should be respected in this manner. PERIOD! If they push back; inform them you believe this is indoctrination and propaganda and will approach it as such.
12. On the positive side: use this as a chance to educate your child on Critical Theory and being able to intellectually defend themselves. No surprise, but going forward (ex: going to college) they must have this skill set in place. Being able to articulate their position.
13. In the end, if things do not change. Document everything! All meetings, emails, etc. You will next need to go to the Admin.
And that will be for a future thread.
A Son of Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2010
- Messages
- 6,514
EDIT: Don't mistake my posting of this video as a full endorsement of everything the speaker has to say. I posted it more with regard to the influence that Zinn's book has had, and upon whom.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,059
@wokal_distance on "Wokeness & Postmodernism"
1/
Wokeness is deeply postmodern.
Most of you have been told [that] postmodernism contradicts other key elements of Wokeness, [such as] Critical Race Theory, neo-Marxism, and standpoint epistemology - which means Wokeness can't be postmodern.
This is wrong, and I'll explain why.
A thread:
2/
We need to understand the objection before we can show why it is wrong, and show just how completely postmodern Wokeness is.
The objection revolves around the idea that postmodernism is relativistic, nihilistic, and skeptical of meta-narratives. This needs unpacking ...
3/
A meta-narrative is a theory that tries to give a comprehensive account of how the world works, and how society works and functions, by appealing to universal truth or universal values. So a meta-narrative appeals to absolute truth to try to explain "the arc of history."
4/
So in 1979 Jean-Francios Lyotard published "The Postmodern Condition" in which he said "Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern[ism] as incredulity towards meta-narratives." What he means is postmodernism does not believe it is possible to have a single true meta-narrative.
5/
And this means that because there is no absolute truth, or objectively true theory to explain the world, postmodernism is going to be stuck with relativism and "anti-realism" (the idea that there are no objective moral values, no objective truth, and no normative facts).
6/
So, the argument is that Wokeness can't be postmodern because Wokeness is a meta-narrative which thinks it's morality is objectively true, but postmodernism says morality is relative and [that] there are no meta-narratives to explain the world.
Do we all see how that argument works?
7/
The argument hinges on the idea that there is a contradiction between the absolute truth claims of Wokeness and the relativism and anti-realism of postmodern thought.
Clear?
Good, let's take it apart.
8/
The first point to make is that the postmodern philosophers denied being relativistic. That is, many of the postmodern philosophers were in fact relativists, but they wrongly thought their philosophy was subtle enough to avoid relativism. For example:
9/
Jacques Derrida once said:
“As for the ‘relativism’ which, it is said, would worry them, well, where this word has a rigorous philosophical meaning, there is no trace of it in my work. Neither of a critique of Reason and the Enlightenment."
- (Le Monde, (11/20/97), p. 17)
10/
Derrida is wrong about this. He may not have intended to shoot relativism into the veins of western liberal democracy, and he may not have thought that would be how his philosophy would be used, but that is in fact what he did, and it is in fact what happened.
11/
So the original postmodern philosophers (Derrida, Foucault, Bauldrillard, Rorty) all end up in relativism.
But, and this is key, even though they were in fact relativists they all SAID they weren't, and thought their theories could escape relativism. This will come back up.
12/
So, how does Wokeness make itself an absolutely true meta-narrative if it is based in postmodern philosophy that ends up in relativism and denies meta-narratives and objective truth?
Well, like this ...
13/
In 1994, Critical Race Theorist Angela Harris wrote an article where she acknowledges that postmodernism is at odds with enlightenment liberalism. In fact, she calls that fact a "tension," and claims that tension is actually a strength [which allows us] to have "two kinds of narratives":
14/
It isn't that she doesn't know that postmodernism deconstructs everything and is corrosive. She actually says that is it's STRENGTH. That is WHY they use postmodernism.
They use it to deconstruct the law as a mask for power. She says this, explicitly:
15/
She then says, again in pain clear language, [that] she wants to use both [postmodernism and Critical Theory] - postmodernism to dissolve the concepts of neutrality and objectivity, [and] Critical Theory (which is neo-Marxist, not postmodern) to make a new system of law with new paradigms.
She says this explicitly:
16/
So, all the way back in 1994 woke people were already trying to figure out how to make Critical Race Theory and postmodernism work together.
This is why when Kimberle Crenshaw wrote about intersectionality in 1991 she said it was to bridge politics with postmodern theory:
17/
So Critical Race Theory picked up postmodernism early and was trying to figure out how to make use of it. The answer, as it turned out, was to find something that avoided deconstruction, which for them was their oppression. Oppression is real and doesn't get taken apart.
18/
Now, the woke have a theory of knowledge put fourth by Sandra Harding called "standpoint theory." It says objectivity is not setting aside our biases, but rather objectivity is when we start our investigations using women's (and other oppressed groups') "lived experience."
19/
Harding says redefining objectivity this way is a deconstructive strategy (remember, deconstruction is a postmodern method) meant to move us away from a "foundation" of knowledge to build on, and instead give us a "starting point." What does that mean?
20/
The point of this, as Ms. Harding states in her paper called "Strong Objectivity," [is that] the "concept of objectivity should be re-conceptualized." So she is switching out the enlightenment liberal idea of objectivity used by science, and swapping in something else.
21/
So what is this new concept of objectivity?
What is this idea that will give us even more robust results then the scientific ideas of Newton and Einstein?
Well, it's "situated knowledges."
That's not a typo. It is supposed to say "knowledges" not "knowledge."
22/
The idea is [that] all knowledge is "socially located" and so the only way to have "objectivity" is to say [that] the subject of knowledge is part of the object of knowledge.
Translation: knowledge is "socially located" and created using social assumptions which must be "interrogated."
23/
Another translation might be "scientific results are the product of data meeting up with your cultural assumptions and producing a particular conclusion."
Now, if you think this sounds a like cultural relativism, you are right, it is sophisticated cultural relativism, but ...
24/
Harding won't clearly say [that] she wants culturally relative claims accepted as knowledge. What she does is hide behind unclear wording and says "standpoint theory does not aspire to be value neutral" and has "consistently redefined epistemic standards."
25/
Here she tells us what she's doing. She is re-conceptualizing objectivity to include relativism and subjectivity because the language of objectivity has power in the sciences, and her use of the term is "calculated." She says this explicitly:
26/
So Harding is also claiming, in very explicit terms, that [the basis for judging the] adequacy of standpoint projects is not if they are true, it is if they legitimate the correct "practices."
This is, of course, full-on relativism hidden just below the surface:
27/
This sort of bait-and-switch is how a guy like @jasonintrator, who is a well-respected philosopher at Yale, can say that [standpoint theory] has nothing to do with postmodernism, [while] the woman who is the leading standpoint theorist says standpoint theory is completely postmodern:
28/
He isn't entirely wrong, either: elements of standpoint theory are found in earlier non-postmodern work. But the point is, as I hope I have shown, [that] wokeness has taken Critical Race Theory, Critical Theory, neo-Marxism, and anything else it can find, off of the foundation ...
29/
... of Enlightenment liberalism, hollowed out the worldview, and [then] infused it with postmodernism. It would be like removing the gas engine from a Ford Mustang and replacing it with an electric engine. It would still look like a Mustang, but it's something different now ...
30/
It has many of the same features as a regular Ford Mustang, and in the parking lot, most people can't tell the difference. But once you look under the hood, or see it in action, it becomes VERY clear that this is a different vehicle.
31/
That's what has happened with Wokeness. It has replaced the engine of Enlightenment liberalism with the engine of Wokeness. It takes Enlightenment liberal ideas and hollows out the liberal worldview and replaces it with the postmodern worldview, but it often keeps the same ...
32/
... language [and] papers over and covers up the fact that the switch has occurred.
So, that is what has happened. Critical Theory, Critical Race Theory, and neo-Marxism were fused with postmodernism and were picked up by the Woke as the basis for their Wokeness-as-religion.
33/
So keep that in mind when talking to a Woke person. Even when they sound like liberals, when you get them to define their terms and get clear about EXACTLY what they mean, it is almost always the case that they have adopted the postmodern worldview.
/fin
Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/wokal_distance/status/1320849388856438785
Thread compiled @ threadreaderapp.com: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1320849388856438785.html
Thread compiled @ threadreaderapp.com: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1320849388856438785.html
1/
Wokeness is deeply postmodern.
Most of you have been told [that] postmodernism contradicts other key elements of Wokeness, [such as] Critical Race Theory, neo-Marxism, and standpoint epistemology - which means Wokeness can't be postmodern.
This is wrong, and I'll explain why.
A thread
:2/
We need to understand the objection before we can show why it is wrong, and show just how completely postmodern Wokeness is.
The objection revolves around the idea that postmodernism is relativistic, nihilistic, and skeptical of meta-narratives. This needs unpacking ...
3/
A meta-narrative is a theory that tries to give a comprehensive account of how the world works, and how society works and functions, by appealing to universal truth or universal values. So a meta-narrative appeals to absolute truth to try to explain "the arc of history."
4/
So in 1979 Jean-Francios Lyotard published "The Postmodern Condition" in which he said "Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern[ism] as incredulity towards meta-narratives." What he means is postmodernism does not believe it is possible to have a single true meta-narrative.
5/
And this means that because there is no absolute truth, or objectively true theory to explain the world, postmodernism is going to be stuck with relativism and "anti-realism" (the idea that there are no objective moral values, no objective truth, and no normative facts).
6/
So, the argument is that Wokeness can't be postmodern because Wokeness is a meta-narrative which thinks it's morality is objectively true, but postmodernism says morality is relative and [that] there are no meta-narratives to explain the world.
Do we all see how that argument works?
7/
The argument hinges on the idea that there is a contradiction between the absolute truth claims of Wokeness and the relativism and anti-realism of postmodern thought.
Clear?
Good, let's take it apart.
8/
The first point to make is that the postmodern philosophers denied being relativistic. That is, many of the postmodern philosophers were in fact relativists, but they wrongly thought their philosophy was subtle enough to avoid relativism. For example:
9/
Jacques Derrida once said:
“As for the ‘relativism’ which, it is said, would worry them, well, where this word has a rigorous philosophical meaning, there is no trace of it in my work. Neither of a critique of Reason and the Enlightenment."
- (Le Monde, (11/20/97), p. 17)
10/
Derrida is wrong about this. He may not have intended to shoot relativism into the veins of western liberal democracy, and he may not have thought that would be how his philosophy would be used, but that is in fact what he did, and it is in fact what happened.
11/
So the original postmodern philosophers (Derrida, Foucault, Bauldrillard, Rorty) all end up in relativism.
But, and this is key, even though they were in fact relativists they all SAID they weren't, and thought their theories could escape relativism. This will come back up.
12/
So, how does Wokeness make itself an absolutely true meta-narrative if it is based in postmodern philosophy that ends up in relativism and denies meta-narratives and objective truth?
Well, like this ...
13/
In 1994, Critical Race Theorist Angela Harris wrote an article where she acknowledges that postmodernism is at odds with enlightenment liberalism. In fact, she calls that fact a "tension," and claims that tension is actually a strength [which allows us] to have "two kinds of narratives":
14/
It isn't that she doesn't know that postmodernism deconstructs everything and is corrosive. She actually says that is it's STRENGTH. That is WHY they use postmodernism.
They use it to deconstruct the law as a mask for power. She says this, explicitly:
15/
She then says, again in pain clear language, [that] she wants to use both [postmodernism and Critical Theory] - postmodernism to dissolve the concepts of neutrality and objectivity, [and] Critical Theory (which is neo-Marxist, not postmodern) to make a new system of law with new paradigms.
She says this explicitly:
16/
So, all the way back in 1994 woke people were already trying to figure out how to make Critical Race Theory and postmodernism work together.
This is why when Kimberle Crenshaw wrote about intersectionality in 1991 she said it was to bridge politics with postmodern theory:
17/
So Critical Race Theory picked up postmodernism early and was trying to figure out how to make use of it. The answer, as it turned out, was to find something that avoided deconstruction, which for them was their oppression. Oppression is real and doesn't get taken apart.
18/
Now, the woke have a theory of knowledge put fourth by Sandra Harding called "standpoint theory." It says objectivity is not setting aside our biases, but rather objectivity is when we start our investigations using women's (and other oppressed groups') "lived experience."
19/
Harding says redefining objectivity this way is a deconstructive strategy (remember, deconstruction is a postmodern method) meant to move us away from a "foundation" of knowledge to build on, and instead give us a "starting point." What does that mean?
20/
The point of this, as Ms. Harding states in her paper called "Strong Objectivity," [is that] the "concept of objectivity should be re-conceptualized." So she is switching out the enlightenment liberal idea of objectivity used by science, and swapping in something else.
21/
So what is this new concept of objectivity?
What is this idea that will give us even more robust results then the scientific ideas of Newton and Einstein?
Well, it's "situated knowledges."
That's not a typo. It is supposed to say "knowledges" not "knowledge."
22/
The idea is [that] all knowledge is "socially located" and so the only way to have "objectivity" is to say [that] the subject of knowledge is part of the object of knowledge.
Translation: knowledge is "socially located" and created using social assumptions which must be "interrogated."
23/
Another translation might be "scientific results are the product of data meeting up with your cultural assumptions and producing a particular conclusion."
Now, if you think this sounds a like cultural relativism, you are right, it is sophisticated cultural relativism, but ...
24/
Harding won't clearly say [that] she wants culturally relative claims accepted as knowledge. What she does is hide behind unclear wording and says "standpoint theory does not aspire to be value neutral" and has "consistently redefined epistemic standards."
25/
Here she tells us what she's doing. She is re-conceptualizing objectivity to include relativism and subjectivity because the language of objectivity has power in the sciences, and her use of the term is "calculated." She says this explicitly:
26/
So Harding is also claiming, in very explicit terms, that [the basis for judging the] adequacy of standpoint projects is not if they are true, it is if they legitimate the correct "practices."
This is, of course, full-on relativism hidden just below the surface:
27/
This sort of bait-and-switch is how a guy like @jasonintrator, who is a well-respected philosopher at Yale, can say that [standpoint theory] has nothing to do with postmodernism, [while] the woman who is the leading standpoint theorist says standpoint theory is completely postmodern:
28/
He isn't entirely wrong, either: elements of standpoint theory are found in earlier non-postmodern work. But the point is, as I hope I have shown, [that] wokeness has taken Critical Race Theory, Critical Theory, neo-Marxism, and anything else it can find, off of the foundation ...
29/
... of Enlightenment liberalism, hollowed out the worldview, and [then] infused it with postmodernism. It would be like removing the gas engine from a Ford Mustang and replacing it with an electric engine. It would still look like a Mustang, but it's something different now ...
30/
It has many of the same features as a regular Ford Mustang, and in the parking lot, most people can't tell the difference. But once you look under the hood, or see it in action, it becomes VERY clear that this is a different vehicle.
31/
That's what has happened with Wokeness. It has replaced the engine of Enlightenment liberalism with the engine of Wokeness. It takes Enlightenment liberal ideas and hollows out the liberal worldview and replaces it with the postmodern worldview, but it often keeps the same ...
32/
... language [and] papers over and covers up the fact that the switch has occurred.
So, that is what has happened. Critical Theory, Critical Race Theory, and neo-Marxism were fused with postmodernism and were picked up by the Woke as the basis for their Wokeness-as-religion.
33/
So keep that in mind when talking to a Woke person. Even when they sound like liberals, when you get them to define their terms and get clear about EXACTLY what they mean, it is almost always the case that they have adopted the postmodern worldview.
/fin
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,059
Here are comments made by James Lindsay (@ConceptualJames) on @wokal_distance's Twitter thread (from my previous post):
1:
https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1320902924348854274
15:
https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1320904754172731395
17:
https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1320905101008080903
18:
https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1320905566382936066
22:
https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1320905878099226625
25:
https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1320906241418428416
26:
https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1320907875162738690
27:
https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1320906463271919616
isn't 
