Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 91 to 110 of 110

Thread: Critical Theory is Systemically Brainwashing Us

  1. #91
    @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



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    @wokal_distance on "Wokeness & Postmodernism"

    Here are comments made by James Lindsay (@ConceptualJames) on @wokal_distance's Twitter thread (from my previous post):

    1:
    https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/...02924348854274


    15:
    https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/...04754172731395


    17:
    https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/...05101008080903


    18:
    https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/...05566382936066


    22:
    https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/...05878099226625


    25:
    https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/...06241418428416


    26:
    https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/...07875162738690


    27:
    https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/...06463271919616

  4. #93
    Per registered decision, member has been banned for violating community standards as interpreted by TheTexan (respect his authoritah) as authorized by Brian4Liberty Ruling

    May God have mercy on his atheist, police-hating, non-voting, anarchist soul.
    Last edited by Voluntarist; 11-18-2020 at 02:36 PM.
    Here at RPF, we don't promote every conspiracy theory - merely the ones we've been made aware of. If there's anything that Ron Paul followers know, it's that bad things don't just happen; bad things require dark and insidious forces acting in concert and in secret to make them happen.

  5. #94
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again.

    For someone not inclined to dig into the details of critical race theory and similar nonsense, the key takeaway is that these theories consist of strategic lies told for the purpose of advancing a political goal, which is to say that, in essence, this is nothing new: run-of-the-mill propaganda. What is new, however, or at least unusual, is that this propaganda expressly attacks reason and empirical reality, whereas the typical propaganda attempts to clothe itself in those things to improve its credibility. Which school of ethics is dominant in a society can be determined in one of two ways: by argument or by force. By rejecting reason and empirical reality, critical race theory et al effectively rule out the first option. That said, between socialists (which is all that these people are at bottom) and anti-socialists, there's probably not much of a chance of persuasion anyway, even if both sides are willing to have an honest debate. Further, the average "woke" dolphin-kin-entity on the street has approximately zero understanding of the theory, likely does not reject reason and empirical reality in any meaningful way, and is just regurgitating slogans, while putting fingers in its dolphin-sound-receiving-portholes when presented with counter-arguments: i.e. just as with the rank-and-file of any kind of mass movement. So, disturbing as it is in principle, I'm not so sure that the anti-reason and anti-reality aspect of "wokeness" really matters much in practice. The practical problem, I'd say, is simply that this is a large socialist movement, regardless of whether it speaks in a post-modern voice or an old-fashioned Marxist voice.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 10-28-2020 at 08:00 PM.

  6. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    For someone not inclined to dig into the details of critical race theory and similar nonsense, the key takeaway is that these theories consist of strategic lies told for the purpose of advancing a political goal, which is to say that, in essence, this is nothing new: run-of-the-mill propaganda. What is new, however, or at least unusual, is that this propaganda expressly attacks reason and empirical reality, whereas the typical propaganda attempts to clothe itself in those things to improve its credibility. Which school of ethics is dominant in a society can be determined in one of two ways: by argument or by force. By rejecting reason and empirical reality, critical race theory et al effectively rule out the first option. That said, between socialists (which is all that these people are at bottom) and anti-socialists, there's probably not much of a chance of persuasion anyway, even if both sides are willing to have an honest debate. Further, the average "woke" dolphin-kin-entity on the street has approximately zero understanding of the theory, likely does not reject reason and empirical reality in any meaningful way, and is just regurgitating slogans, while putting fingers in its dolphin-sound-receiving-portholes when presented with counter-arguments: i.e. just as with the rank-and-file of any kind of mass movement. So, disturbing as it is in principle, I'm not so sure that the anti-reason and anti-reality aspect of "wokeness" really matters much in practice. The practical problem, I'd say, is simply that this is a large socialist movement, regardless of whether it speaks in a post-modern voice or an old-fashioned Marxist voice.
    Pretty much this. But I don't think it's so much a socialist movement as it is a totalitarian movement with the (typical) ambition of maximizing its influence, wealth and power. To whatever extent it is socialist, it is only incidentally so (e.g., for purposes of appealing to the "dolphin-kin-entit[ies] on the street" - a.k.a. "useful idiots"). As examined previously in this thread, apart from Marxist "conflict theory," the domain of Critical Theory actually has little use for socialism qua socialism (as evidenced by the fact that old-school material Marxists are among its vehement critics).

    Paradoxically, it is CT's rejection of reason and reality that makes it so potent. It appeals, rather, to things such as emotion, entitlement and ressentiment, which (unlike reason) are much easier to indulge and promote. This is why it has been so effective at sinking its hooks so deeply into academia over the course of the past few decades [1]. CT was tolerated by rational/realist left-liberal academics (who really ought to have known better) by virtue of CT's stances in (supposed) opposition to "racism" and other forms of intersectionalized "oppression" - stances with which otherwise sane left-liberals (who predominantly composed the academy) strongly sympathized, even though they fastidiously wrinkled their noses at the irrationality of it all. Now that it's too late, they are learning that their charitable indulgence was a grave error.



    [1] I suspect that this success may mark the beginning of the end of the "long march through the institutions" which as a result might now be in the homestretch, as we are now seeing CT (especially in the form of Critical Race Theory) making significant inroads in public and private institutions outside of ivory towers.

  7. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    CT was tolerated by rational/realist left-liberal academics (who really ought to have known better) by virtue of CT's stances in (supposed) opposition to "racism" and other forms of intersectionalized "oppression" - stances with which otherwise sane left-liberals (who predominantly composed the academy) strongly sympathized, even though they fastidiously wrinkled their noses at the irrationality of it all. Now that it's too late, they are learning that their charitable indulgence was a grave error.
    Speaking of which ...

    @wokal_distance on "Academy v. Wokeness"




    1/
    It's time to discuss a point academics do not understand when dealing with woke professors. STEM people listen up:

    The woke are not trying to intellectually defeat you with arguments and evidence, they are trying to socially replace you with power plays and social moves.

    2/
    The woke person looks at the university and says, "I can change the college the hard way - by proving my ideas and convincing all the other professors - or I can do it the easy way by just making sure only woke professors get hired and trying to get non-woke professors fired."

    3/
    You see, the woke person has a different way of what we call "settling differences."

    In academia, when twwo professors disagree over what should be taught, the differences are settled by examining the evidence and attempting to settle the issue by seeing who has the best argument.

    4/
    However, when a woke person disagrees with you over what should be taught, the woke person tries to make sure the wokeness gets taught BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. That includes getting people fired, changing institutional rules, threatening a person's reputation, or anything else.

    5/
    The woke see everything as a do-or-die scenario. The woke person thinks, "I can't debate this non-woke person and take the chance that someone might be duped by them into rejecting wokeness. Therefore, I won't risk debating them and I will do ANYTHING to stop them."

    6/
    See how this works? Now, there is a sophisticated worldview that undergirds woke reasoning. We can't get into it too much here, but the result is that wokies have generally accepted a pair of ideas that, when taken together, are an absolute poison.

    7/
    The woke have accepted that:
    1. "Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways, the point is to change it." (Karl Marx)
    2. “An activist produces power and policy change, not mental change.” (Ibram Kendi in How to Be an Antiracist)

    The goal is change, not truth.

    8/
    At the end of the day, the woke person is going to dismiss whatever evidence or argument you come up with as just you being biased, and they think getting rid of non-woke professors is a life or death mission.

    Which is why ...

    9/
    The woke are not trying to intellectually defeat you with arguments and evidence. They are trying to socially replace you with power plays and social moves.

    /fin



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    [...W]e are now seeing CT (especially in the form of Critical Race Theory) making significant inroads in public and private institutions outside of ivory towers.
    Speaking of which ...

    @ConceptualJames on "Critical Theory's path to power"




    As I keep trying to tell you: Critical Theories don't take over at the level of leadership, they take over at the level of administrative bureaucracies. This is true in our schools, and it will be true in our government. Biden's and Harris's views are irrelevant except on this.

    https://twitter.com/DeAngelisCorey/s...18772192362497


    I don't really have the slightest idea what Kamala Harris's politics are beyond being obviously and wholly unpopular. Biden possibly being an old-guard Democrat is irrelevant. Will they pack the court? Will they greenlight more administrative bureaucracy? Those are what matter.

    Critical Social Justice Theory is subversive and passive-aggressive. It's also administrative, put into application by busybodies who like to go to meetings and control other people with their little signs and policies. The head is either permissive to this or resistant to it.

    Woke ideology will not try to just take over the US government, laws, and constitution in a direct coup. It will, instead, work its way in and use administrative policy and clever redefinitions, concepts, and manipulations to subvert the meanings of things until they have control.

    One of the easiest lightbulb moments about this subversion is the attempt to subvert the Fourth Amendment's protections against illegal search and seizure (useful for neo-communists to undo). If we all live on stolen land and used it to make stolen wealth, it's not protected.

    The Fourth Amendment can stay completely intact exactly as it is written, and yet it won't apply to anything beyond what the administrative caste decides it applies to, which will all be determined by the usual power-dynamics double standards.

    Fifth Amendment protections against being a witness against oneself and for due process of law can be subverted and hollowed similarly. If hate crimes are made a crime, and hate is systemic, then the presumption is of guilt, not innocence. Silence is complicity and violence.

    Under a Woke reinterpretation, if fully implemented, to plead the Fifth will be to confess if one is on the wrong side of the power-dynamics double standard and a guaranteed right otherwise. Denial is one of the first symptoms of white supremacy, they say.

    First Amendment protections of speech will be of little use because they will move the location of accountability away from the government and to the mobs that are their actual enforcers. The government can refrain from infringing upon speech if one cannot safely speak.

    It's extremely important to understand that this is the Woke approach. They will create administrative policies, like DAs taking systemic power into account for charging people, that enable mobs that disable the First Amendment in practice, etc., without changing them.

    The Fourth Amendment can be subverted to Woke purposes by redefining "property" in terms of when it is legitimately (on their count) held and illegitimately held. The analysis will be 100% through their only lens: their ideas of systemic power, injustice, and justice.

    Contracts and policies across the board can be modified to mean something different without changing a single word if the meanings of the words within them get changed. This is why 2+2=4 matters. It can only EVER equal something other than 4 when a meaning has changed.
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 10-30-2020 at 07:24 PM.

  10. #98
    And this is relevant to the content of my previous post:

    @wokal_distance on "Discourses"




    1/
    AOC is on the cover of Vanity Fair and no one says a word.

    The Girl Scouts made a nice tweet about Amy Coney Barrett, then got mobbed and had to delete it.

    This👏 isn't 👏about 👏free 👏speech.

    This is about Discourses.

    A THREAD 🧵:




    2/
    The "discourse" refers to the discussion that occurs around a topic or idea. This includes the words used, how the ideas are conveyed, and the ways in which various points of view gain traction in the conversation and become dominant or become the "default" view.

    3/
    So included in the idea of "the discourse" are:

    1. The words, signs and symbols used in a discourse
    2. The ways in which ideas are conveyed and communicated
    3. How particular ideas are used in a given discourse
    4. The idea that certain views come to dominate the conversation

    4/
    So, legal discourse includes the fact there is specialized legal language, particular ways lawyers use ideas, the fact that there are ways the law is talked about - both formal (court rooms, legal texts) and informal (TV shows, twitter) - and which legal ideas currently hold sway.

    5/
    Why do the Woke focus on the discourse so much? Because the discourse includes both the language we use to build ideas, and the ways those ideas are communicated and shared. If you control both of those things, you have control over ideas in society.

    6/
    And if you have control over the language, ideas, and communication in society, you're getting really close to controlling thought, which is basically the game the Woke are in: they want to control thought.

    7/
    So, to use the legal example, if you control the legal discourse, you can control how legal language is built, which legal concepts are used, how those concepts are used, and which arguments hold sway. At that point you can basically control how people *think* about the law.

    8/
    [T]he Woke think that the "discourse" is what controls us all, [that] we are all held captive to the ideas we have access to, and [that] the ways we are trained to use them [are determined by] which ideas are dominant. [T]hey want to control the discourse.

    9/
    So the Woke want the discourse about AOC to revolve around how she means well, how smart she is, how cool she is, and why you should trust her.

    They want the discourse around Amy Coney Barrett to be that she's a religious nut coming to steal your birth control and abortions.

    10/
    For this reason, when AOC gets on the cover of Vanity Fair, they want AOC to eat up every drop of clout she gets from that.

    On the other hand, they don't want the "discourse" around Amy Coney Barrett to include the idea that women can see her as a role model.

    11/
    So what do they do?

    They say "YAS SLAY KWEEN" to the AOC Vanity Fair cover, and then mob the Girl Scouts for saying a nice thing about Amy Coney Barrett. This is done to control the discourse, to take over the discourse, and to impose the rules of Wokeness on the discourse

    12/
    The point being that if you control how ideas are built, how they are communicated, and which ideas win out in society, then you are a hair's breadth away from thought control. And that's what the Woke want ... to control thought. They are totalitarians. Simple as that.

    13/
    Understand that, and you understand why the Woke always try to influence, limit, and otherwise control what people say and how they say it.

    They want to control the DISCOURSE. See through them, and don't let them do it. Speak your mind openly, honestly, and carefully.

    14/
    Do NOT let the Woke control the discourse, determine what is off limits, or decide which ideas will hold sway.

    Fight back and think clearly and honestly for yourself without letting yourself get bullied into compliance.

    /fin

  11. #99
    I honestly dont think any president has the balls to go against CRT the way Trump has.

    The reason is, Trump has been so villified already he only gains with his base and white voters while all the CRT supporters already hate him so there is no real cons.

    Nobody else could've pulled this off, they'd have to be attacked at levels equivalent to Trump or worse.
    THE SQUAD of RPF
    1. enhanced_deficit - Paid Troll / John Bolton book promoter
    2. Devil21 - LARPing Wizard, fake magical script reader
    3. Firestarter - Tax Troll; anti-tax = "criminal behavior"
    4. TheCount - Comet Pizza Pedo Denier <-- sick

    @Ehanced_Deficit's real agenda on RPF =troll:

    Who spends this much time copy/pasting the same recycled links, photos/talking points.

    7 yrs/25k posts later RPF'ers still respond to this troll

  12. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Speaking of which ...

    @ConceptualJames on "Critical Theory's path to power"




    As I keep trying to tell you: Critical Theories don't take over at the level of leadership, they take over at the level of administrative bureaucracies. This is true in our schools, and it will be true in our government. Biden's and Harris's views are irrelevant except on this.

    https://twitter.com/DeAngelisCorey/s...18772192362497


    I don't really have the slightest idea what Kamala Harris's politics are beyond being obviously and wholly unpopular. Biden possibly being an old-guard Democrat is irrelevant. Will they pack the court? Will they greenlight more administrative bureaucracy? Those are what matter.

    Critical Social Justice Theory is subversive and passive-aggressive. It's also administrative, put into application by busybodies who like to go to meetings and control other people with their little signs and policies. The head is either permissive to this or resistant to it.

    Woke ideology will not try to just take over the US government, laws, and constitution in a direct coup. It will, instead, work its way in and use administrative policy and clever redefinitions, concepts, and manipulations to subvert the meanings of things until they have control.

    One of the easiest lightbulb moments about this subversion is the attempt to subvert the Fourth Amendment's protections against illegal search and seizure (useful for neo-communists to undo). If we all live on stolen land and used it to make stolen wealth, it's not protected.

    The Fourth Amendment can stay completely intact exactly as it is written, and yet it won't apply to anything beyond what the administrative caste decides it applies to, which will all be determined by the usual power-dynamics double standards.

    Fifth Amendment protections against being a witness against oneself and for due process of law can be subverted and hollowed similarly. If hate crimes are made a crime, and hate is systemic, then the presumption is of guilt, not innocence. Silence is complicity and violence.

    Under a Woke reinterpretation, if fully implemented, to plead the Fifth will be to confess if one is on the wrong side of the power-dynamics double standard and a guaranteed right otherwise. Denial is one of the first symptoms of white supremacy, they say.

    First Amendment protections of speech will be of little use because they will move the location of accountability away from the government and to the mobs that are their actual enforcers. The government can refrain from infringing upon speech if one cannot safely speak.

    It's extremely important to understand that this is the Woke approach. They will create administrative policies, like DAs taking systemic power into account for charging people, that enable mobs that disable the First Amendment in practice, etc., without changing them.

    The Fourth Amendment can be subverted to Woke purposes by redefining "property" in terms of when it is legitimately (on their count) held and illegitimately held. The analysis will be 100% through their only lens: their ideas of systemic power, injustice, and justice.

    Contracts and policies across the board can be modified to mean something different without changing a single word if the meanings of the words within them get changed. This is why 2+2=4 matters. It can only EVER equal something other than 4 when a meaning has changed.
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again.

  13. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again.

    For someone not inclined to dig into the details of critical race theory and similar nonsense, the key takeaway is that these theories consist of strategic lies told for the purpose of advancing a political goal, which is to say that, in essence, this is nothing new: run-of-the-mill propaganda. What is new, however, or at least unusual, is that this propaganda expressly attacks reason and empirical reality, whereas the typical propaganda attempts to clothe itself in those things to improve its credibility. Which school of ethics is dominant in a society can be determined in one of two ways: by argument or by force. By rejecting reason and empirical reality, critical race theory et al effectively rule out the first option. That said, between socialists (which is all that these people are at bottom) and anti-socialists, there's probably not much of a chance of persuasion anyway, even if both sides are willing to have an honest debate. Further, the average "woke" dolphin-kin-entity on the street has approximately zero understanding of the theory, likely does not reject reason and empirical reality in any meaningful way, and is just regurgitating slogans, while putting fingers in its dolphin-sound-receiving-portholes when presented with counter-arguments: i.e. just as with the rank-and-file of any kind of mass movement. So, disturbing as it is in principle, I'm not so sure that the anti-reason and anti-reality aspect of "wokeness" really matters much in practice. The practical problem, I'd say, is simply that this is a large socialist movement, regardless of whether it speaks in a post-modern voice or an old-fashioned Marxist voice.
    Two truisms that have been written about long ago and are still in practice today:

    1) People are easily manipulated by emotional appeals. It's for the children (show poor child) or freedom isn't free (show kneeling soldier with flag)
    2) People are easily manipulated by their own desires of status seeking and riches (subversion of political offices)

    Reason, facts and science (empirical reality) matter to the manipulators, but not the manipulated. The manipulators rely on reason, facts and science for their aims. How to psychologically move the herds in desired directions is the science. Hell, even "our" own Presidents told us point blank they would spend tons of our money to learn better how to $#@! with our brains.
    Last edited by devil21; 11-01-2020 at 12:00 AM.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul

    "We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book

  14. #102
    @wokal_distance on "2020 is just the 'end of the beginning' for Wokeness"




    1/
    - Trump wins the most non-white voters by a Republican since 1960
    - a possible Biden win
    - 11 new Republican WOMEN in congress

    If you think any of that ends Wokeness, let me introduce exhibit A.

    Eddie Glaude dresses up racial guilt as humility and pours it on everyone:


    2/
    The Woke are NOT going to stop with the racial gaslighting. If anything, it may receive less media coverage in terms of news stories, but takes like this one, claiming [that] Cubans are "white' [and] not Hispanic, are going to continue:



    3/
    People like Nikole Hannah-Jones still have their positions of power in places like the New York Times. In light of all the Cubans and Venezuelan ex-pats who voted for Trump, they will pump out content that claims people aren't "really" Latino unless they vote the right way:



    4/
    They are going to say [that] Cuban-Americans and Venezuelan-Americans are "race traitors" because they voted for Trump, and [will] call those people sell-outs:

    [see graphic for entry 2/ above]

    5/
    And they will continue to lean into the identity politics even harder than they already are. The racial scapegoating of white people, and the attempts to make everyone who is not Woke feel stupid and ignorant in an effort to undercut their moral authority, will continue:



    6/
    They will claim that, in light of the election result, what is needed is more focus on race, not less. This means more racial hot-takes, more articles meant to guilt people, and more media gaslighting:



    7/
    They will begin to claim that any gay person who voted for Trump does not really count as gay, or is not a trustworthy person.

    Just more slander to erode the credibility of anyone who disagrees with Wokeness:



    8/
    They will expand the definition of whiteness to include anything that they disagree with, and will claim [that] black people who do not support Wokeness either aren't really black, or "think of themselves as white."

    They'll call them oreos: "black on the outside, white on the inside."



    9/
    They'll say [that] women who voted for Trump can't think for themselves and are puppets controlled by their husbands.

    They'll do this to ignore what those women actually think, and claim those voters don't have the ability to make their own decisions - and thus [that they] have no moral authority:



    10/
    They will continue to engage in disgusting smears against black people who are not Woke enough. Here, Joy Reid calls Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas "Uncle Clarence." She is hinting at the term "Uncle Tom," a racial epithet used to refer to a self-hating black person:


    11/
    So this is NOT over. The Woke have burrowed deep into our institutions, and if you think they are going to let them go without a fight, you are mistaken. What is FAR more likely is that they will, under the guise of "sensitivitg training," try to make institutions MORE Woke.

    12/
    And if Biden repeals the executive order against Crtitcal Race Theory, they will sweep in dressed as "diversity training" and IMMEDIATLY begin to quickly and quietly spread Wokeness throughout the government, and turn government agencies into Woke-spreading institutions.

    13/
    The Republicans have rejected Wokeness.

    Many Democrats voted against Wokeness ([they] voted Biden, the least woke candidate!!!).

    Everyone hates Wokeness, but it is in the institutions and it will not stop.

    So get ready for what's coming because ...

    14/
    In the same way the devil comes dressed as an angel of light and fascism comes wrapped in a flag carrying a cross; Wokeness comes wrapped in compassion and empathy while preaching Social Justice.

    So get ready, be on your toes and do your prep work because ...

    15/
    To quote the now-cancelled Winston Churchill: "This is not the beginning of the end, it is the end of the beginning."

    Now the real fight starts.

    Let's go.

    /fin

  15. #103


    This, right here, is going to cause a MAJOR problem in the near-term future.

  16. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    @wokal_distance on "2020 is just the 'end of the beginning' for Wokeness"
    Further on which, from Colin Wright (@SwipeWright), managing editor @Quillette:




    1/
    I don't understand the claim that this election will cause introspection among the woke regarding their ideology. They're incapable of viewing problems from a POV outside their ideological framework. In their minds all outcomes are are perfectly consonant with their ideology.

    2/
    Their ideology has never aligned with reality, and that has never stopped them from doubling and tripling down. It is beyond falsification *by design*. It is not a correspondence theory of truth. It only pretends to be one when some bit of data happens to lean in its favor.

    3/
    It is fundamentally about power, not truth. It doesn't matter one bit whether *we* view certain outcomes as falsifying woke narratives. We can only hope that those who haven't already succumbed to the ideology will be inoculated against it.

    4/
    Just look at all the mental contortions prominent woke ideologues are engaging in, redefining Latinos and Cubans as white, etc., just to maintain the narrative.

    https://twitter.com/EPoe187/status/1324182074971009027


    5/

    https://twitter.com/kmele/status/1323837496975888385



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #105
    https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/...04055088701441


    2+2=5 Critical Theory : This is What CRT Scholars Actually Believe (12 November 2020)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kl3p3M67MkQ

    In September 2020, President Trump banned Critical Race Theory (CRT) from government agencies, coinciding with a social media push for 2+2 to equal 5. Joe Biden claims he will rescind Trump's executive order. But, just what is CRT and what do CRT scholars actually believe, in their own words, in their own studies? This final installment examines CRT research and the influence of the family on math education.
    Here are the two previous installments:

    2+2=5 Critical Theory : The Crisis of Common Core (28 September 2020)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ugAdXotqnU

    Trump has banned critical theory from government institutions. What are the effects of government education programs on students both within schools and outside education? Let's examine the impact of U.S. government programs on education.
    2+2=5 Critical Theory : Math Anxiety and Stereotype Threat (16 October 2020)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3BizbQrVSs

    Recently, teachers, the Smithsonian, and scholars have argued that 2+2 equaling 4 is offensive. Let's examine the effects of government programs on education and the effects of student math anxiety and stereotype threat; the idea that students conform to common beliefs about their gender or ethnicity, creating self-fulfilling prophecies, on education.

  19. #106

  20. #107
    Front bums, clitdicks and seahorse papas ...

    https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/...06619350036482

  21. #108
    The Cure for Critical Theory is Liberalism



    Critical theory and postmodern thought are quickly taking over our schools, workplaces, and governments. With the election of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, we can expect to see even more of these policies integrated into our government. Why does this matter? It matters because this way of thinking has the power to undo the tremendous progress that we have already made as a society. So this Thanksgiving, let’s reject these toxic ideas of critical theory. Let’s instead be grateful for the ideas of liberalism—of individual liberty, equality of opportunity, free and open inquiry, and free speech and debate. Sam Martin, creative director at Free the People, breaks it all down in the latest episode of The Cult of Wokeness.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  22. #109
    Manufactured Associations

    Its much like hearing the term over and over again "Gun Violence" so you hear one word and the immediate association is with the other word. You hear Gun and think Violence. You hear Violence and think Gun. Its a Mnemonic. Red Apple. You hear Red and think Apple, and when you hear Apple you think Red unless a "Modifier" is present. Green Apple shows the modifier is Green so it breaks the memory association that Apples are Red. The term "Gun Violence" is the same way, but its artificial, propaganda, public relations, and thus Brainwashing.

    Key to brainwashing is to get the Public to adopt the tactics and enact them without knowing they are brainwashing others.
    1776 > 1984

    The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintain an
    Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.

    The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide

    Belief, Money, and Violence are the three ways all people are controlled

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Our central bank is not privately owned.

  23. #110
    James Lindsay - In The Race - "YOUR WELCOME" with Michael Malice #148
    American mathematician, cultural critic, and founder of New Discourses, James Lindsay joins Michael this week for a discussion on critical race theory and its warning signs, the theory's parallels to Soviet logic, which philosophers were merely rationalizing their own pathologies, how language is often used as code to communicate with like-minded people in plain sight, how growing up multilingual can negate semantic quagmires, implicit bias test and the invalidity of their metrics, how ethnicities are often clumped together for the convenience of forming political coalitions, how to expose contradictions with Socratic thinking, why getting Chesa Boudin out of office is a must for San Francisco, the validity of cordyceps memes and the parasitic path of wokeism, corporate America's impressive implementation of Maoism, and so much more!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxYqqhNdP2s

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-14-2020, 11:15 AM
  2. Author of M Theory & String Theory Explains Weather Modification
    By Natural Citizen in forum Science & Technology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-21-2017, 08:06 PM
  3. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-29-2013, 04:07 PM
  4. This Is What We Are Up Against - Brainwashing!
    By Liberty74 in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-04-2012, 09:14 AM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-06-2011, 08:14 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •