I got that from my son John's Facebook post, here. John extracts this quote:
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been asked why it is that the Woke won’t seem to have a debate....
It is not, as many think, a fear of being exposed as fraudulent or illegitimate—or otherwise of losing the debate or looking bad in the challenging conversation—that prevents those who have internalized a significant amount of the Critical Social Justice Theory mindset that prevents these sorts of things from happening. There’s a mountain of Theoretical reasons that they would avoid all such activities, and even if those are mere rationalizations of a more straightforward fear of being exposed as fraudulent or losing, they are shockingly well-developed and consistent rationalizations that deserve proper consideration and full explanation....
Critical Social Justice activists ... tell us constantly about the high emotional labor costs of doing the “work” they do (and never being taken seriously for it). To invite them to a public conversation or debate is to ask them to get exploited in this way for other people’s benefit by getting up on stage in a dominance-approved paradigm with a bad-faith moral monster who just wants his opportunity to reinforce the very dominance that exhausts them...
पोस्ट्स
९८ टिप्पण्या:
Wokeness isn't about debate. It is about compliance. James Lindsey is doing God's work. The catch is that he's an atheist, but he would understand what I mean, I think. We've both been known to drink copious amounts of iced tea from Mason jars, which works in my favor.
If you want to actually understand what all this shit is about, you need to spend some time out on New Discourses. Seriously. The folks who put it together are like Kryptonite to the Woke.
It seems the big problem is some are still encumbered by facts, logic and reason.
In other words....Obama, the new Al Sharpton is the king.
Wokeness is the leftist version of deplorables. Debating a brick wall makes more sense than taking these clowns serious.
Many years ago, in the Compuserve/usenet days, I used to occasionally debate with a fellow whose signature line read, "No compromise with assholes"...in essence, why debate with people who are obviously wrong and immoral? (The problem with not compromising with assholes is the fact that, quite often, the assholes is us.)
I refuse to learn their Marxist crap and couldn’t care less about their well developed rationalizations. Crazy people are always happy to rationalize their own behavior. No need for me to waste a second if my life accommodating their insanity. Their inability to honor the dead without slandering Trump was on full display at the Wellstone Memori— strike that, the Lewis Memorial yesterday.
I hold the truths self evident that I was endowed by my Creator with the rights to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Any theory that clashes with this unalterable Truth is doomed to failure in my 2nd Amendment-enhanced America. Get woke to that bitches.
Biden: "We choose truth over facts."
Which is scarier: Joe made a mistake or this wasn’t one of Joe’s mistakes?
The Democratic Party is turning into an anti-American death cult that cannot be engaged with logic nor reason.
And it has absolutely nothing to do with Donald J Trump.
Biden: "We choose truth over facts."
Which is scarier: Joe made a mistake or this wasn’t one of Joe’s mistakes?
No mistake. He chooses his truth over your facts. Reason is racist. It's time to move on from old racist white enlightenment values.
by getting up on stage in a dominance-approved paradigm with a bad-faith moral monster who just wants his opportunity to reinforce the very dominance that exhausts them...
Can someone translate that into english? I never learned gobble dee gook.
My experience is people that have a passion, can't be shut up. I have professional areas that I will talk about, as long as somebody is around to listen. Same with pesonal interests. PC v Apple? Two people will put on adult diapers and go head to head for days.
Love that capital t.
I've noticed this bit of lazy selfishness from SJWs (at least once the professor posted an NYT article that perfectly reflected of this attitude). They want you to fully and unquestioningly accept their worldview, but they also want you to pay them to explain to you their world view because it's not their job to educate you.
It's a burden for them to do what earlier iterations of them were excited to have the opportunity to do.
Erving Goffman supports the idea. Forms of Talk, "The Lecture," p.194
"The lecturer and the audience join in affirming a single proposition. They join in affirming that organized talking can reflect, express, delineate, protray - if not come to grips with - the real world, and that, finally, there is a real, structured, somewhat unitary world out there to comprehend. (After all, that's what distinguishes lectures from stints at the podium openly designed as entertainments.) And here, surely, we have the lecturer's real contract. Whatever his substantive domain, whatever his school of thought, and whatever his inclination to piety or impiety, he signs the same agreement and he serves the same cause: to protect us from the wind, to stand up and seriously project the assumption that through lecturing, a meaningful picture of some part of the world can be conveyed, and that the talker can have access to a picture worth conveying.
It is in this sense that every lecturer, merely by presuming to lecture before an audience, is a functionary of the cognitive establishment, actively suporting the same position: I repeat, that there is structure to the world, that this structure can be perceived and reported, and therefore, that speaking before an audience and listening to a speaker are reasonable things to be doing, and incidentally, of course, that the auspices of the occasion had warrant for making the whole thing possible."
I read the whole article; truly horrifying. Now I have a somewhat better idea what we're up against (as a classic liberal or, in today's terms, a deplorable). But I have no idea what to do about it, other than to defeat its proponents, which seems like an incomplete response.
Can someone translate that into english? I never learned gobble dee gook.
Debate is assuming that someone else has something useful to say, mate. This mindset has no concept of that as a value. They don't just reject it, they have no concept of it.
A "dominance-approved paradigm" is what WE consider to be normality. A paradigm that values things like soundness and validity of argument, conceptual clarity, and knowing what you’re talking about. Participation in this paradigm requires that they hear things they don't agree with that may piss them off. This is "emotional labor" and "violence", and is "exhausting". When you hear them say that "words are violence" and "silence is violence", this is what they mean. Seriously. This is how they actually see the world.
The reasons "allyship" includes both white silence when needed and and white repetition of stock phrases in support of "Theory" [i.e. Our Bible] is simply to make sure that you don't use your white fragility to make things about white people and their feelings. These feelings have obscured oppression since the beginning of time and must be resisted with every fiber of your woke being in every moment of life. The answer is to act as if those feelings don't exist and shut out all that do not comply. Wokeness is about compliance over all other values.
I'm just scratching the surface of this, but this is the essence. They literally live in a different mental world from you and I, and use language and word games like these in a truly virtuostic way to construct their own "paradigm" and live in it. They live to use these tools to control your every thought and action, much like the Soviet state did to its subjects in that noble experiment. The goal is the reification of their beliefs and the eventual advent of "Year One" once more.
Really.
I just read the entire essay and...holy crap. I had no idea, I knew Wokism was something akin to a religion. But this is so much crazier tha I thought it was. This is not going to end well.
On the right of this story on my page is an ad for the Collective Futures Fund. Who Are WE from the Collective Futures Fund page says:
"The Collective Future Fund brings together social justice movements, survivors, and donors to heal, resource, and mobilize to shape a collective future ..."
"So," I think, "bunch of wokies" Following the money, or, rather, looking for it I read further and find:
The Fund [the Collective Futures Fund] is fiscally sponsored by Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (RPA), a nonprofit organization that currently advises on and manages more than $200 million in annual giving by individuals, families, corporations, and major foundations. As one of the world’s largest philanthropic service organizations, RPA has facilitated $3 billion in grantmaking to nearly 70 countries and serves as fiscal sponsor for more than 50 projects."
https://www.collectivefuturefund.org/who-we-are/
Over to the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisor page and Who Are We:
Our Story
In 1891, John D. Rockefeller, Sr. set out to manage his philanthropy “as if it were a business.” At Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, we maintain that commitment to practicality and strategic acumen ... Our diverse staff draws on its unmatched global expertise, experience, and vast network to provide customized services that meet your unique circumstances and needs....Our goal: to help define the next generation of philanthropy as we foster a worldwide culture of giving."
Well, I think to myself maybe they are just using the name. But no. Turning to "Our People" and looking at Melissa Berman Founding President and CEO of Rockefeller Philanthropy Associates we find:
"Melissa is the founding President and CEO of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, Inc., an innovative nonprofit philanthropy service launched by the Rockefeller family in 2002. Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors’ mission is to help donors create thoughtful, effective philanthropy throughout the world. Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors develops strategic plans, conducts research, manages foundations and trusts, structures major gifts, coordinates donor collaboratives, and provides regranting and fiscal sponsorship services."
Melissa is: "a widely-recognized expert in philanthropy" and " Her ideas and views are featured in the Economist, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Financial Times, and the Chronicle of Philanthropy." Wokie philanthropy run by the Rockefellers. They supported eugenics in the Thirties and were the money behind Margaret Sanger and her attack on the black birthrate after the World War II. But now they've moved on to Wokieville.
And how was Melissa trained to carry out this mission of wokie philanthropy? She got a PhD from Stanford. In Myth and Folklore (Old Norse). Is it all a Nordic dream?
https://www.rockpa.org/about/
https://www.rockpa.org/about/team/?member=melissa-berman
Trader Joe’s (thus far), The Wall Street Journal, snd, especially, Red Bull have shown how to respond to Woke. The rest of us need to follow.
Gillette took a different path. I have not bought any Gillette products since their infamous commercial.
That's some weird hooey in that article. Reasoned discourse and intellectual inquiry -- the means by which mankind developed science, nations, religious tolerance, minority rights, international agreements and that whole consent-of-the-governed thing -- are irrelevant because the 21st century's wise persons, who know better, want to abandon the project and start over.
Nice trick if you can pull it off.
This article also helps me now understand why so many universities are reluctant to affirm free speech rights. Many of their students see free speech as evil and as a marker of opposition to their "truth". Whether college presidents actually support free speech is kind of beside the point; to come out in favor of free speech is to brand yourself as one of the enemy.
Melissa Berman, chief wokiness philanthropy advisor, formed her imagination on the Icelandic writer Snorri Sturluson. Writing in the years between 1178 and 1241 Snorri made the remarkable proposal that the Nordic gods began as warlords or kings whose prolonged funerals led to their funeral sites becoming places of worship. Then tribes began to go into battle calling on the names of their remembered warriors which then developed into calling on those warriors as gods. Victory then became a matter of their remembered warriors (later gods) conquering other remembered warriors (later gods). And so, religion. Long ago in far away land.
Whether college presidents actually support free speech is kind of beside the point; to come out in favor of free speech is to brand yourself as one of the enemy.
And why wouldn't you want to be their enemy? They wish to drag us back to a time when a scientist like Galileo could be ordered not to believe what his scientific observations were plainly telling him.
Interesting stuff. It reminds me of a rationalist-vs.-Woke exchange I saw recently: Natalia Dashan's essay from 2019 on the Christakis affair at Yale, The Real Problem at Yale Is Not Free Speech, and a letter in response from one of the REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!-ers, Your Freedom of Speech is a Threat to my Safety. Read the latter and tremble at the thought that this person has a degree from Yale.
"Participation in this paradigm requires that they hear things they don't agree with that may piss them off. This is "emotional labor" and "violence", and is "exhausting""
As if putting up with their shit is easy.
Big Mike said...
Gillette took a different path. I have not bought any Gillette products since their infamous commercial.
7/31/20, 7:10 AM
I am extraordinarily grateful to Gillette for their disgraceful cucking. I switched to safety razors, and have been making some of the best shaves of my life, all for the price of two boxes of Mach Fusion blades featuring garbage-tier steel. I'm nowhere near done my sampler pack of razors, and will be able to shave cleanly for the next twenty years. I've since advised everyone I know to do the same.
Die in a fire, Gillette. You've given me every excuse to set your business model on fire, which relied on people simply accepting the advertising and not being motivated to seek a new product. Good JOB.
Wokeness isn't about debate. It is about compliance.
okay. i'm NOT trying to start some sort of fascist 'debate' or anything; but i have a
serious question
HOW am i (a stupid old white man) supposed to Know, WHICH/WHAT woke person is a Truly Woke Person?
I'm MORE THAN WILLING; to blindly accept ANYTHING that my woke brothers and sisters believe
BUT! I'm not sure i fully understand?
woke people think that people of color are lazy and stupid; right?
BUT THERE YOU GO! i'm Not Even supposed to ask questions
woke people think that people of color are chattel, that is: personal property; right?
BUT THERE YOU GO! i'm Not Even supposed to ask questions
woke people think we should suspend the Constitution, & keep our current President for life, right?
BUT THERE YOU GO! i'm Not Even supposed to ask questions
woke people think that we should use Them for target practice, right?
BUT THERE YOU GO! i'm Not Even supposed to ask questions
i guess i should just accept? and Stop with the stupid questions? right?
"They wish to drag us back to a time when a scientist like Galileo could be ordered not to believe"
Reading through the featured article, I wondered, "just how far back do the Woke think we have to go?" Obviously, the Enlightenment was a vast error, but surely the Renaissance and Medieval periods were one great mass of oppression and power dominance as well. The Romans? The Greeks? The Egyptians? Slavers, all! And that's not even addressing all the Patriarchy! bursting out all over. So is there any human society that has ever existed that serves as a model for the Woke Utopia?
Reasoned discourse and intellectual inquiry -- the means by which mankind developed science, nations, religious tolerance, minority rights, international agreements and that whole consent-of-the-governed thing
Keep is short. Great job.
Leftist have stopped teaching history. Because it is an after action report. Identifies failures, and why. Explains successes, and how they were built.
The creation of the United States. The decade long debate, the federalists papers. Logic, reason, debate. The study of history, to craft a form of government that never existed before.
Yep all of that is so yesterday. Tell people what to think and move on. There must be a word for that form of government.
In other words, arrogance.
They wish to drag us back to a time when a scientist like Galileo could be ordered not to believe what his scientific observations were plainly telling him.
We are already back to Galileo level of discovery.
Try to examine the effectiveness of a drug that's been in use for 65 years. The Church hierarchy(big teck) will lock in the metaphorical dungeon.
Very interesting, thanks for the link. This is similar (though justified in different terms) to the Maoist attitude towards opposition and argument. A class enemy was persona non grata full stop. I spent quite a lot of time speaking with Maoists back in the day. The difference between my long ago and far away and your here and now is that my Maoists were actually smart, curious and mind-thirsty young people, and could not help themselves when given an opportunity to discuss things. It energized and excited them, it did not "exhaust" them.
I have never had to deal with anyone in a cult, other than said Maoists, but it seems to me that you are dealing with a cult here. It meets most of the criteria.
Shorter article: the woke have no interest in being shown to be hallucinating.
"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."--Ted Kennedy in 1980, at the Dem convention after having failed against Jimmy Carter.
These jokers have been playing the same stunt for years.
Althouse, was Mark Tushnet at Wisconsin when you started there? I have always thought that guy has a different concept of what we are trying to do here than most people. A cynic posing as a realist.
@doctrev, IMAO Schick makes a better razor and now that I have been using Barbasol instead of Gillette Foamy I am never going back.
This article also helps me now understand why so many universities are reluctant to affirm free speech rights. Many of their students see free speech as evil and as a marker of opposition to their "truth".
Colleges created this environment. They are not reluctant to affirm free speech, they are actively trying to suppress it.
Who knew when world domination came, it would be passive aggressive?! Did not see that coming.
I’m in a FB group for buying/selling/chatting about wooden toys.
About two months ago, a huge race debate broke out in the group. All because one specific company didn’t make peg dolls with enough skin tones to be fully inclusive. Remember, these are wood toys, and many dark woods are either unsafe for mouthing toddlers or are very expensive. Not to mention they are made in Germany because it is a German company, and only 0.06% of the population is Black, so I’d imagine “inclusivity” is not a big thing over there.
Anyway, it was a bloodbath. There were calls to boycott the company. Then White woman would ask innocent questions about how an open-ended toy could suddenly be racist and why it was a big deal since it’s just the natural wood color they used. They were ripped to shreds by POC and their allies, totally belittled and vilified for their fairly innocent question in trying to understand why this company - which no one had any issues with until someone suggested the peg dolls were racist - was suddenly a horrible company that needed to be shut down for daring to only using affordable, non-poisonous wood that, yeah, happened to be lighter shades.
(Also, can I emphasize that these are TOYS?)
The white women were being so bullied that they’d delete their comments and delete their posts. THEN there were these long posts done by POC complaining that all their “emotional labor” (first I heard that term) was erased. They said they worked so hard to educate, and they were doing so for FREE and it was a great insult for all their work to be deleted without their permission like that. So now, no one can delete and posts or comments without being banned from the group.
Still didn’t stop a WOC from posting, “POC - YOU ARE NOT SAFE IN THIS GROUP,” to spur a mass exodus from the group. I’d say a couple thousand people left the group in a matter of a few days (yeah, the group is quite sizable) and start their own “Inclusive Wooden Toy Parents” group.
It’s calmed down now, though the last I remember was one poor white woman made an attempt in vain to extend an olive branch. She posted that she was looking to be educated so she wouldn’t be considered racist. She was torn apart, because all the POC and the allies were claiming that she was asking to be educated for free, which was akin to asking them to do slave labor for her all so SHE can gain knowledge. Needless to say, she left the group.
So I say all that to say this - no one should downplay the size and intensity of this movement. It infiltrated a little group of moms who have a shared interest in expensive wooden toys, and it nearly broke the group apart (well, it did, I guess, since so many left to start a new WOKE group). It doesnt matter how innocuous or mundane your interest - something will be found racist about it by someone. And you better hold on to your butts when they do.
You've given me every excuse to set your business model on fire, which relied on people simply accepting the advertising and not being motivated to seek a new product. Good JOB.
Brand loyalty is a real thing. It is a tangible asset and is part of a company's valuation when determining the price. If you alienate your customers they will try other brands, and all your goodwill is lost. Companies have decided that they want to generate loyal customers from one set of the public. Unfortunately, they have not realized that these customers are not loyal to the brand, but to the perceived wokeness of the company. Slip up even once, and you are ruined. Better to choose customers who will be loyal to the brand and not the politics of the brand.
mezzzrow said regarding trying to understand the "Woke" world view They literally live in a different mental world from you and I, and use language and word games like these in a truly virtuostic way to construct their own "paradigm" and live in it.
So...basically, crazy delusional people who have fallen in love with their self constructed and carefully hoarded paradigms.
You can't argue with crazy people. Avoiding them won't make them go away....they just get crazier and multiply. Take other measures to keep yourself safe and sane.
This is the sort of gibberish that is explored in 'The Edge of Darkness'. Just imagine being interrogated and the interrogator throwing this sort of nonsense at you. Most prisoners had no response except to nod their head in agreement. Bukharin ( the imagined prisoner ) was well read in Marxist-Leninist thought ( as you would expect). He is capable of responding to the NKVD interrogator thus driving him crazy. Of course he still gets executed
They wish to drag us back to a time when a scientist like Galileo could be ordered not to believe what his scientific observations were plainly telling him.
In some areas (universities, and the msm) and some subjects, including the current racism fad, they have already succeeded quite nicely.
It is not, as many think, a fear of being exposed as fraudulent or illegitimate—
Of course that's the reason; they just say that it isn't.
The "woke" are are mostly affirmative-action admits to universities or associated with them, majoring in various fake victim-studies subjects, and they're just creating a fantasy world for themselves wherein their inability to think logically is an asset, and the consequences of their stupidity is someone else's fault.
2+2=5
1984 was an instruction manual.
This is a very insightful article.
I see lots of wokeness in the rioters in Portland. Does AA, after reading this, really think it’s just the alt right faking it??
I'm reminded of an exchange I had (via social media) with someone who claimed that minorities couldn't be racist. When I challenged that assertion, she said I should "read some books," and that she knew what she was talking about because "I have a degree." When I said that was glad that I have to explain to her that "I have credentials" is not an argument, . . . well, the exchange abruptly terminated.
They don't have an intellectual let to stand on and they know it, so they've rationalized their refusal to engage on that field.
Gillette took a different path. I have not bought any Gillette products since their infamous commercial.
Never forget what the CEO said after the ad blowback: 'It goes against all of my business instincts to do this, but young consumers demand this kind of thing to consider your produce.' (paraphrase)
They were losing money to millennial online razor companies.
They don't debate for one reason: They don't have to.
It's interesting that they happily "do the work" of cancelling people, getting people fired, harassing people, mobbing people, and driving people to suicide, though.
I mean, some kinds of "emotional work" are apparently tougher than others.
Debate? No, wouldn't dream of it.
Mob action, up to and including violence? Of course, that's vital, important work--and so much fun!
I appreciate people like your son who take these monsters seriously, but one should never forget their aims, their methods, and their willingness/eagerness to utterly destroy the rest of us--and crown themselves heroes for carrying out that destruction.
"To invite them to a public conversation or debate is to ask them to get exploited"
I call BS. No SJW refusing debate is afraid of getting "exploited."
To progs, debate is useless and beside the point: non-progs are deplorable and have nothing to say, they only stand in the way and obstruct the path to power. Since progs smell power everywhere and think they are winning, debate is a petty-bourgeois waste of time.
A crazy stupid fat person of gender describes how her high emotional cost is partially the fault of her street in this funny video:
“[Shouting] I’m so tired of it. I am so tired. I’m sleep deprived because I am a single mom and I work full time and I have to come and spend my nights with you, because I can’t stand in my own streets and say black lives matter." etc etc
As noted modern philosopher Sam Hyde reminds us: "...do not forget that these people want you broke, dead, your kids raped and brainwashed, and they think it's funny."
But I have no idea what to do about it
Do everything in your power to serve God and advance his Kingdom, because that is the only paradigm in which every person has a soul and dignity of equal weight and importance.
I know it's white fragility for me to claim that I am a person who matters, and so are my white children, but it's also the truth, and my religion kicks their religion's ass.
There is only one reason. They’re stupid puny intellectual midgets whose only concern is power notdebate
Years ago, we had a word to describe this kind of thinking: "stupid".
Bank robbers won't debate either. They just pass you the note and open the bag.
So...basically, crazy delusional people who have fallen in love with their self constructed and carefully hoarded paradigms.
You can't argue with crazy people. Avoiding them won't make them go away....they just get crazier and multiply. Take other measures to keep yourself safe and sane.
Precisely. All they want is enough power to make the world conform to their worldview. Argument is pointless and just makes them angry.
Who knew when world domination came, it would be passive aggressive?! Did not see that coming.
I didn't, either, but now that we're here, it makes perfect sense. Who else but rational, caring, individual-rights affirming, Christian-love-indoctrinated, sentimental, advanced people could be manipulated so easily through their good intentions?
Do the Japanese care if you call them racist? The Zulus?
There was an idiotic argument made by a lot of hardcore Libertarians a few years ago, invented by a guy named Hoppe. Here it is: if you argue with a Libertarian then you are proving the Libertarian is correct. The “reasoning” is that libertarians insist that argument is the only legitimate way to change or decide things, and by agreeing to argue you have accepted that premise.
I saw people with PhDs take this nonsense seriously.
I do chuckle at their phrase "doing the work".
So they won't debate cause they think they are right and you won't understand/look for faults/debate unfairly/just bad people/etc..
Kind of like Biden's hiding in his basement and won't debate cuz Trump won't release his tax returns.
Yea, right. Sure buddy.
The Great Thomas Sowell once said a person cannot be reasoned out of what they were not reasoned into.
Yet, "reasonable" people are relentless in their bid to prove him wrong.
I believe the number is 1,258.
That's the number of times it takes to point out instances of hypocrisy to a liberal before they see the err of their ways, feel shame, and hypocricise no more. Don't forget to collect your door prize!
Winning..
If they won’t argue, I won’t listen.
The Great Thomas Sowell once said a person cannot be reasoned out of what they were not reasoned into.
That saying dates back to the 1700s, and the source is rather ironic in that the author was complaining that people couldn't be reasoned out of their disbelief in superstitious claptrap.
I think the slogan is mostly false, hence the existence of science, and that it's only partially true for mostly emotional issues where reason might not apply so much.
Ms. Althouse and fellow comment-community: James Lindsay and his little group may be the most important intellectuals of our time. You owe it to civilization to go to their website, New Discourses, and get the best education currently available on exactly what the Critical Theory totalizing worldview is and why it is driving everything in the western world. There are also excellent Youtubes and podcasts by Lindsay and crew that explain and contextualize the madness.
>>Therefore, you’ll find them resistant to engaging in debate because they fully believe that engaging in debate or other kinds of conversation forces them to do their work in a system that has been rigged so that they cannot possibly win, no matter how well they do.<<
Then this is a two-pronged dead end for them. Because we require debate as the means to convince us of the merit of their ideas. And because they maintain that the means to acceptance of their ideas is not reason but force...and we have guns.
>>They literally believe, in some sense, that the system itself hates people like them
And in this, they are absolutely correct.
"To invite them to a public conversation or debate is to ask them to get exploited in this way for other people’s benefit..."
Fair enough. It's easier for me to just ignore you anyway. Run along, now.
Mao pretty much nailed it: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
you know, for Marxists; they should complain about not getting paid a lot, don't they?
Here is the difference between woke and conventional reasoning.
Let's say a woke person wants to discuss how a jet aircraft engine works. An engineer could say, I can tell you in a very general way how they work, but to really understand it, you need to learn a bunch of physics and math first. The woke person might resist by saying that this is a lot of work and that way of thinking about things perpetuates white supremacy. But the engineer could point-out that no matter what anybody thinks, these engines work. So there is that.
What can the woke person point to, that objectively works, to justify investing a huge amount of time learning their way of thinking?
Iowan2 asked for a translation of Lindsay's phrase: "by getting up on stage in a dominance-approved paradigm with a bad-faith moral monster who just wants his opportunity to reinforce the very dominance that exhausts them..."
I've been reading a ton by Lindsay, including this most recent article at New Discourses website. The quote (to summarize) is partly explaining how TOTALIZING the Critical Theory worldview is. The CTs have constructed a worldview that, to them, explains absolutely everything in the world and society. Their conviction is that all of current human interaction and knowledge consists of oppressors acting out power at the expense of everyone not an oppressor. This is the basis of all their "morality." Nothing is morally significant unless it concerns this obsession with group power.
They truly believe, as a result of the worldview they have constructed, that all values we thought we held in common since the Enlightenment, like reason, dialogue, civilized debate, science, logic, individualism, etc. are nothing but tools that are used to oppress victim groups and to protect the oppressors. These "tools" are evil and dishonest and therefore to engage in discussion or debate as we understand it is to literally participate and become guilty of oppression themselves.
I am trying to think of an analogy. The Critical Theorists are as apart from our world, as we have understood it for a few hundred years, as if they had found themselves transported to the alien world Zork. On Zork, they have come to realize to their horror that all power is covertly held by the Tyrant class at the expense of the Victim underclasses. To uphold this evil system, every action a Tyrant takes--especially the words they employ-- directly delivers a painful jolt to someone in the Victim underclass. The Victim's blameless experience of frequent pain and constant fear explains why the Victims as a whole experience less success and more disfunction than the Tyrant class. Therefore, to agree to debate or discuss with Tyrants is not only futile (because they will refuse to admit or recognize what they are doing to the Victims) but more importantly, the words spoken by the Tyrants cause direct harm to the Victims and also reinforce the entire system of oppression.
Wokesters look hilarious at first sight, in the same way that someone who believes they are Napoleon is funny until you realise the tragedy of their condition.
Woketims need therapy --- wokeness is not an opinion or a theory, it's an actute mental health crisis.
You cannot engage with the delusion itself, there is nothing real or healthy about it, nor can it be incorporated into reality itself.
Woketims are desperate people in crisis with a huge guilt trip, just think how much work it takes to be them everyday and the massive effort it requires to be social with other Woketims who are tripping out on those emotions and are spring-loaded with deep anger about themselves that might turn onto others at any moment. Or to have to deal with the devil incarnate that is the normal society. It's very stressful and a nasty trap with no way out and no reasoning of any kind can free them from the scary place their world is.
A woketim is not a discussion partner, and even if they were, they are way too frazzled to learn anything about rational discourse or normal human nature, they need a totally different kind of help, and the last thing they need is anyone from the real world affirming their delusion or taking it in any way serious. None of those 'theories' are anything other than modern Alchemy, they are just invalid in all parts, there isn't anything that can be salvaged in any way.
(I say 'Woketim' not be be cheeky, but because those people are victims of a predatory political cult that deliberately picks on vulnerable people and then drives them stark raving bonkers in order to use them as a violent zombie freak army. And once the wokeness is gone by whatever means and soberness sets in, there is a whole lot more work to do before they can once again be viewed as normal people who don't need special considerations and gentle (and firm) treatment. They need to learn being a normal person in the same way that a Stroke patient needs to relearn normal life skills, everything they once were and knew has been skewed by the woke rubbish. On balance, it's probably easier to rehab from a heroin addiction than from wokeness.)
Sebastian posted: "To invite them to a public conversation or debate is to ask them to get exploited"
I call BS. No SJW refusing debate is afraid of getting "exploited."
To progs, debate is useless and beside the point: non-progs are deplorable and have nothing to say, they only stand in the way and obstruct the path to power. Since progs smell power everywhere and think they are winning, debate is a petty-bourgeois waste of time.}}}
True, but it misses another important tenet of their worldview that Lindsay was trying to explain. The Critical Theorists believe that language/discourses/words are the main tool used by oppressors to oppress. It's not too extreme to say that they imbue words with a magical, evil power. Therefore, to participate in any non-Woke-centered discussion is to literally participate in an evil action.
Now that was some funny shit.
The website is a valuable addition to attempts to explain the postmodern Left's thought & politics to non-believers. It's especially useful in that it references the lesser academic lights who crank out the books and articles that shape the fight in the streets. But, that font & color scheme is a bear to read for a long time!
I have many philosophical issues with postmodernism in general, but one of my biggest issue with political postmodernism is that I simply cannot for the life of me see where they get their moral claims from. Their epistemological/ontological claims may be correct -- discourses exist to create & maintain systems of power. But, what can the Left provide except another system of power? Where can we stand to judge that their system of power/discourses would be in any moral sense "better"?
I think that the Post-Marxist Left is parasitic on classical Enlightenment Liberalism & refuses to admit it. For example, why should we who are white, cisgender, het, male, etc. willingly give up our power? Why shouldn't we just express our inner fascism & racism, which is what the PoMos believe we truly are, and crush the lefty resistance while we can? If we "devalue" the marginal, then why shouldn't we make the best of it, and get on with some true, hardcore, "devaluing" so we'd at least have some peace & quiet?
The reason why is because that's not what what Classical Liberalism is, & the PoMOs know that. Do you think they'd be "poking the bear" if the bear was a real Nazi or Stalinist who'd just as soon murder them as look at them? They use "liberal forbearance" as a tool to proclaim how Enlightenment liberalism has no forbearance.
Ice Nine said...
>>They literally believe, in some sense, that the system itself hates people like them
And in this, they are absolutely correct.
That's one of the things that keeps occurring to me throughout all of this. These people seem to have been misfits all along. My experience with such people is that they will continue to be misfits even if they achieve the woke society they dream of.
Thank you, Ann!
frenchy said...
Mao pretty much nailed it:
Indeed.
He was the first to use "national conversations" to win over skeptics. Struggle sessions were a huge hit!.
No true Scotsman recognizes the No True Scotsman fallacy.
No offense meant toward actual Persons of Scottishness, of course.
Woke and drowsy.
You can ignore cultists, normally. Other than the families and friends of those caught in, say, the Rajneeshi cult (when that one was active), they are usually harmless, absent the occasional biological or poison gas attack. They can be as whimsical or alienated as they like. You could stand outside their compound gates and laugh at them.
But the problem with this one is that it is listened to and it drives policy among almost all American and other institutions. That is the problem. This part is not in the piece.
It is not just a matter of the cultists but of a large number of fellow travellers and especially of powerful and wealthy interests that back them. One cannot just laugh at the silly people because their protectors are likely to take away your livelihood.
2+2=5
2+2 "=" 5 is a sociopolitical construct.
---Brand loyalty is a real thing. It is a tangible asset and is part of a company's valuation when determining the price. If you alienate your customers they will try other brands, and all your goodwill is lost. [Wa St Blogger]
Tangentially to the topic, but directly from your comment above -- once our greatest corporation, IBM has been diminished by itself, and by a changing computing marketplace, to the point that its tangible assets and tangible equity are negative. Bigtime negative, as in minus-$50 billion. ALL of IBM's net worth comes from its goodwill accounts. IBM is still a very good name, but after 25 years of the kind of management that has brought its balance sheet to this state, it is natural to wonder how much value the IBM brand still retains.
I want to make one other I think important point about Critical Theory --- it is the rejection of philosophy, especially the rejection of philosophy as a moral & social replacement for religion.
The Left, from the time of the French Revolution and its turning of Chartres & Notre Dame into "Temples to Reason" has attempted to replace religion with a top-down ideology, a moral philosophy that the state controlled. Saint-Simon proposed a religion of reason, and some of the Young Hegelians such as Fuerbach, the young Marx, Bruno Bauer proposed that whatever Man had assigned to a God in the Heavens could be built on Earth. The mature Marx wanted to make "philosophy walk on its feet", unlike "that dead dog, Hegel", who made "philosophy walk on its head".
Such a belief in the inherent reasonableness of their philosophy, indeed, that it was science itself, made for Lefties all too willing to spread their Gospel, from the 60s Lefty "Consciousness-raising sessions" to the chatty Maoists Buwaya mentions above. But, the Fall of Communism in the 80s & 90s was hard on the European Marxist Left. It was the death of humanism, the death of morality, and the End of Man. Philosophy had failed the Left. Their attempt to replace Faith had not only murdered tens of millions of innocent people (a fact now undeniable), but it had failed even in its own terms.
The Modern PoMo Left seeks to distance itself from this history, this history not only of intellectual failure, but of regimes that murdered on an industrial scale. Post-Modernism is not just a reaction against Liberalism. It is a reaction against the entire Enlightenment, including scientific socialism! Philosophy failed the Left before. They won't give it another chance. But, without religion, without philosophy, what can be a possible source of binding moral rule?
Pro-tip: When reading anything written by a Critical Theory advocate (or any SJW), it helps to imagine the words coming out of Trigglypuff's mouth.
You're welcome.
Gillette took a different path. I have not bought any Gillette products since their infamous commercial.
Same here. Forty years using the same razor? Gone.
Found a generic brand that does just as well.
Eff em.
Paco Wove,
When I was at university, I took an interest in German folklore (Brothers Grimm stuff). In my reading, I stumbled upon several books that said that we originally lived in a matriarchal society where the woman was revered for the power to give birth and all activities were directed by respected female elders. All, of course, was peace and light. Then the patriarchy came and destroyed it all, including destroying all the evidence of it to affirm their power.
There was little exploration of how or why the matriarchies fell except that evil people wanted us to live in darkness and exploitation, but without explaining why such a wonderful system succumbed to these predations and did not defend itself. Sort of the way that perfect socialism is always ruined by hoarders and wreckers, I guess.
Anyway, if you're looking for the past they want to go back to, there are stories of places similar to their social justice paradises. But you won't find them in a history course, but religion and folklore.
One of the best articles I read this month.
It does not encourage one that there is a peaceful solution to this conflict though.
person wants to discuss how a jet aircraft engine works. An engineer could say, I can tell you in a very general way how they work, but to really understand it, you need to learn a bunch of physics and math first.
Crap...I actually thought you were going to explain a jet engine, so I could understand. I've been trying to get my head around it for while, and have come up short.
Andrew Sullivan writes about "The Roots of Wokeness" -- https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/the-roots-of-wokeness -- on substack.
"There is no such thing as persuasion in this paradigm, because persuasion assumes an equal relationship between two people based on reason. And there is no reason and no equality. There is only power. This is the point of telling students, for example, to “check their privilege” before opening their mouths on campus. You have to measure the power dynamic between you and the other person first of all; you do this by quickly noting your interlocutor’s place in the system of oppression, and your own, before any dialogue can occur. And if your interlocutor is lower down in the matrix of identity, your job is to defer and to listen."
If reason has been tossed out the window, and peaceful debates and exchanges of ideas are no longer tolerated, and if asking simple questions is the same thing as exploiting a person who is claiming special protections that have a direct cost to others, then.....can we just move directly to face punching now?
This is the Althouse logic about abortion, presented above.
This is the reason you never disagree with a Leftist Collectivist.
You ask question that narrow the playing field.
I understand that black lives matter, right?
And saying all lives matter would make me racist, right?
So can you tell me which lives do not matter, please?
Black Lives Matter is a motte-and-bailey.
Bret Weinstein made an interesting point about the 'evolution' of arguments in the Dark Horse Podcast of 7/25 with Heather Heying (his wife) — essentially that the arguments that are being used to advance wokeness today are the ones that have been shown to work. That doesn't mean they're GOOD/rational arguments, just that they survived a winnowing process because they were effective. The arguments that survive are then weaponized to "silence" the opposition.
FWIW, the Weinstein/Heying podcast is usually very good (aka thought-provoking), imo.
Natatomic: You are not alone.
There is a rising trend of careful people opposed to all bullshit, especially of the political variety.
It got a little rise around July 2, when Bret Weinstein (purged from Evergreen U and, perhaps until tomorrow, of Princeton) proposed a Unity 2020 solution that actually made sense but was too centrist to be reported in our currently in-the-tank "news" outlets of either party. Look on Joe Rogan to find it. I could vote for it, and I don't say that often.
I'm surprised if our hostess has not commented on this. The plan makes too much sense for our usual politicos to profit from it. And -- another plus -- it could detonate our two political parties, which Weinstein describes correctly as corrupt and which (I say) are blocking the path to more parties and a broader national discussion.
Again, Natatomic, you have my very best wishes.
Sullivan via Jacobs:"...if your interlocutor is lower down in the matrix of identity, your job is to defer and to listen."
xlnt def. of Intersectionality.
Ken B said...
This is a very insightful article.
I see lots of wokeness in the rioters in Portland. Does AA, after reading this, really think it’s just the alt right faking it??
How many science fiction movies have we seen, where the scientist who creates the monster, cares for the monster, frequently releases the monster, while serving and defending the monster even against humanity, is finally eaten by the monster, often while smiling beatifically?
AA and her stripe are like that, except they do not rise to the scientist's (twisted) genius, but are merely hangers-on, wildly overestimating their contributions, their significance, their impact; like a rooster crowing that he has created the sunrise, the ant climbing the cow's leg and assuring her that he will be gentle.
They overvalue, and are encouraged to overvalue their contribution, so they overvalue their commitment, whereas if they realized they really deserve little credit, they would understand that not only is the credit negative but actually discredit, but that little of the blame really attaches to them, so there is little downside in renouncing the monstrous construct.
From Forbidden Planet to Frankenstein to Alien: Resurrection - at least Dr. Morbius/Walter Pidgeon understood at the end that it was all going wrong; Brad Dourif/Dr. Gediman couldn't have been happier to be eaten alive.
Will the Althouses continue to caress the monster as it feeds on them? Looks like they already are. They can still stop anytime, but some people find it easier to be torn apart than to admit that they were wrong.
The winners
feel no need
to dignify the
LOSERS
They have Roberts on the Supreme Legislature
Thus a 5 liberal majority
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा